HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-12-1999 - 1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 12, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No. .~
SUBJECT: First Draft - "A Lands Le acy Program for Oran a County"
DEPARTMENT: Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
Conservation
ATTACHMENT(S):
Cover memo
Draft report
(Appendices available upon request)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dave Stancil, ext 2590
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough . .732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive the first draft of a report on a County land resource acquisition
program, entitled "A .Lands Legacy Program for Orange County."
BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1998, the Board of Commissioners approved the
organization and mission for the Environment and Resource Conservation Department. A key
component of the department's mission statement was a proposed land resource acquisition
program, to include a comprehensive resource database..
Over the past several months, staff has conducted research into the resources and possible
structure for a program of acquiring areas of critical natural and cultural resource significance.
The work of efforts such as the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group and Shaping
Orange County's Future was incorporated into staff s work, as were thoughts from the County's
resource related advisory boards on priorities and criteria for the acquisition program.
A first draft of the program has been completed (attached). The draft addresses known
resources, the proposed database, and options for funding and land management structure.
Staff is bringing the draft to the Board for initial guidance and direction, before completing a final
draft with assistance from the advisory boards and the new Land Resources Manager.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. However, any land acquisition program will require
funding from. internal and external sources, which will vary depending on the degree of the
program. Options for potential funding sources are mentioned in the draft.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report as
information, providing direction and guidance to staff as desired.
ORANCsE COUNTY
ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT.
MEMORANDUM
To: John-Link, County Manager
From: David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director
Date: October 7, 1999
Re: First Draft -Lands Legacy Report
.Please find attached the first draft of the Lands Legacy program report for the -
October 12 worksession. The report is in draft form,- with some clean up and
editing yet to performed. However, I hope the report is sufFcient to gain initial
feedback from the Board. The document will be considerably spruced up with
pictures and recommendations by the time it comes back as an action item.
As you may recall, the plan for this program has been to:
1. Take a first draft to the Board for general thoughts and guiding direction that
the- Board wishes to convey.
' 2. Make those changes from the Board's review and submit the report to the
advisory boards for review and comment..
3. Develop the recommendations and implementation section, and make
changes as needed/warranted before returning to the BOCC for action.
My goals on October 12 would be to ask the Board for direction in the following
areas
1. Does the report meet your expectations of what the program should cover?
2. Are there. other topics or issues you wish to see addressed?
3. Do you have any initial thoughts on the criteria and land management
structure options?
4. Are there any initial thoughts on the options for funding sources?
5. Are there any guiding thoughts on the ,eventual recommendations and
implementation program?
C C FIRST DRAFT ~ ~
October 8, 1999:
orange county
Em~ironment and Resource Conservation Department
Draft 10/8/99
A LAItiIDS L~CAGY PROC RAIVi FOIE
ORAItiiC E GouH
Tab/e of Contents
I. Overview and Rationale......:........:.........:.....: ....... ....... ........:..................................... ..1
A. Why Protect Critics/Resource Lands ..............:........... .........
..
:
: 2
.
............
.....
..... .,
Part Z. Summary of Resources/ Priorities
IL Summary of Inventories. and Available Knowledge ............................:
:
:
:
: 5
A, .........
..
.......
..
.
Inventory of Existing County-Owned Lands ......: ....................................:..........: ..
..5
B. Inventory of Other Pub/ic and Private/y-0wned Resource Lands ..................... ..6
C. 1988 7ZClnventory ofNatura/Areas and Wi/d/ife Habitat .........................:....... ..7
D. 1986 OCPD Inventory of lllatura/, Cu/tuna/...Sites ......................................:...:.... ..7
E. 1990 LESA Farm/and Eva/nation program ............................:..........................:.... ..8
F. Water SuPP/Y Watershed studies (1988-1999) ..............::...:.....:..:.:.............:..:.. ..8
G. Ground-Water Recharge...Aquifer System of Orange County, NC .........:.......:...:. ..9
H. 1996 Report.• A Landscape with Wi/d/ife, Part l (TLC)...........::.........: .................. .:9
I. 1997 Resources .Section -Land Use E/ement,/Comprehensive P/an ......:....:......: ..9
J. 1999 Reporl:• A Landscape with Wild/ife, Part Il (TLC)............: ........................... 10
K. New Hope Corridor Open Space Master P/an..........:.....:...: ...........................:...... 10
L. .Report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Task Force .............................. 10
M. Historic Preservation E/ement, .Orange County Comprehensive P/an ................:.. 11
N. Natura/Heritage Program Ustings ....................................................................... 11
III. Comprehensive Resource Database Overlay ..........................................
....... .................
....
12
`, A, How-the Database Wi// Be Created .............:.......................:...........................:..... 12
B. Inventory ofExisting Coverages ....................:......:............................................... 12
C. Gaps and New Coverages Needed ..........: ..................................:...,.........:.......... 13
D. Continued and Long-Term Data Needs ................................................................ 13 '
E. Using the Comprehensive Resource Database to TargetAcquisition Priorities ... 14
N. .Criteria and Priorities List'for Acquisition ....................:......... ........................................:15
A. .Genera/ Eva/nation Criteria ...................................... .........................................IS
....
B. Criteria for NaturalAreas and Wi/d/ife Habitat .................:...................................16
C. Criteria for Prime Farm/and............: ..:..............................................:................ .19
...
D. Criteria for Historic and Cu/tuna/ Sites :........................................:...................:....21
E. Criteria for Current and Long-Term Park/and Acquisition .....................................23
F. Criteria for Riparian Buffers in Watersheds ...............................:..........................25
G. Ranking and Weighting Competing Resources .....................................................26
Part 2. Management and Finding
V. Tools and Technique Alternatives for Acquisition .......:......................................................27
A. Fee limp/e purchase ... ............................ .:............................................... .27
B. Donations/ Charitab/e Gifts .........: ........................ ...........:....:..........................28
C. Conservation Easements :.................................:..............................:......................28
D. Dedication and Acquisition through the Deve%pment Process ...........................29
E. Life /ease agreements ...:.................................................................... .:...........30
F. Timber Rights ........................................................................................................30
1
Draft 10/8/99 ,
VI. Funding Sources ....................:................. ...................................................................:.... 31
A. County QP..: :.....:......................................:..............:............................................. 31
B. Other County Funding Sources ............................................................................. 31
C. New Funding Sources with Legislative Approval ................................................... 32
D. Appropriations from other Local Governments and Pub/ic EntiG'es ...................... 33 ^
E. Stewardship Endowment ........:.........:.........:.......................................................... 33
F. Grants ................................:........:.......................................................................... 34
G. Acquisition Activities Requiring Funding ..:..:...................................:...:..............:... 37
VII. Optio ns for Land Management ...:....:......:.......:...........:.:.....................:.:.....................,.. 38
A: .Lands Legacy Program Through County StatutoryAuthority ...........:................... 38
B. Estab/ishment of County Land Trust ..........................:.............,..........:................ 39
. C. Estab/ishment of an Open Space Authority ........................................................... 41
D. Joint ventures with Existing Land Trusts ...................:............:............................. 42
E. Working with Other Organizations ...........: ........................................................... 43
F. Inter jurisdictions! Efforts and Other Partnerships ..................:........................... 44
G, Stewardship and Post Acquisition- Structure ......:.................:................................. 45
H. Use and Access Po/icy for County-owned Lands ................. 45
Part 3. ImpZementatioa
VIII. Implementation Program Decisions and Recommendations .....:........:............:........:......... 47
A. Method of Land Management Structure ...................................................:............ 47
B. Funding Pans and Stewardship ......................................................:...................... 47
C. Procedure 'for Pursuing Acquisitions and Annua/Action P/an ................................ 47
D. Ro% of CountyAdvisory Boards .........................:................................................. 47
E. Use and Access Po/icy ..............................................................................:
.........
47
Appendices A- N
2
Draft 10/8/99
P~tRT I , INTRODUCTION BIND 14~ TIONALE'
The natural and cultural landscape`of Piedmont North Carolina has changed
considerably in the 250 years since an English proprietary colony began
expanding. from the coastal areas into the frontiers of the Piedmont..
In Orange County, stories of natural and cultural. landmarks have been part of
tradition passed down through the generations. The: Eno River, Occoneechee
Mountain and the 1840 Courthouse still exist, but many other places of natural
and cultural significance have been lost over time. The important natural and
° cultural places of the County exist in harmony with the lands that they are part
of. These. places constitute a legacyto future Orange. County residents, and
preservation of the lands which contain the County's most significant resources
will provide_a "lands legacy" forfuture generations.
I. Overview and Rationale
On June 22, 1998, the Orange County Commissioners established a new
initiative related to environment and resource conservation: This initiative
was the culmination of three years of research and discussion on the role
of Orange County in the preservation of natural and cultural resources. A
-1996 report by the `late Marvin Collins, °Preservation as a Function of
Local Government," served as the initial basis for discussion. From 1996-
1998, anumber of activities occurred to broaden the scope of the
question:
- A Commission for the Environment was formed to advise the Board of
Commissioners on matters related to the environment. and natural..
resources.
- The report of Phase I of the Ground Water Resource Investigation was
received, and a second phase indicated the need for more research in
the area of ground water quality-and quantity.
- Follow-up work on a new recreation and- parks element of the
Comprehensive Plan began, discussing land-banking and future
parkland acquisition approaches..
- New activities. and initiatives, such as Shaping Orange County's Future,
have broadened the scope of several other programs.
- The need for a centralized location for a resource database on
environmental programs was identified.
Based on these new events and activities, the Board of Commissioners
expanded the scope of discussion on the County's role in environmental
1
Draft 10/8/99. '
and resource preservation. issues, to look at creating an umbrella under
which resource conservation initiatives in .the County could be
coordinated.
On .June 22, 1998, the new Environment ~ and Resource Conservation
Department was established. This action also called for the creation of a
comprehensive .resource database. and along-term program for the
acquisition of a prioritized -list of the County's most critical resources. This
program is contained herein and is titled A LANVS LE'GACY/°ROGRAM
FOR ORANGE COUNTY.
In the fall of 1998, the Board considered a draft proposal for organization
° of the new Environment and Resource Conservation Department. On
December 1, 1998, .the Board formed the. department by unanimous vote,
and charged the department with the following general tasks and duties:
- :Overseeing, implementing and coordinating County .goals for
environmental protection and resource conservation (Natural Resource
Preservation, Water Resources, Historic Preservation, Farmland
.Preservation, Watershed Protection, Shaping Orange County's Future,
Sustainability)
- Deve%ping .and implementing a .program for -the acquisition and
management of /and for resource conservation
- Integrating current and future natural and cultural resource data into a
Comprehensive. Resource Database
- Providing staff support to Commissions and Boards (Commission for
the. Environment, Historic Preservation Commission, Agricultural
Districts Advisory Board, Water Resources Committee, Shaping Orange
County's Future Task Force/ Steering Committee, Master Parks and
Recreation Work Group)
- Working collaboratively. with. other departments and agencies on
resource conservation
The June 22, 1998 action establishing the. new .department and the
December 1, 1999 departmental program may be found as Appendix A to
this document.
A. Why Protect Critical Resource Lands?
As a nation, awareness of the loss of natural and cultural resources has
flowered in the last 25 years. This awareness has translated into a variety
of different programs to preserve public lands in .recent years. This
interest in preserving a natural and cultural legacy for future generations
has been most pronounced in areas where growth and development
2
. ~ Draft 10/8/99.
pressures have altered the landscape forever. Often the driving concern is
that important forests and farmland that have defined rural character and
quality of life for centuries will be lost without a program to prioritize and
acquire natural and cultural landmark sites.
In November of 1998, at least 148 open space-related funding measures
- were on the ballot nationwide. A .total of 124 (84%) passed, with roughly
$5.28 ..billion in funding for open space approved. Twenty-five of the
funding referenda were at the County level, and. 20 of the 25 County
issues passed. This does not include an expected $3 billion authorized by
- the Florida-state legislature for open space purposes.
Thus, in 1998 alone,. examples of interest in preserving open space can be
found all across the nations:
- Fairfax County,. Virginia has. allocated $20 million for land acquisition.
- Palm Beach County, Florida okayed a $150 million open space bond by
a 2-1 margin..
- Johnson County, Kansas passed a $6 million park acquisition bond
- The governor of Ohio has proposed a $200 million open space and
farmland protection fund.
- The state of Utah has agreed to put almost $3 million. into a land
conservation fund to provide grants to local governments.
- North Carolina's .trio of land. conservation funding sources (the: Clean
Water Management Trust Fund, Natural Heritage -Fund and Parks and
Recreation Trust Fund) were all funded again by the General Assembly
to the tune of $44 million.
- New Jersey voters approved a $1.5 billion open space. plan
On the horizon are two possible Federal programs that could add over $10 billion
of funding- to the mix.- The national Lands Legacy Initiative is currently in
Congressional committee. This program .would make available $588 million for
grants to states and local governments for the protection of "local green spaces"
including forests, farmland and open space, and park renovation.
A parallel program from the Clinton-Gore administration is` the Better America
Bonds program, which .would provide $9.5 billion in bonding authority to state,
.local and tribal governments over five years. Zero-interest financing of the bonds
for smart-growth projects will be available.
A description of these programs is provided as Appendix B.
In addition to .the new. funding approved in 1998 and under consideration, many
local governments across the nation have previously developed land acquisition
3
Draft 10/8/99
programs of their own, working in partnership with existing land trusts and other
agencies. Several counties and cities have formed local government land trusts,.
-such as Davis, California; Dane County, Wisconsin; Boulder, Colorado; and Anne
Arundel County, Maryland. Some of these .programs were outlined in the 1996
Preservation as a Function of Local Government report.
In Orange County, it is significant to recognize that while some of our important
resources have been protected through state parks and privately- held research
forests, many natural and cultural resources have also been lost.
The amount of acreage in farmland in he County has decreased from .187,000 in
-1957, to 67,000 in 1997. The County may have lost as much as 25% of its prime
forestland in the last 20 years, based on the new Triangle land .Conservancy
.report "Rating lands by their Wildlife Value - A landscape with Wildlife, Part 2,"
and many other. areas have become fragmented and unable to accommodate
diverse species. The `County is projected to have a deficit of 645 acres of
parkland in the year 2000, and a 1,265-acre deficit in 2025. And finally,.- many
important archaeological sites may be lost. annually due. to lack of information
and relevant data.on their location.
County citizens.. have continually recognized the importance of protecting our
most critical resources. This was most recently reflected in the Shaping Orange
County`s Future- visioning efforts, where protecting the environment .and open
- space was listed one of the top issues facing the County. The ability to prioritize
the most- important of these- resources for protection was also continually noted,
-both in the 1993- Rural. Character Study and in Shaping Orange County's Future.
It is for these reasons that-the County is considering its first-ever land acquisition
program, a draft Qf which is contained herein. The program as outlined in this
document would be of a voluntary nature. While not all resources can or should
be protected by. the public sector, a focused program on identifying the most
critical of these areas will. allow the County to take steps to begin acquiring areas
that are in the public interest to protect.
4
. Draft 10/8/99
P14RT ,2. SU1~IJ~I~RY OF RESOURCES AND
PRIORITIES
II. Summary of Existing Inventories and Available
Knowledge
In order to .provide a benchmark a total of 730 acres of land
for along-term acquisition (0.3%, or less than three-tenths
program, it is first necessary to of one percent of the County .land
examine what we already. know area). This includes all land,
° about the County and it's natural whether for County offices, .parks,
and cultural .resources. The water .bodies, street rights of
following. sub-sections provide. a way, vacant land, or solid waste
thumbnail synopsis of some of sites.
,the important existing.-data
sources. The vast. majority of the 730
acres are in small parcels
These sources begin to sharpen
- scattered across the County.
the picture of County resources County-owned and affiliated
into focus. For brevity, the office buildings and parking lots
documents referred to are not account for 100 acres, with an
included in this document,-but additional 11 acres in streets or
-are available at the. ERCD for rights-of way reserved for future
perusal and further review. subdivision streets.
Excerpts from many: reports are
included as appendices. There are 31 scattered parcels
comprising 244 acres that are
A. Inventory of Existing County-owned lots in subdivisions
County-Owned Lands (open space or vacant lots).
However, two-thirds of these
Orange County contains 400 contain less than two acres each.
square miles or 256,000 acres
within its boundaries. Despite the - Water bodies and lands at future
County's 200 years of existence reservoir sites (Lake Orange, and
as a local government, the Seven-Mile Creek lands,
County itself owns .very little land. respectively) total 278 acres.. This
also includes a small parcel in
As a part of this report, a Mebane with a water tower. A
complete inventory of County- total of 95 acres are held fora
. owned lands was conducted by parks or were dedicated for
ERCD staff in the. summer of recreation purposes.
1999. The County currently owns
5
Draft 10/8/99 '
Of the County's current
landholdings, no land contains
identified natural areas, wildlife
habitat or prime farmland. Of the
land currently held. for .parks,
none is actively used for
recreation -although 81 acres
are planned for parks in the
.future (Fairview Park, Northern
Human Services Center Park).
The. Efland-Cheeks-Park is on
° land owned. by the County-
schools. In terms of other
resources, one historic site is
owned by the County -the..
Dickson House. in downtown
Hillsborough, which serves as
offices for the County Visitor's
Bureau and the Alliance for
Historic Hillsborough.
Portions of the 108 acres owned
on Seven-Mile Creekprovide
riparian buffers, and Lake Orange
is a 175-acre water resource and
flow augmentation impoundment
that is owned by the County.
Table i shows the type/amount
of acreage owned by the County.
Table 1
B. Inventory of Other Public
and Privately-Owned lands
While Orange. County is by no
means a large landowner in the
County, the same is not. true of a
number of other public and
private entities.
For example, the Orange. Water
and Sewer Authority owns over
six times as much land in the
County, with 3,215 acres of land
,(1.25%) in October, 1998 -
including Cane Creek Reservoir
(but. not including University
Lake, which is owned. by UNC).
OWASA, the County's second-
.largest landholder, has plans to
acquire an additional 1,365 acres
in Cane Creek watershed over the
next decade.
-Duke University is the County's
largest private landowner, with
almost 4,933 acres in Orange
County. This equates to almost
two percent (1.93%) of the
County's 256,000 acres. See
Table 2 for a breakdown on land
ownership by public and large
private entities.
The County's third-largest
landholder is the University of
North Carolina. Between the
areas of campus, the Botanical
Garden and Mason Farm area,
and the Horace Williams tract,
UNC owns 2,585 acres ~of land in
the County. The vast majority of
this land is in Chapel Hill or the
immediate environs.
6
Draft 10/8/99
Table 2
Public/Institutionally-Owned
~.anas ~n vran a c
-Duke University ;oun
4,933 acres
OWASA 3,215 acres
UNC 2,585 acres
Eno River State Pazk 1,973 acres
(in Orange)
Town of Chapel Hill 1,077 acres
Town of Carrboro 144 acres
Town of
Hillsborough 2,801 acres
t'=~~~:;=~1~~ CL111LItYN;: ~„~< ~~.,~ , a'373~:~dCTeS~`
Among municipal jurisdictions,
when considered in proportion to
corporate limits the .Town of
Chapel Hill owns 9.1% of the
area inside its Town limits. Much
of the Town of Hillsborough land
holdings are recent acquisitions
for the West Fork reservoir, and
are outside of the Town
corporate limits. The Town's total
acreage owned equates to
owning 90 percent of the Town
Limits. Carrboro's landholdings
are considerably less - 144 acres,
.corresponding to 5.2% of the
Town Limits. Orange County
owns the smallest percentage of
the land within its own
boundaries - at the
aforementioned 0.3%.
C. Inventory of Natural Areas
and Wildlife Habitats, Orange
County, NC .(Triangle Land
Conservancy, 1988)
This inventory, funded by Orange
County and a grant from the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program, was
developed by Triangle Land
Conservancy. Authored by Steve
Hall and Dawson Sather, the
.Inventory is the most-widely used.
and recognized assessment of
the County's resources. Many of
the findings of the Inventory
have been incorporated into the
Land Use.Element of the
Comprehensive Plan and.the
Flexible Development section of
the Subdivision Regulations. -The
inventory identified 64 sites of
importance in the County,
identified by basin and ranked in
terms of significance and threat.
The Inventory also proposed a
wildlife corridor network concept
that has also been incorporated
into County plans.
A map of the 64 sites is included
as Appendix C.
D. Inventory of Sites of
Cultural, Historic,
Recreational, Biological and-
Geological Significance. in the
Unincorporated Portions of
Orange County (Orange
County. Planning Department,
May 1986 and May 1988)
This inventory was created as an
intern project in 1985 and was
completed and received by the
Board of Commissioners in 1986.
The survey documents, with brief
narrative and map location, sites
,such as churches, cemeteries,
archaeological sites, wildlife
Genew areas and endangered
plant/animal sites (as per a 1975
product of the NC Museum of
7
Draft 10/8/99
Natural History and the Natural
Heritage Program). Much of the
information contained in this
Inventory has been superseded
in recent years by further work in
natural areas/wildlife habitat and
historic sites, but it remains a
source for cultural sites that
serves as a basis for further
research.
E. Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment (LESA) Program
for. Farmland Evaluation
(Orange County Agricultural.
Districts Advisory Board,.
1992)
As a part of the County's efforts
to develop a farmland
preservation program in the early
1990's, the Agricultural Districts
Advisory Board worked with
Planning and Soil and Water
staffs to develop a method to
rank and assess prime farmland
based on the- LESA model. The
-LESA model was developed by
the US Department of Agriculture
in 1981. The program was
developed to `make objective-
ratings for agricultural land
suitability.' It uses a land
evaluation rating system to rate a
.tract's soil potential for
agriculture. The program also
takes into site assessment factors
such as location, access to
market and- adjacent land use.
A summary of this model and
how it was envisioned for ..use in
Orange County may be found in
:Section IV and as Appendix D.
F. Water Supply Watershed
Studies
In the past 12 years, the status
of four of the County's 10 water
supply watersheds has been
evaluated through creation of a
watershed study technical report.
The watersheds that have been
studied (along with-date and.
study client) are:
• University Lake Watershed
(1988, OWASA)
• Little River and Lake Michie
Watersheds (1988, City of
Durham)
• Cane Creek watershed (1996,
OWASA)
A fifth watershed, the Upper Eno,
is currently in the midst of aless- ,
technical evaluation that may
nonetheless involve
recommended water quality
protection strategies.
These watershed studies offer a
variety of technical data, as well
as recommendations for not only
land use controls but programs
for land acquisition to protect
water quality. The Cane Creek
Study, in particular, has a heavy
emphasis toward land purchase
programs for riparian buffers. A
map of water supply watersheds
is found as Appendix E.
8
Draft 10/8/99
G. Ground Water Recharge to The study found that 10% of the
the Regolith-Fractured prime forests in the County were
Crystalline Rock Aquifer lost or reduced in size due. to
System, Orange County, NC building activity. The report also
(1996, USGS) reiterated, through. a series of
maps, the significance of buffers
As the first phase of the County's , and connections between the
ongoing ground water existing core areas of prime
investigation, this report forest. Permanent protection of
introduces a method of large hardwood and mixed
evaluating the. quantity of ground hardwood forests was a
water in the County's underlying recommendation of the report,
° geology, by estimating ground along with the provision of
.water recharge to the aquifer buffers for core areas of forest.
system. The report, conducted: by The preservation .and/or
the U.S. Geological Survey, also rehabilitation of forests along
shows how this data can be used streams and in overland
to gauge the amount of land connecting corridors was also
..needed to accommodate recommended. Appendix F
adequate groundwater supplies. contains a map from this report
of prime forest areas.
. While there are no proposals in
the report. related to land I. Land Use Element of the
acquisition, this report and the
- Orange County
second phase of the project Comprehensive Plan (Natural
(currently underway) note the. and Cultural Resources
importance of protecting section)
wellhead protection areas, and
may indicate areas of high Many of the above data and
yielding wells where some information from other sources
protection of the. recharge area was aggregated into'this section
may be needed. of the County Comprehensive
H. A Landscape With Wildlife,
Part I (1996, Triangle Land
Conservancy)
To follow-up on the .1988
inventory, Triangle Land
Conservancy (with funding via a
grant from Orange County)
prepared a report identifying and
evaluating the remaining prime
hardwood forests in the County.
Plan, which was adopted by the
Board of Commissioners in
January 19.96. The creation of
this section serves two purposes.
First, it provides an important link
to land use policy with -the
information know about natural
and cultural. resources, some of
which is part of the Flexible
Development program. Second, it
was envisioned as a method to
address natural and cultural
9
Draft 10/8/99
resources in the short term until
a full-scale Natural Areas element
of the plan was created.
)..Rating. Land in Orange
County for Its Wildlife Value:
A Landscape With Wildlife,
Part II Ouly, 1999 Triangle
Land Conservancy)
This most recent study, which
follows up on the. 1996. report, is
timely in its development of
rating system to identify which.
areas of the County are likely to
be most significant for habitat.
This work takes the ,prime forests
data from 1996, updates it with
new information, and classifies
the forest areas using Intrinsic
and Contextual formulas. New
mapping of these- forest areas is
provided, focusing in on the
areas where ratings are highest.
The report recommends the
County use these ratings to
preserve and restore large tracts
of forests and important
connections between forests and
other habitats, -among others.
Since this study is directly
relevant to the purpose of this
program, it is provided as
Appendix G.
K. New Hope Corridor Open
Space Master Plan (1991)
This-study was developed as a
joint venture between Orange
County, Durham County, Chapel
Hill town and Durham city. A
1989 resolution recognized the
importance and value of
preserving the New Hope Creek
in southeastern Orange and
western Durham counties. The
Master Plan recommended that
steps be taken to acquire
(through a variety of fashions)
.the stream and adjacent
floodplain, along with steep
slopes and tracts of significance
along the corridor. Athree-phase
,.approach to corridor acquisition
was developed, to result in
purchase of 1100 acres. All of the
elected boards adopted this -
plan, and.it is incorporated. into
the Orange County .
Comprehensive Plan..
In 1993, a UNC student workshop
explored another idea in the .1991
study, ways to connect the New
Hope Corridor system to Eno
River State Park. No action was
taken on this proposal
L. Report of the Joint Master
Recreation and Parks Work
Group (May, 1999)
Efforts to coordinate the long-
term .planning of parks began in
1996, with a report from.the
combined staffs. Afollow-up
report in 1997 from the County's
managers identified the need for
coordinated park capital funding.
In November 1997, a joint task
force with representatives from
school boards, elected bodies and
other interested parties began
work on a coordinated plan,
looking at park standards, an
inventory of existing facilities,.
10
Draft 10J8/99
and an assessment of parks. Finally, the Historic Preservation
needs. The task force report was Element identifies state scenic
produced in May 1999, and byways and a proposed scenic
projects a parkland deficit of 645. corridor along St. Mary's Road.
acres in 2000 and 1,265 acres by
2025. A coordinated funding and N. Listings from the Natural
land acquisition program was Heritage Program
recommended, along with a new
Parks Council and a policy calling These listings .have served as a
for open facilities countywide. 'basis for many of the above
documents, and have been
The report identifies goals for incorporated into many
parkland site evaluation and inventories and works -including
criteria for possible parkland the Natural Areas and Wildlife
acquisition. The goals and criteria Habitat inventory. An updated list
may be found in Section IV.D of has been acquired and is part of
this document. An .executive the County's current resource
summary of the :report is database.
provided as Appendix H.
M. Historic Preservation
Element, Orange County
Comprehensive Plan
This element of the
Comprehensive Plan was created
and adopted in 1996. The report
explores the County's historical
and cultural development, noting
historic resources and areas of
archaeological importance.
An action strategy for preserving
important historic and cultural
landmarks, crossroads and
historic corridors is included, and
illustrated through a Preservation
Plan map. The map also shows
'archaeological resource. zones",
where the potential for
archaeological finds may be of
higher distribution.
11
Draft 10/8/99
III. Comprehensive Resource Database
In order to adequately identify and rank sites, a series of mapping coverages are
needed to overlay different variables and information on individual sites. The use
of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology has, in recent years,
greatly enabled these abilities to overlay data sets for analytical work. A
database is needed to accomplish the tasks of this program.
A. How the Database Would Be Created
In the .past decade, a substantial amount of information has been
created and/or purchased for the. County's GIS system. Beginning
with mapping coverages for the 1988 Inventory. of Natural Areas
and Wildlife Habitats, the County has incorporated into its GIS.
system. a great deal of information relevant to the preservation of
resources. By he sameaoken, .however, there are a number of
gaps and data management issues that must be addressed for the
database to be truly comprehensive.
B. Listing of Existing Coverages
To date, the following environment and resource-related coverages
exist in the ERCD GIS system. A more complete inventory is
' included as Appendix ].
- Watersheds - Hazardous disposal sites
Geology - Hazardous waste facilities
- Floodplains - Hydrology
- Wetlands - Hydrogeology
- Prime farmland ` - -New wells (since 1996)
- Steep slopes - NPDES sites
- Soil limitations -septic systems - Quarries
- .Soil limitations -dwellings - Petroleum contaminated soils
- Vegetation - National Register nominations
- .Natural areas and wildlife - Potential land acquisition site maps
habitats - Water quality monitoring sites
- Wildlife corridors - St. Mary's Road Study architecture and
- Historic sites archaeology
- Archaeological remains - Superfund sites
- Recreation sites - Underground petroleum tanks.
- _ Scenic roads - Utility transmissions lines
- Development constraints - Wastewater systems (public and
- Comprehensive Resource map community)
- Biosolid (sludge) sites - Prime forests coverages (TLC - 1996)
- Businesses on ground water - Wildlife .Rating system (TLC report 1999)
- Community water supplies
- Golf courses
12
Draft 10/8/99
C. Gaps and New Coverages Needed
Despite the fact that Orange County is well ahead of most counties in the
state in the area of GIS resource data, there are a number of areas where
additional.. information is needed. Efforts are .already underway in ERCD or
Planning to address-some of these-data needs..
Current Data Gaps
- Topography (coming via Land Records in 2000)
Impervious surfaces
- Existing land use pattern
- ..Land in active cultivation (farmland).
- Existing zoning and Land Use Element (parcel level)
- Feedlots, pesticide application and animal waste lagoons
- .Ground water recharge areas (may be created from USGS ground
water. resource investigation report =June, 2000)
Data from adjoining jurisdictions
Data in Need of Update
- Wetlands
- Aerial photography (coming via Land Records in 2000)
.Soils
- -New. building permits and development projects (Planning)
Upkeep and maintenance of the database will be as substantial an
undertaking as creating new data. Some of the County's older GIS
coverages are "shape" files that were created prior to the existence of
land parcel. data and therefore do not match the parcel data when overlaid
together. Other coverages will have data that change over time, requiring
regular maintenance and monitoring.
D. Continued/Long-term Data Needs
Based on the long-term maintenance considerations and the data needs
previously identified, the following are proposed as goals for the
Comprehensive Resource Database in FY 99-00:
Goals 1999 2000
- Upkeep and maintenance of existing database (NAD
conversions, match-up older coverages to new parcel data,
update with new information)
- Digitize new coverages (abandoned wells, animal waste
lagoons,- continue inputting new wells, impervious surfaces)
13
Draft 10/8/99
- .Purchase/receive coverages to cover gaps (topography and
aerial photography from Land Records department, ground
water supplies and wellhead protection areas from USGS and
ongoing Water Resources work, existing land uses from
..Planning as created.
.Finally, there are also a number of long-term program issues that
.must be addressed to have a viable Comprehensive Resource
Database:
Ensuring that new .:coverages are consistent with upcoming
parcel data format,- to avoid previous problem of -pre-parcel
"shape" files that don't line up to parcel lines
Operating System changes: The GIS technology field is, like
-most computer. technology, rapidly changing. Work -is already
underway across County government. to convert, over. the next.
five years, firom the current -UNIX-language operating system to -
PC-based operating systems and. software (Windows NT). The
fashion in .which users- of GIS data interface -with the -data
creation and application will also need to be addressed.
- A number of coverages are time-related coverages (well/septic
systems, existing land use, etc.), and along-term .plan for
regular updating of this data will be needed to ensure that it is
not out of date.
D.
Using the Resource Database to Target Acquisition
Priorities
All of the coverages currently available or identified as needs can
be mapped together to show overlapping areas of resources. This
concept has already been utilized to a degree with the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan's primary and secondary
conservation areas, which are also-used in the voluntary Flexible
Development :program. However, this idea could be expanded for
use of newer coverages for a Comprehensive Resource map that
would identify the County's most important resource areas.
The overlay mapping technique will allow staff to evaluate potential
acquisitions against the full spectrum of resources present in the
County, .and to develop priorities- for acquisition 'efforts. The
comprehensive map- would also allow the Board to consider
multiple resource needs and goals in making acquisition decisions.
(insert map)
14
Draft 10/8/99
IV. Criteria and Priorities for Acquisition
The significant GIS system data that the County has developed in natural
and cultural resources ,will. not be useful to the County without a set of
.criteria to guide site evaluation, prioritization,. and significance. Over the
spring -and summer of 1999,_each of the County's advisory :boards with
roles in resource preservation -were asked to .provide thoughts on .criteria
that should be used to evaluate resources..Theseldeas have been used to
develop the following criteria,.. modified in some cases to fit the overall
context of the program.
A. General Evaluation Criteria
-While certain types of resources -will be better evaluated against
specific criteria to their type of resource, all potential- land
acquisitions.' .(whether fee-simple or .:other) may be initially
evaluated on general criteria. The general criteria may also be
useful, in conjunction with the Board's- adopted goals, in deciding
among competing. resource preservation .opportunities.
In late 1998, a general evaluation template was created to evaluate
interim land acquisition proposals being considered by the County,
The evaluation .template assesses, for each site,' the following
variables:
_~` ,-1:Ev~tuation em la. ~r
.How is the land classified in the Comprehensive Plan
and zonin ma
Inventory and Resource checklist -what is present on
the site?
Are there develo ment constraints to the roe ?
What a of access exists to the site?
What are the surroundin land uses?
Ownership and Value (both market and assessed)
information.
What is the askin rice and timeframe for sale?
Are there previous evaluations or assessments?
Liabili concerns?
-What are the ossible uses of roe ?
Would the ac uisition meet Coun oals?
Beyond this basic evaluation, more-detailed and specific site
assessments will be needed, depending on the type(s) of
15
Draft 10/8/99
resources. The following sub-sections contain potential criteria for
evaluating certain types of resource acquisitions. The criteria .have
been deve%ped in conjunction with the County's advisory board in
each area, where possible. Criteria comments .were discussed with
the Commission for the- Environment, Agriculture/ Districts Advisory
Board, Recreation and Parks Advisory Council, Historic Preservation
Commission and Water Resources Committee.
B. Criteria for Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat
(deve%ped in conjunction with the Commission for the Environment)
Orange County. is fortunate in having funded three reports on
natural areas and wildlife habitat, conducted by the Triangle Land
Conservancy, that go a long way. toward identifying the most
important areas in the County. The County is also fortunate that a
number of public,-.private- and non-profit entities have- previously
been involved in protecting some of the 64 known natural areas
and wildlife habitat..
To date,. 10 of the 64 identified natural .areas and wildlife habitat-
(16%) are protected (in-full or in part) through state park or land
trust ownership/easement. Three of the sites are within Eno River
State Park, -with all or portions of six others. protected by the
Triangle Land .Conservancy. One site is held by The Nature
Conservancy.
An additional 19 natural areas are.. owned by public or private
educational. institutions -namely, Duke University .and/or the
University of North Carolina.
Duke` holds 12 of the identified sites- within the boundaries of Duke
Forest. While these sites are not protected in perpetuity and are
held by a private institution, Duke has along-standing policy -for
protection of the natural areas within the forest. The 1988 Duke
..Forest Management Study, commissioned by the University, does
recognize that important natural areas are contained within the
forest. Duke policy is that the University "will be sensitive
to...unique :natural. areas", .and that Duke "should not permit
negative environmental impacts as a consequence of disturbance of
sensitive natural and cultural resources."
A 1988 forest management study classified land holdings into four
..categories. The study recommended that Duke retain portions of
the forest classified as Class 1 -Permanent Research Forest and
16
Draft 10/8/99
Class 2 -Research Project Land as areas to be retained in their
forest state. All 12 of the sites in Duke Forest are within portions. of
the forest that are classified as Class 1 or 2 research lands.
However, there is no binding agreement that guarantees that the
forest study will be adhered to, and there are no easements for
perpetual protection. for natural areas located on lands owned by
Duke.
-~ He Pub 'rr or:N..~..Profit:La d Tr '~ ~ `'
y
....Eno River State Park 3
....Trian le Land Conservan 6 3 are artial easements
....The Nature Conservan 1
.owned b' Public Institufian
~
UNC Mason Farm ~
_ Own ' b . Private ~ itution; - '
Duke Universi Duke Forest 12
:" I t O ne `i
Private) -owned 35
Seven sites-are located on lands owned by the University of North
Carolina. Most of these sites are located on the Botanical Garden or
adjacent Mason Farm Preserve property. The University has a .long-
standing .policy for protection of these .areas.. However, Like Duke,
there is no formal guarantee that these lands will be perpetually
protected.
Even with 29 sites in some method of protection, there are many
natural areas as yet unprotected. There -are also may be many sites
not yet identified, whether hrough lack of review or oversight in
previous work. The-.new prime forest: areas shown in the 1996 and
1999- reports from the Triangle .Land Conservancy (TLC) may
contain additional areas not yet identified.
Some of the 29 sites in private ownership may be high priorities for
public acquisition, ..particularly as filtered through the recent TLC
reports. A method for prioritizing and evaluating natural .areas and
wildlife habitat will need a set of criteria for review.
In the spring of 1999, the Biological.. Resources Committee of the
Commission of the Environment considered criteria to these- ends.
The following criteria were developed by that group and are
recommended by the Commission for the Environment for use. in
evaluating potential acquisitions:
17
Draft 10/8/99
Natural Areas .and Wildlife Habitat
_~~ 0 ' ~~ mar. o ~E _ ~ :t ~' . ~ ~~ _' ~r,
t
Hi h Size area
High Shape (re: minimization of edge effects -could be quantified as
ratio of ed a to interior area
High (Slope /elevation./ orientation topography) -might make it
more or less susceptible to development; might have
.some special or unique feature (things that might make a
group willing to contribute to its protection)Topography:
slo a elevation orientation - -
Medium Proximity./ geographic relation connectivity
roximi ra hic relation to other natural areas
Medium Does it contribute to a Wildlife corridor (water & land, or just
land ?
Low ~ Position in watershed distance from source re: water uali
Low. G ra hic evenness b watershed?
Low Does it have bod of water?
Hi h Biodiversi - s cies richness
High Integrity (needs clarification of definition, but things like
crossing by roads, power lines, selective logging in recent
histo other si ns ofd radation
Medium Number of rare species/ State listed- (Natural Heritage), species
of conservation concern
Medium Ecosystem distinctness (state/regional/country): need to
develo means to 'ud a this
Medium Presence of invasive exotic plant species (how many species,
how severe) infested
Low Ecosystem representation: Should we preserve some of all
types?(beta diversity) contribution to even representation
of the diversity of Orange County's ecosystems, preserve some
of all s
Low Im ortance for bird breedin sites
y*~ 3 b`yK'~h' ' T -~ ~ k 2j _ e
High Degree of threat (proximity to urban area, proximity to
development -residential or industrial, proximity to roads
and planned roads,' proposed development, on the market,.
said. to be about to o 'on the market threat of to in
Medium Other forms of pollution or proximity to dump sites,
under round tanks h farms etc.
Low Noise
Low Distance from artificial li ht sources
~..
Pi~IC~ ~~ ~~ :~ v
t:H ` ~ ~fiY.1tA~.;UitS~{N `<~, . ~~t,: Y,~ ! ~.~ r , ~. ~.
s ~,~
Hi h ~ Scenic value to be used 'udiciousl
Medium Potential for recreational use
Medium Presence of historical archeol icai sites si nificance
Low Proximi to ulation centers users
Lowe North county vs south county (both as human and spatial
issue
18
Draft 10/8/99
Low Presence of species/resources of economic value (is there
an hin other than timber?
PRIO
::~~
O E
High Meeting multi, multiple biological/conservation criteria across
lines
Hi h Availabili of second fundin source
PRIG ITY'= - E "S:.- . , . C71ON °~k'~, ~ ~ ~
High Presence of wetlands: hydrologic buffering, contribution to
water story e.
Medium Vegetation: thermal buffering, water storage natural areas
serving. as sites for insect pollinators and predators, which
serve a riculture nutrient clin .
Medium Ve etation as ri rian buffer.
In addition to -this criteria,: the new Triangle Land Conservancy
report "Rating Lands in Orange County By Its. Wildlife Value" takes.
the use of criteria to a new level. The report uses a .formula _on
contextual ratings. and intrinsic. ratings to evaluate the County's
remaining prime forests, and actually identifies areas of significance
that are recommended to be the focus of acquisition efforts. A map
is generated showing the forest areas with highest ratings (see
Appendix G).
The Commission for the Environment is currently evaluating this
new report, and will. report back on how it envisions using .the two
tools together to identify critical habitats.
C. Criteria for: Prime Farmland
(deve%ped in conjunction with the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board)
Prime Farm/and -Land .that has the best combination of physical
and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage,
of/seed, and other agricu/tura/ crops with minima! inputs of fu%
ferti/izer, pesticides and labor. (US Department of Agriculture)
Currently, over 67,000 acres of land in the County is used for farm
purposes (27% of the total County land area). Whi{e this is a
substantial amount of land, it is only one-third of the acreage that
was in farming a generation. (30 years) ago.
The identification of prime farmland and ways of protecting the
County's most viable farmland has been subject to a great deal of
discussion in previous years. To define prime farmland, the
Agricultural ~ Districts Advisory Board has used the definition from
the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) program,
originally developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
19
Draft 10/8/99
In 1994, a report was prepared that used .the. LESA system to
categorize the County's soil types -and propensity for agricultural
production into eight categories.: Those categories were .then
refined into agricultural soil groups, with the higher group
containing the highest class of farmland. A table showing the soil
types and their assessment and` ranking criteria is included as .part
of Appendix D. The six agricultural groups with lands classified as
prime are shown. below. These groups comprise 54% of the County:
land area.
1-Prime 7.1%.
2 -Prime 19.7%
3 -Prime 11.7%
4 -Prime 9.0%
5 -Prime 8.8%
A formula was recommended in the 1994 "Preserving Our Farms"
report that provides for .further. refinement of this data -for the
purpose of assessing sites for potential acquisition. A calculation on
the relative -value of a site (its yield potential, soil productivity and
agricultural-class) maybe. performed. This involves:
` - Locating the site on a soil survey -map and determining the type-
of soils present
- Determining -the acreage of each soil type and it's agricultural
group (see above)
- - Multiplying the number of acres in each group by the relative _
. value and. summing all groups
- Divide the total .relative value by the total acreage to obtain
average relative value
The number generated by this analysis will - allow comparative
assessment with other prime farmland. A master .list could be
generated of the most significant prime .farmland, from which
potential acquisitions could be pursued as desired. An update of the
work from 1994 will be needed to establish a new map and master
list of areas.
This approach, while several years old, is still recommended by the
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board.- There is considerable
additional detail on the method of using the LESA approach to
evaluate farmland. Some modification. may be needed to address
20
.Draft 10/8/99
D.
how new types of crop production, such as organic: farming, turf
farming and other new changes to the agricultural field that have
occurred in the last 15 years affect the scoring system.
The acquisition of conservation. easements from interested farmers
,may. be the best tool -for the County's efforts o keep the County's
most valuable prime farmland in long-term cultivation. for food
production: This tool would allow the farmer to retain ownershipto
the .land.. (see Section ~. In further developing a program for
farmland preservation, it should be recognized however, that the
visual resource and .rural character :components of farmland are
also important factors and warrant consideration.
Criteria for Historic and Cultural Sites
(dev%ped in conjunction with the Historic Preservation Commission)
Orange County has been an important -locus -for human activity
since well before the first European settlers arrived in the 1740's.
The ancient Trading. Path, used first by Native American: tribes like
the Occoneechee, crossed through the County. Hillsborough was
"ground zero" for the Regulator movement in the colonial era, and
even: served as the seat of state government for a short while..
Other significant activities, both architectural, cultural and
archaeological, have occurred in the past 250 years.
In 1992, the- County adopted a Historic Preservation Element of the
Comprehensive .Plan. This document and concurrent .surveys of
historic sites in .the County, contains a preservation plan for the
County that focuses on tools such as national and local
designations,. legal and regulatory measures, financial incentives
and public awareness. The Element was not developed- with
potential 'acquisition of historic or cultural sites in mind, but does
note the potential for preserving historic sites through park
creation. It also notes the importance of stream corridors for future
archaeological potential. The Preservation Plan map is shown as
Appendix K.
In recent years, the Historic Preservation Commission has been
involved in a number of initiatives. A number of National Register
nomination have been approved or are pending for important
historic sites such as Chatwood and the Bingham School. property.
One National Register landmark. district (Cedar Grove) as also been
approved... Work is underway at this time of a preservation plan for
the St. Mary's Road corridor.
21
Draft 10/8/99
in evaluating possible acquisitions of a historic. or cultural nature,.
the Historic Preservation Commission has suggested a set of criteria
.developed in 1997 fora °Historie Resource Evaluation" form. This
form was created to evaluate sites being proposed for National
Register of Historic Places nominations and Local Landmark
proposals,. and contains parameters directly relevant. to the
County's goals for historic and cultural preservation. The criteria
.:address type,. age of structure, historic significance, `architectural
significance,. environmental significance, contributing features .and
integrity -.using a~ weighting system.
~ t 3. ,}
c and , f~~ s~~ura1=~
~to
'e~r~rvatlo
.
.
~.
....h _,> fi _:.k ~. RFr...7. :,t. s n...u fiq h.'.: ! ..yl-:a r:~ ,y,~r~~~~ .F,,.
WEIGHTING ATTRIBUTE
10 Listed on National R ister of Historic Places or NR Stu List
7.5 Archaeol ical site or cemete of si nifieance
5 Buildin Com lex of si nifeance
2.5 Individual buildin of si nifieance
1 Other historic or cultural resource resent
10 Pre-1800
7.5 1801-1865
5 1866-1885
2.5 1886-1930
0 Post- 1930
10 Associations with .person, event, group or institution of
national si nifieance
7.5 Associations with person, event, group or institution of State
si nifieance
5 Associations with 3-4 person, event, group or institution of
local si nifieance
2.5 Associations with 1-2 person, .event, group or institution of
local si nifieance
0 No association of si nifieance.
~°_ rr.~r
10 Ve si nificant builder architect eriod le or enre
7.5 Si nificant builder architect riod le or enre
5 Notable builder architect riod le or enre
2.5 Minor builder architect eriod le or enre
0 None
.Y ~, r ...,...( ~. :...
~r..« A'k,
22
i
-Draft 10/8/99
10 Very significant resemblance to historic landscapes and land
use atterns
7.5 Significant resemblance to historic landscapes and land use
atterns
5 Notable resemblance to historic landscapes and land use
atterns
2.5 Minor resemblance to historic landscapes and land use
atterns
0 None
~,,. 1 x^,,: * ~ :C 'n ibutin F tur ~ r
-~: ~ , ~„
~
5 Verysignificant diverse additional .elements related to history,
landscape or architecture that contribute to knowledge of the
site and enhance its cultural or historic si nificance
2.5 Notably significant diverse additional elements related to
history, landscape. or architecture that contribute to knowledge
of the site and enhance its cultural or historic si nificance
0 None
A W,
~,~ ~', Et`y ~ ~ ~~ ;-I `t orl 'tl` rt
10 Excellent condition
7.5 Good wndition
5 Fair condition
2.5 Poor condition
0 Ruin
"-~, ~ ~~ t ~' Int.., ri - AI ratio° ; . ~ .~'
0 None
-2.5 Minor
-5 Some
-7.5 Si nificant
-10 Ma'or
r lr ~ ~ f ~ ~'~,t~..L t.~,: Ot~Qir : c 1,~ ':' - sir
-5 Structure has been moved
0 Structure has not been moved
5 The structure is at risk
0 The. structure is not at risk
E. Criteria for Current and Long-Term Parkland Acquisition
(deve%ped from Master Recreation and Parks Report)
In May, 1999, the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group
released. a report for future park coordination between the different
jurisdictions. With a $3 million bond available for parkland
acquisition, goals for ..parkland acquisition and criteria. were
developed to guide decisions on land evaluation and purchase.
The goals, objectives and criteria: of the work group are as follows:
Goals
* Encourage schoo%park joint p/arming
* Preserve natura/resources
23
Draft 10/8/99
* Promote mu/tiyurisdiclrona/recreation and preservation etJ`orts
* Preserve watersheds and water quality
* Encourage historic and cultural preservation
* Identify and emphasize targeted needs -
* Establish public,/private partnerships
* Encourage the dedication of easements
Implement /and-banking opportunities
* Acquire/purchase parkland through deve%pment process
* Deve%p linear parks concepts and plans:
Using these goals, more-specific objectives were identified:
ObjecBves
+ Keep. active recreation facilities away from /and that is environments//y
sensitive, such as wetlands; -
* Deve%p a program for /and dedication/recreation payment that is more
effective and comprehensive;
+ Proi~+ct identified natural areas and wildlife habitats in conjunction with the
creation of recreation facilities;
Dave%p linear parks in the Rural Bu1S`er, and exp/ore opportunities along
other identified stream corridors;
* "Retrofit existing deve%ped properties for recreation;
= Enhance efforts like the New Hope Creek Corridor Study and the Upper Eno
Rivet preservation efforts;
* Deve%p /and-use p/arming mechanism for securing neighborhood parks
Criteria for Eva/uating Possib/e Land Acquisition
Subject to approval by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, a
system should be developed to evaluate how well potential land ;
acquisitions meet the goals and objectives. A number of specific
measures have been suggested both for the purchase of property, and
for the appropriateness of siting facilities. The components of this
system would become the basis of the Recreation and Parks.
Acquisition section of the County's Resource Acquisition Program (see
Section V).
~Pa'r~klan-:~s A~gruisi~tiog~ yriterA ` sE ~, ~~' ~ ;~~:
The existence of matchin funds from a uestin 'urisdiction
Potential for rants and other fundin o rtunities
Com letion of existin ro'ects with an ado tad facili Ian
Contains a site identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife
Habitats of Oran a Coun N.C.
Com tibili of tanned ark use with ad'acent land uses
A ro riate intensi of use for the area
Location
Promotes continui of wildlife corridors reenwa sand linear arks
Land is ad'acent to new schools
Land for active recreation is suitable and a ro riate for tanned uses
Furthers ur ses of U r Eno and New Ho a Corridor reservation efforts
Access trans ortation is safe and Basil -accom lished
Meetin multi le oats of the above ets hi her wei htin
24
Draft 10/8/99
There are two other important considerations that relate to park
acquisition criteria. Perhaps more than any other type of
acquisition, parkland can accommodate multiple uses and
resources within the framework of a "park". As noted in the Historic
Preservation: Element of the Plan, historic structures can be
preserved within a park setting, and there are many examples of
such approaches. Sloan Parkin Rowan County has preserved an
1823 grist mill as part: of-the park facilities. The same can be said-
and has been done with active.farms, such as -the Horne Creek
Living Historical Farm in Stokes County. Natural areas may be
protected` within. parks, in careful .attention is given to maintaining
..the integrity,of the site.
The other consideration for: acquiring park land relates to the
ongoing effort of the Schools and Land Use Council to co-locate
'school and park facilities in the future. Both the Schools and Land
Use Council and the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report
recognize the benefits of co-locating facilities. A Memorandum of
Agreement for Providing Coordinated Site and Facility Planning has
been developed, and is included.. as Appendix L.
As criteria are developed by the schools for land acquisition, .the
addition of the above criteria for parks could also be factored in, as
practical, for a set of criteria to evaluate. both school and park
feasibility. The potential for collaborative work on parkland
acquisition will be discussed this fall by the local .governments
through review of the Master Recreation and Parks report.
F. Criteria for Riparian Buffers in Water Supply Watersheds
Riparian (streamside vegetative.) buffers play an important role. in
protecting water quality in the County's 10 water supply
watersheds. These areas also tend to be areas that support wide
varieties- of wildlife species. in January of this year, the Triangle J
Council of Governments staff created a technical memo on riparian
buffers.. The memo offers ideas for protecting buffers based on four
primary goals:
- Water Quality. Protection
- Ecosystem Protection and Restoration
- Recreational and Educational Use
- Flood Damage Prevention
Potential evaluation criteria for riparian buffers might include:
25
Draft 10/8/99
S d spa >~ Buffe~~Fres`ervat'
x . ~, ~ < ,~.„ .ter ~.:.~~»~«:. _:.~; .~r . ; _ ~ ~,
Proximi to water su I intake
Nature and classification of the watershed WS-II etc
Nature and extent of existin v etation in buffer
Potential for im rovin water uali downstream
Located in a watershed with nutrient sensitive waters
Contains prime bottomland hardwood forests or identified natural areas (high
wei htin
Meets other land reservation oats
G. Ranking and Weighting Competing Resources
Invariably, as resource preservation opportunities arise,
consideration of potential acquisitions for differing .purposes will
arise. On occasion, this may require allocation decisions for funding
based. on the relative importance of the- resource in question.
While a matrix assigning a weighting scheme to .natural resources,
prime farmland and other acquisitions could be developed to assess
relative significance, such a formula would likely be unwieldy.
At any given point. in -time, all resource preservation opportunities
will not be equal. Funding and the environmental significance of
each .type of resource will change over time. However,
' opportunities that meet multiple goals may be a prime
consideration in evaluating. these choices. The following guidelines
might prove useful in the consideration of opportunities among
competing resource goals:
.Over time, the method in which competing resource objectives are
evaluated will likely need to be adjusted based on the Board's
adopted goals, community needs, and other factors.
26
Draft 10/8/99
PART ,2. 1 VI~IN~ CE1 VJEN7"~IND
FUNDING
V. Tools and Techniques
There are- a number of methods. available for the County to consider in
seeking to acquire or preserve important natural and cultural .resources
and parklands. The following :section offers a number of the most-likely
techniques, with a brief assessment of the potential use of the tool in the
County's program..
A. Fee-Simple Purchase
Certainly .the most straightforward and.: easily-understood method
of acquiring land resources is simple purchase of the land for fee-
simple considerations.
Fee-simple is the most common tool for acquisition, for avariety of
reasons. The approach is simple and is most easily understood by
both the seller. and buyer, as a standard real estate transaction.
'There are no questions about ownership of the land acquired,. and
importantly no questions over who has responsibility for monitoring
and stewardship concerns, which is a significant. issue (as
mentioned later in Section VI). Afee-simple purchase is-the most
certain type of acquisition, .without the spectre of perpetuity. issues
in the future.
However, the outright purchase of land does have drawbacks in a
. program of land 'acquisition. The -cost is usually higher for full
purchase, and. it requires a subdivision. of the property if the owner
is not conveying the entirety of-the property in question. In,some
cases, the buyer may not be interested in owning the property and
there may be interest in .keeping the land in -private ownership
(such as a working farm, for example).
In the Orange Lands Legacy program, fee-simple purchase would
likely be a primary tool for acquisition.. For very sensitive lands that
contain natural areas or .wildlife habitat, where -long-term
maintenance needs to be simple and straightforward, this tool may
be most appropriate. For .parkland, which is generally (but not
always) owned by the provider, purchase would be the primary.
tool. It also may be important to hold. title to historic and cultural
27
Draft 10/8/99
sites that are of landmarks important to the County's rural
character.
B. Donations and Charitable Gifts
In some cases, there may be substantial tax breaks (both now and
in the future) for the donation or "charitable gift of .land; If
approached with. a potential donation, the County may wish to
consider three issues:
An evaluation of the property to see what resources are present .
on the site and what liens or liabilities are present should be
conducted...
- Does he County wish to accept donations of land -that do not "
contain. identifiedpriority resources, to be-.held as open space.
If so, evaluation of ;this latter possibility should include. a: long-
• term assessment of the stewardship :and management needs of
.the property. ,
- Clear- understanding of the impact (or lack thereof) of the
donation on future development of other portions of the tract
should be .pursued. For example, will the donation count as
open space provided for a future development proposal on the
remaining portion of the property?
C. Conservation Easements
A conservation easement is a legal .agreement between a
landowner and a government entity or land trust that :intentionally
and permanently limits the use of all or part of the property for.
conservation purposes. This technique, rather than selling the land
itself, sells the °rights" that are owned along with the land.
When a landowner: ~ donates or sells a conservation easement,
he/she permanently gives up some. of those rights in exchange for
monetary considerations and/or tax breaks. For example, a farmer
might sell the right to build additional residences while retaining the
right to grow crops or operate a dairy. future owners are also
bound by the conservation .easement - if the land is sold after an
easement is agreed to, the new owner inherits the, easement. with
the land. The agreement can be written so as to meet both the
interests of land conservation by-the government or land -trust,. and
the financial and personal needs of the landowner.3
28
Draft 10/8/99
There are tax benefits to donating a conservation easement -both
at ..the Federal income tax level and in .state and Federal estate
taxes. Many large landowners have, in recent years, begun using
conservation easements as a way to keep their land in a desired
state for the long-term and ,meet estate planning financial needs.
Among .the benefits to conservation easements are.. the
aforementioned ability to meet financial needs ` of the .landowner
without actually transferring title to the land. This approach has
been used widely, particularly in the area of farmland preservation
to allow farmers to remain in agriculture while received some
return on the property. Conservation easements, since they area
less than fee-simple, are.: also .generally less expensive to the
purchasing: entity. Awareness of .this tool has increased dramatically
in recent .years, ,and the. tax benefits of easements are touted by
many financial planners.
On the -down side, the actual legal agreement. for a conservation
easement can be complex, as it attempts to meet many of the
.needs of both parties. Agreeing on a fair value for the easement-
and the terms of monitoring by the easement holder must also be
carefully developed.. And specifying the. responsibilities. clearly for
stewardship .monitoring and maintenance may avoid some of the
pitfalls that have occurred in other easement cases, after later land
transfers. In all, conservation easements offer many benefits. but
are not as clear as fee-simple purchases. Additional information on
conservation easements are provided in Appendix M.
D. Dedication/Acquisition Through the Development Process
A key area of potential land acquisition will be those through the..
development process. Currently, the County has a program. for the
dedication of land for recreation purposes, although the alternative
payment-in-lieu of dedication .program is more often. used. There
are also incentives in the voluntary Flexible Development program
to set aside land that contain significant natural and cultural
resources.
The Joint Master Recreation and Parks report has recommended
revamping -.the -payment-in-lieu .and recreation dedication
.provisions, and with changes to the Flexible Development
. ordinance underway it may be timely to develop a comprehensive
approach to acquisitions through the development process.
29
Draft 10/8/99
In addition to these provisions, the potential for. transfer of
development rights (TDR) and purchase of development .rights
(PDR) programs has .been discussed frequently over the past
decade. Because of the comp/exities in addressing
acquisitions of this nature, it is recommended that ERCD
and P/anning'staffs joint/y deve%p aPara//e/ program .for
acquisitions over .the next. three months (addressing TDR
and PDR possibi/ities) through-the deve%pment process -
for inc/union in the Lands Legacy program,
E. Life-Lease Agreements
A life-lease.. agreement may be structured as part of afee-simple.
transaction, .where the landowner sells their land, but retain via
deed/covenant the right. to remain on -the land for a specified
duration of time agreeable to both parties. This date can be fixed in
time, or can r•un -with the- lifetime of .the selling parties (hence the.
commonly-used name herein). This tool is often attractive to
longtime, elderly landowners that wish to spend the rest of their
lifetime on their land.
The provisions of sale must clearly define the terms of the Life-
- lease, and may address topics such as alterations/changes to
structures and use of the land, if desired. Problems inherent with
this type of arrangement, if any, often result from unclear
provisions of the type above.
F. Timber Rights and Other Easements
Easements are legal agreements between the buyer and seller, and
as such may be written to address a wide variety of topics. Other
types of easements can be developed as needed if the County
wishes to allow some development of a property containing an
easement. Other possible uses .may be addressed through an
easement.
In addition. to buying the rights to develop the property, the rights
to timbering the properly may also be purchased. This tool could
be used in cases where visual resources are of a critical nature, or
on pieces adjoining .important natural areas to preserve a forest
buffer. Timber rights can often be purchased for considerably less
cost- than fee-simple or easements that restrict development
potential.
30
Draft l0/8/99
VI. Funding Sources
Concurrent with any plan for the preservation of resources through land
acquisition- must be a program or plan. for providing financial resources to
accomplish.: -this goal. The combination of County` .funds, grants `and
cooperative ventures will provide a vehicle for the. County to fund
acquisitions.. on both a ,short-term and long-term basis. In addition, the
need for stewardship -and land .management must be factored into-the
costs of a lands legacy program. The following funding options represent
..different techniques. that could. be used. No recommendation is being
` made on the type of funding source to be selected.
A.- ` Orange County Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
...Orange County, like other local governments, has a 10-year
program of capital funding .outlay .known as a Capital Investment
Plan (or CIP). The- CIP is developed .annually concurrent with the
budget ,process, and is approved by the County Commissioners. It
is based on .the Board's Capital Funding Policy, earmarking
revenues to fund important- projects or initiatives. The most
:recently adopted CIP for Orange County is for the period 1999-
2009.
There are .several funds within the CIP that are (or could
conceivably be) designated for land acquisition along the. lines of
this program.
- County Park Bonds Fund
- School/Park Reserve Fund
- .Environmental Resource Conservation Fund
- New Hope .Creek Corridor- Fund
Additional information from the 1999-2009 CIP on these funds is
provided as Appendix N.
B. Other County Funding Sources
There are a number. of other possible County funding sources that
could be developed, if so desired. These funding sources could be
annual appropriations, or incorporated into the CIP.
31
Draft 10/8/99
- General obligation bonds may be submitted for the public's
.approval for a variety of purposes:. parks, natural resources,
cultural resources, or open-space preservation.
- General fund' appropriations could- be made on an annual
basis from the County's general fund, to augment or
supplement special. projects. This type of appropriation .would
be -more compatible. with short-term projects or to augment
long-term projects over cone-year timeframe.
- Sales tax revenues could be designated from the General
Fund.
- An impact fee could be instituted under the County's existing
special legislative authority for open space preservation.
C. New Funding Sources with Legislative Approval
Over the past several year, a major topic for local governments at
the state legislative level has been the .need for.new local funding
mechanisms to address. community needs, to avoid increased
reliance on the property tax.
These potential funding sources will likely continue to be discussed.
Of .particular note are three .types of funding that have been used
in other communities for a variety of community purposes,
including .land resource acquisition:
- A real estate transfer tax that is applied- on the sale of
property.- This method attempts to tie funding of programs. that
are related to growth to a revenue source that is .generated
from growth.
- A dedicated surcharge levied on the general tax :base. This is
the approach-that- was predominant in the 1998 referenda at
-local government and state level in 1998. One difference of note
is that in North Carolina, where local governments do-not have
'home rule," this would require authority from the N.C. General
Assembly.
- An impact tax could be pursued for parks or .open. space
purposes that would fund new parklands or open space from
the permits for new homes. This, like the real estate transfer
tax, could tie new parks needed because of increased
population growth to the new houses that create the need.
Unlike an impact fee, an impact tax could- be .developed with
distinctions within the types of housing units created.
32
Draft 10/8/99
D. Appropriations from .Other Local Governments and Public
Entities
This source may be more of a long-term proposition,. but it could be
a potential method if a joint acquisition mechanism is selected at
some point in the future. The possibilities for collaborative
acquisition- of parkNands, if .pursued, may facilitate efforts in -this
direction, .and -could prove a pilot project on ways to coordinate
funding.. from multiple public entities. Ways that this mechanism
could work might include:
Coordinated bond referenda. with the towns for agreed-upon..
land resource acquisitions. Again, the parks area could be a test
case of this method.
Synchronized Capital Investment expenditures. Also
discussed in the Master Recreation and Parks report, this idea
has been. broached as a .way to more efficiently acquire and
develop parks and recreation facilities. This method would have
the participating: towns and County work together to adopt CIP's
such. that funding for parks and recreation needs from all
sources are. available at the time needed.. This approach might
also be workable for other land acquisition needs, where there
are.-common goals and objectives among the jurisdictions.
Finally, this method could also be explored with OWASA, which
is planning along-term land acquisition strategy in the Cane
Creek watershed..
- Direct appropriations .from -other local general funds for
special cases ..that may arise (i.e., properties that have
significance across jurisdictional. boundaries).
- Collaborative acquisitions. with the University of North
Carolina or Duke University could be explored As previously
mentioned, both institutions are large landholders in the County
and contain many valuable resources.. This. approach could
.prove complex, however, and UNC's requirements for
.acquisition through the State may preclude this possibility.
E. Stewardship Endowments
The term stewardship relates to both long-term maintenance of the
site, and the cost of having it monitored by a knowledgeable
persona Research from the Land Trust Alliance indicates that
.stewardship and maintenance of properties can range as high as 8-
33
Draft 10/8/99
12% of the cost of the property purchase.4 As time goes by, the
County may wish to establish a fund that addresses stewardship
needs for properties acquired - or reflect this need in other funding
sources that are developed for acquisition.
The County's cost for stewardship-will likely be considerably lower
with the existence, of a Land Resource Conservation Manager on
staff -negating the substantial personnel cost of stewardship.
However, some stewardship funding will be needed for
maintenance of sites over he years. Many organizations involved in
resource preservation .have set up a stewardship endowment fund
to address the ongoing maintenance and. monitoring needs: This
could be amore-substantial issue in the long-term, as the County
property holdings increase and -.long-term .maintenance needs
I~kewise increase:.
F. Grants
A major portion of the funding stream .for land .acquisitions will
likely come from .grants by other entities. There are a number of
existing grants that are available for resource preservation
purposes, and current legislation at both the state and federal level
could greatly enhance the availability of funding to support
acquisition of important land resources..
The following is a list of the primary grant sources that exist at this
time, followed by a brief synopsis of the program and purpose:
1. C/ean Water Management Trust Fund
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund is -one. of the largest
grant funding sources in North Carolina. With $30 million in annual
appropriations, this -fund is designed specifically to address
acquisitions that protect and enhance water quality, acquire and
preserve riparian buffers or greenways along streams in water
supply watersheds,. repair failing waste treatment systems (in
certain cases), and otherwise protect unpolluted waters or restore
degraded waters.
Orange County has applied to the Trust Fund. for a grant to help
protect a portion of Duke Forest adjacent to the Corporation Lake
water supply. The Town. of Chapel Hill also received funds in 1998
to preserve an area in the New Hope Creek corridor.
34
Draft 10/8/99
2. Parks and Recreation. Trust Fund
The Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) is a dollar-for-dollar
matching grant program available for local governments and state
agencies for parks and recreation. projects. It is funded through a
portion of the real estate deed transfertax -revenue stamps
collected by counties for both the state and county.
As reported in the Master Recreation and Parksreport, through-
March 1999, Orange County (including the towns) deed ransfers
° have contributed $1,351,727 into the Parks and Recreation Trust
Fund. Of that amount,- $304,139 has gone to the local government
matching grants program. To date, the N.C. Recreation `and Parks
Authority fias allocated $31,500 back into Orange County, to the
Town of Hillsborough for the Occoneechee. Mountain Park. This is
the only local funding..received..
3. Natura/Heritage Trust Fund (through state agencies)
The Natural Heritage Trust Fund is also funded through a portion of
..the real estate -deed transfer tax. 'This fund, however, is available
only to state agencies as a funding source to acquire. and
protect the state's ecological diversity and cultural heritage,
and to inventory the natural. areas of the state...
Although only state agencies may request funding, there are
precedent- for state/local cooperation on areas of mutual interest. If
the County were to work collaboratively with a state .agency. (such
as Eno River State Park) on preservation of a natural area, this
could be a funding source to help with preservation.
4. N.C, Farm/and Preservation Trust Fund
A relatively new grant program, the FPTF has funding of $500,000
for the entire state at this time. This funding is administered. by the
Conservation- Trust .for. North Carolina, and.. is #argeted toward
transactional costs of agricultural conservation easements, or to
provide matching funds for -the purchase of development rights
(PDR) on farms. County governments, Soil and .Water Conservation
Districts, and Land Trusts are eligible to apply for funding5.
35
Draft 10/8/99
5. Programs administered through Natura/ Resource Conservation
Service and Soi/and Water District
There are a number of programs :.administered (usually on an
individual basis) through the US Department. of Agriculture, the
Natural .Resource Conservation Service and state affiliate,: the local.
Soil. and -Water Districts. These programs target preserving lands, in
different .fashions, for 10 to 50 -year periods. The Wildlife Habitat
.Incentive Program (WHIP) is used to enhance habitat for small
game via five to ten year contracts .that specify landowner
maintenance. responsibilities. The Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) is available to livestock or .agricultural producers
and landowners fora 5-10 year contract. EQIP.offers cost-sharing
and incentive payments for activities such. as streambank and
shoreline protection and stream. channel stabilization. among others.
The. Conservation.Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) offers 10-
15 year contracts to remove lands from agricultural production, and
plant hardwoods, or maintain filter strips, riparian buffers -and
wetland restoration to reduce excessive nutrient and sedimentation
loading due to agricultural.. runoff. Incentive rates are 70% for filter
strips and 100% for riparian buffers-and wetland restoration.
Other programs available .through the local Soil and Water offices
are shown in Appendix. 0.
6. The Federa/ Lands Legacy initiative, Better America Bonds, -and
EPA. grant programs
As mentioned in Section I, there are two .new proposals making
their way -through Congress that could open up billions of dollars to
locale governments for open space preservation. Both bills are
currently in House and Senate committees.
In addition to these programs, there are a number of other grants
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency that might be
available .for land acquisition, such as the Wetland. Protection
Program.
7. Other Programs -
In addition to EPA and the, new proposals in Congress, there -are a
variety of grant programs available at the Federal level. The N.C.
Department of Transportation also has programs which could be
36
. Draft 10/8/99
used to assist in land acquisition. While too .numerous- to list in
entirety. here, .examples of possible programs to assist in land
acquisition might. include:
- National Conservation Corps -
- American Battlefield Protection program
National Trails Program /State Trails Program
- NC Urban and Community Forestry Grants (limited)
- NC DOT Wetland and Stream Restoration
NC DOT Transportation. Enhancement Program (acquisition- of
scenic vistas or historic sites) -
G. Costs Associated with Land Acquisition -
What sort of costs are .involved in land acquisitions? While total
acquisition costs vary in both .amount and. type, the primary .costs
-that would require funding. resources are:
- Purchase cost of property/easement
- Stewardship cost (long-term)
- Appraisal of the property.
- Survey of the properly
Contract/closing costs for attorneys
In addition to these standard costs, in certain cases other types of
special assessments of property may be desirable.
37
Draft 10/8/99
VI. Options for Land Management
In any. program of expenditure. of public funds, the ultimate
authority rests: with the duly-elected representatives of the public.
Delegation of that authority,- unless under special agreements, can
undermine that authority.
As such,. any final decisions on the way that -land is acquired, used
and managed for the Orange- Lands- Legacy program should fall to
.the- Board of County: Commissioners. As is the case in other places
. around the country,. only a board elected by the people can
adequately and equitably weigh the priorities, community goals and
interests. in making an°acquisition decision.
Recognizing the Board. of Commissioners' role as .ultimate decision-
maker in land- acquisitions, however, there are several, paths that
the County could select. in the structure for acquiring and managing
lands. Some of the management structures may be more feasible
in the short-term, others, may be more practical in the long-term,
and some may prove not to be workable at all.
The following subsections illustrate three options for the Board's
consideration. in setting up a County land management structure,
followed by several variations of the theme in the way of
coordination, and issues related to land management:
A. Lands Legacy Program Through Existing County Statutory
Authority
Counties in North Carolina, as political subdivisions of the State,
have the statutory authority to acquire and hold lands, as set out in
the N.C. General Statutes (NCGS 153A-158):
A county may acquire, by gift, grant, devise, bequest
exchange, ..purchase, /ease, or any other /awfu/method, the
fee or any lesser interest in real or persona/ property.. for
use, by the county or-any department board, commission,
or agency of the county,
With this authority, .Orange County could enter into a program for
acquisition of critical land resources without any further provision.
38
Draft 10/8/99
In this fashion, a program such as outlined herein, after agreement
by the Board of Commissioners, could be instituted as desired. This
.would include the ability to hold land under fee-simple and
conservation easement arrangement,- as well as the other possible
tools mentioned in Section V.
The. benefits of this- approach are its simplicity and potential
immediate use. under existing statutory .authority. No legislative
approval would be needed in this case. A Lands Legacy. program
under these. auspices could- be adopted and in place as .quickly as
desired.. This approach could also-serve as a short-term structure
while other,. more-complicated means are explored.
One .potential area of concern with this structure might be adoption
of this .method without_a concurrent agreement on the use of the
:land acquired. Potential sellers may be interested ~ in .knowing the
County's .long-term disposition and planned use for the land. This
- may be addressed however, by a statement of use and intent when
the .property is purchased. This method also would .require
provisions for addressing any inter jurisdictional ventures.
-..
- Re wires nos ecial le islation or a royal
- Implement Lands Legacy program as defined herein (with
amendments by Board) through existing County structure, with
ERCD re ortin to Mana ement and Board
- Advanta e: Sim le and strai htForward land mana ement structure
- Advantage: Could be instituted quickly, and requires no outside
a royals
- Advantage: Could serve as short-term program while other, more
com lex arran ements ex lored
Concern:, Might need use and intent statement on land purchases to
assure sellers
B. Establishing a County Land Trust
As mentioned in the 1996 Preservation as a Function of Local
.Government report, the establishment of a County land trust is one
approach that has been taken by other jurisdictions around the
nation.
In this option (as used in places-like Davis, California, Anne Arundel
County, Maryland, and Boulder, Colorado), the County would file
papers to create a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation which could be
funded by appropriation from the County, or by a combination of
39
braft 10/8/99 '
sources (and grant. funds, where available). A Board of Directors
would be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners (or`at a
.future date, if of a intergovernmental nature, by a process spelled
out in an interlocal agreement):, which could include Commissioners
if desired. A working agreement would be needed to assign
responsibilities of the Board of Directors. In .most cases, this
involves. the ability to approve land acquisitions consistent with
criteria approved by -the funding entity. If this- were pursued,
staffing for the landtrust could be provided primarily by the ERCD
staff's Director, Land .Resources Manager and GIS support. Other
staff. assistance, as in parks and recreation, could be arranged as
needed.
There is one important difference in this option for counties in
- North- Carolina. Because this is not a "home rule" state, special
legislative authority. would likely. be needed. for the County to set up
and fund anon-profit corporation6. Questions-.also exist about the
ability to qualify the corporation as a non-profit with the-IRS, if
funding is coming only from Orange County.
One of the benefits of this approach is that there would likely be
few questions about the use of land being acquired by a land trust
- with the assumption that it would be preserved in perpetuity. A
County land trust could. also be expanded to be funded by multiple.
governments at some future date and could become countywide,
with representatives from the .municipal areas and acquisitions with
pooled funds.
The difficulties with a County land trust would lie in the complicated
nature of the arrangement, the questions about non-profit. status
-for a corporation created by a local government, the need for
special legislation, the need for a charter, membership and bylaws,
and potential communication issues with the funding source.
- -..
Coun creates non- rofit cor oration
- Board. of Directors appointed by .Board of .Commissioners (and
includin two commissioners??
- Staff throu h existin ERCD
- -Would re uire s ecial f islation from General Assembl
- Ma be roblems with non- rofit status if fundin onl from Coun
- Clear ac uisition intent for reservation
- Potential for ex ansion to inter overnmental nature if desired
- Com licated b laws and communication channels?
- fundin sources com licated?
40
Drafit 10/8/99
C.
Establishment. of an °Open -Space Authority"
Closely related to the idea of a County land trust is .the option of
creating an Open Space Authority to coordinate the preservation of
land. Such an entity would be a special independent authority
.under the N.C. General Statutes, as OWASA is.
This. approach would also require special legislation from the
General. Assembly to set up an Open Space Authority6. Bylaws, a
charter, operating guidelines, and method of appointing a ,Board of
Directors .would. be needed .for startup of an authority. In other
respects, the authority would function much as the local
government land trust. would. The Board of Directors could be
charged with evaluating, land acquisitions and approval: of the
purchase of land within. guidelines .from the elected boards
involved.
As with the local government land trust, benefits from the open
space authority approach might include clarity of purpose :for
.acquisitions (preservation), the inclusion of a variety of interests. on
a Board of Directors, and the fact that an authority of this nature
would serve as an intergovernmental mechanism.
The disadvantages. of .this type: of arrangement .would include
questions about the ability to achieve the needed special
legislation, concerns .over the complexity and role of the authority,
the need for consensus among the local governments on the role
and activities of the authority, and the ability to ensure that needs
and interests are communicated. adequately to the Board of
Directors. Funding sources may also be complicated.
- S ecial le islation needed to create authori OWASA
- Potential inter overnmental fundin a ointments and nature
- . Char a and mission a reed to b the creatin a ies
- Board of Directors a ointed b the arties involved
- Staff throu h existin ERCD with assistance as needed
- Advanta e: Clari of ac uisition ur ose
- Advanta e: Coordinated inter overnmental mechanism
- Disadvanta e: Abili to achieves ecial le islation
- Disadvanta e: Unwield and com lex nature of arran ement?
- Disadvantage: Requires clear consensus among funding parties to
conve char a and interests
- Disadvanta e: Fundin sources com licated?
41
-Draft 10/8/99
In addition to these three management structures, there are other
.approaches to managing /and acquisitions that involve coordination
with different parties
D. .joint Ventures With Existing. Land Trusts
As noted in the 1996 "Preservation as a Function of Local
Government" report, existing land trusts or associations such as the
Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC), the Eno River Association
and The Nature Conservancy have done- much to` preserve
several of the County's important natural areas, but these trusts on
their- own will not be able to protect all of the. most. important-
° resources present. in the County -due to financial limitations,
differing areas of .interest, and obligations in. other areas of the
Triangle,(and the nation, in The Nature Conservancy's case)'. It is
..this recognition that has led the County to develop a program of its
-own to .work on preserving the most significant. areas of County
interest,. while building a ,collaborative relationship with. existing
trusts for possible joint ventures.
In evaluating acquisition potential, there will likely be occasions
when projects of regional significance become possible -projects
that may offer benefits beyond the County boundaries and protect
lands..tfiat are important to the regional public interest.
While the County and the existing land trusts will certainly wish to
pursue their own plans and programs for preservation of areas
deemed important,- one method of coordinating the efforts of the
different groups might be the formation of an "Orange County
..Land Trust Alliance", based on the successful national
organization of the same name.-
- The basis for this -type of arrangement has already been laid.
through. a joint meeting of staff representatives of local
governments and TLC earlier this-year. In addition, during 1999 the
Environment and Resource Conservation staff has also been
involved in discussion of potential joint ventures with TLC staff, and
an informal agreement to share information and keep each other
informed to avoid duplication of effort has been successfully
instituted.
Despite the type of management structure selected by the Board,
the potential will continue to exist for cooperative efforts between
land trusts and the County in areas of mutual interest. After a
42
Draft 10/8/99
E.
County program is adopted, the potential for a County Land Trust
Alliance and agreements between the different parties may be
pursued to formalize to some degree the level of collaboration
already begun.. In addition to collaboration on acquisitions, another
area of .continued interest might be in joint resource- investigation.
TLC has recently completed the third of three reports funded by the
County on natural resources and wildlife habitat in the County.
With this history of collaboration on resource investigation, the
potential of continuing this arrangement (augmented by the input
of the new County Land Resources Manager) may be prudent.
Working with Other Organizations
In addition to the land trusts, there are other public organizations
within the. County-that may have related goals. that warrant further
....consideration.
For example, as noted in .the- program forming the Environment and
.Resource Conservation Department, the Orange Soil and Water
District has a number of programs and interests -particularly. of
an agricultural nature -that are. related to the County's potential
program. The District has the authority to hold easements, and has
stafF experienced in the- monitoring of agricultural operations.
Previous discussions have explored, to a limited degree, the
District's interest in .holding and monitoring. agricultural easements
obtained by a County farmland preservation program. No
agreement has been reached through these discussions, however.:.
As the priorities for a farmland preservation program are developed
through the upcoming "New Consensus for Farmland" effort,
further discussion of the Soil and Water bistrict role could occur. If
desired, the Board of Commissioners could develop an agreement.
with. the District for the holding and monitoring of agricultural
easements.
A econd area for potential involvement with an outside
organization could be with the Orange Water and Sewer
Authority. OWASA, as the County's second-largest landowner, is
preparing to acquire an additional 1,200 acres in Cane Creek
watershed for watershed protection purposes. While there have
been no discussions with OWASA (beyond general questions on the
potential for parks on OWASA lands) to date, there may be
occasions where OWASA's interests in watershed protection may
coincide with the County's interests in preservation of critical
43
Draft 10/8/99
resource lands. The-Board may wish to ask staff to explore the
potential for acquisitions of mutual interest and/or property swaps
in the watershed, as well as previous proposals to locate parkland
on OWASA-owned land.
F. Inter jurisdictional Efforts and Other Partnerships
A final area for potential joint venture is with other local -
governments and/or the private sector.
The potential for joint local government acquisition .of critical
resources- has already been broached through the Joint Master
° Recreation and Parks Plan, a request from the Town of Carrboro,
and the recent proposal. from Durham County fora: joint park along
the County line.
The concept of land-banking for potential park sites. is one of the
primary themes of the new Master Recreation- and Parks report.
Joint capital funding and coordinated land acquisition is
recommended by the work group, and this issue is currently under
consideration by the local elected boards. Beyond the issue of joint.
park acquisition, there may be lands of mutually-important natural,
cultural and visual resource significance that could be a
collaborative venture.
Durham County has identified the Little River watershed as an area
of focus for preservation, because of its watershed protection
importance and the presence of important natural areas in the
corridor. The watershed extends into much of northern Orange
County, and Durham staff has indicated an interest in exploring the
development of a long-term coordinated plan in this area. Other-
watersheds are shared with adjoining jurisdictions, such as
University Lake watershed, which extends south into Chatham
.County.
Finally, the potential may exist for public-private partnerships on
acquisitions and eventual facilities development. Further research in
this area, if desired, would be needed.
Fina//y, -there are two issues re/ated to any program or structure for /and
acquisition, These issues deal more with how /and management occurs
after purchase. A ful/ po/icy on the issues ofstewardship and use/access
. will likely be needed as the Lands Legacy program moves forward.
44
Draft 10/8/99
G. Stewardship -and Post-Acquisition Structure
Once lands are acquired, there are a number of responsibilities that
begin for the County as the owner (or, to a different degree, as the
holder of an easement):.
- .What are the. maintenance needs for, the property? Will any
prescribed. burns be needed? Are there diseased trees that will
require removal?
- Are there any liability concerns beyond those noted in the
purchase evaluation?
- How frequently will the property need to be monitored?
- Will adjacent land uses affect the status of the property?
- If an easement, is the owner.- well-informed of his/her
responsibilities on maintaining the property?
These and other questions will require careful attention to
monitoring and maintenance of the. property. Many of these issues
can be identified by the Land Resource Manager and addressed by
the County, with the assistance. of stafF such as the County
Engineer and Public Works Director.
One possible recommendation to make in this area is to require a
thorough assessment of the likely stewardship issues as a part of
the purchase site evaluation, and instruct the Land Resources
Manager to prepare an assessment of these needs. and the
property status on an annual basis.
H. Use and Access to County-Owned Lands
In addition to maintenance, the .issues of use :and access to
:County-owned lands will be of key importance. This issue will-apply
primarily. to lands the County holds in fee-simple, as most
conservation. easements will include language limiting the access to
the property. to .the.. County's stewardship and monitoring
responsibilities.
The. use of the property, in order to be as clear with the seller as
possible, would be best addressed at the time of purchase, with the
understanding that, as :other .needs arise, flexibility to consider.
different uses on the property may be needed.
Access issues should also be .addressed at the time of purchase,
and .may vary depending on the rationale for purchase. If the
45
Draft 10/8/99
property is acquired for recreation purposes, access would likely be
a prime consideration and should be thoroughly addressed. Some
acquisitions for natural areas and wildlife. habitat, however, might
be adversely affected by public access and would require a more
limited control of access.
To address these . issues, a "Use and Access" policy would be
proposed as part of the eventual recommendations section of this
report..
46
Draft 10/8/99
P~Rr.~.
11VlPLL"1VIENT~iTION RE'C01~I1~IL~"NDA?"IONS
VI. Recommended Implementation Program
(This section to be deve%ped after receiving initial
direction .and guidance from Board of Commissioners
and fo/%w-up thoughts from . advisory boards)
A. Method of Land Management Structure
B. Funding Plain and Stewardship Program
C. Procedure for Pursuing Acquisitions and Annual Action Plan
for Lands Legacy Program
D. Role of Colunty Advisory Boards in the Program
E. Use -and Access Policy for County-Owned Lands
fnd Notes
1-from "Voters Invest in Parks and Open Space, 1998 Referenda Results," Land Trust Alliance, 1949
2 -from Preserving our Farms report, 1994, Orange County Planning Department
3 -paraphrased from Land Trust Alliance brochure, "Protecting Your Land with a Conservation Easement"
4 -from Land Trust Nliance
5 - from Conservation Trust for North Carolina home page 1MVVW metalab.UnC.edU/CtnC
6 - Conversation with wlliam Campbell, Institute of Government, 7/22/99
7 - "Preservation as a Function of Local Government," Orange County Planning Dept., 1996, pp.410 - 4-11
47
braft 10/8/99 ~
Appendices
A. Formation of ERCD Department, 12-1-98
B. Summary of Federal .Lands Legacy and Better America Bonds Programs
C. Map of Natural .Areas and Wildlife Habitat (1988 inventory)
D. Excerpts on the LESA Program for Evaluating .Prime Farmland
E. Map of Water Supply Watersheds
F. Map of Prime Forests in Orange County (1996 TLC report).
G. Rating Land By Its .Wildlife Value: A Landscape With- Wildlife, Part 2 (1999
TLC report)
H. Executive Summary,. Joint Master Recreation and Parks Report
I. Natural Heritage Program Sites
J. Full ERCD. GIS'Inventory, July 1999 -
K. Map of Orange County Preservation Plan. (Historic/Cultural)
L. Schools and Land Use Council Memorandum of Agreement
M: "Protecting: Your Land with a Conservation Easement"
N. Excerpts from Orange County 1999-2009 CIP
O. Soil and Water Conservation Programs
48