EPA/600/R-09/142F | September 2011 | www.epa.gov
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
An Assessment of Decision-Making Proces
Evaluation of Where Land Protection Planning can
Incorporate Climate Change Information
-------
EPA/600/R-09/142F
September 2011
An Assessment of Decision-Making Processes:
Evaluation of Where Land Protection Planning can
Incorporate Climate Change Information
Global Change Research Program
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency policy and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ABSTRACT
Land protection decisions are long-term, hard to reverse, and resource intensive.
Therefore these decisions are important to consider in the context of climate change, because
climate change may directly affect the services intended for protection and because parcel
selection can exacerbate or ameliorate certain impacts. This research examined the decision-
making processes of selected programs that protect land to assess the feasibility of incorporating
climate change information into the evaluation of land protection programs. The research
focused on a sample of programs that seek to protect wildlife and watersheds from the LandVote
database, which documents land protection ballot initiatives. Of this sample, we reviewed the
decision-making frameworks of 19 programs. Most programs use quantitative evaluation criteria
and a bottom-up process for selecting parcels. Almost all programs have one or more advisory
committees. The analysis revealed that strategies that might be useful for incorporating climate
change into decision making include new decision-support tools for advisory committees,
promulgation of different land protection models, and educational outreach for elected officials.
As jurisdictions learn more about possible climate change impacts, certain land protection
strategies may become more desirable and feasible as part of a portfolio of adaptation strategies
that ameliorate impacts on watersheds and wildlife.
Preferred Citation:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2011) An assessment of decision-making processes: evaluation of
where land protection planning can incorporate climate change information. Global Change Research Program,
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-09/142F. Available from the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, and online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vi
PREFACE vii
AUTHORS AND REVIEWERS viii
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 5
3. ANALYSIS APPROACH 7
4. ANALYSIS FINDINGS 12
4.1. PROGRAM GOALS 13
4.2. PRIORITIZATION AND ANALYSIS 15
4.3. IMPLEMENTATION 24
5. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 29
5.1. LIMITATIONS AND NEXT STEPS 32
5.2. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON LAND USE PLANNING AND ADAPTATION 32
6. REFERENCES 34
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY ABSTRACTS A-l
1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program* A-2
1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act A-3
2000FL-01 Safe Parks and Land Preservation Bond Program A-4
2000FL-02 Volusia Forever* A-6
2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever* A-8
2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program* A-9
2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program* A-10
2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program A-11
2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program A-12
2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection* A-13
2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup Measure A-14
2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program A-15
2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure A-16
2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater Management* ..
A-17
2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission A-18
2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space* A-19
2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space* A-20
2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program A-21
2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program* A-22
iii
-------
APPENDIX B: WRITE-UPS OF TIER 4 PROGRAMS B-l
1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program* B-2
1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act B-8
2000FL-01 Safe Parks & Land Preservation Bond Program B-15
2000FL-02 Volusia Forever* B-19
2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever* B-24
2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program* B-30
2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program* B-39
2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program B-48
2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program B-55
2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection* B-61
2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup Measure B-67
2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program B-72
2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure B-77
2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater Management* ..
B-83
2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission B-89
2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space* B-99
2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space* B-104
2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program B-109
2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program* B-l 15
APPENDIX C: WRITE UPS OF TIER 3 PROGRMS C-l
1996CA-01 Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act C-3
1996CA-02 Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree-Planting, Senior and Youth
Recreation, Beaches and Wildlife Protection C-7
1996CA-03 Open Space, Recreational Playfields, and Creek Restoration Assessment District.
C-10
1996CT-02 Farmington Reservoir C-12
1996FL-01 Safe Neighborhood Parks Act C-14
1996MA-01-15 Cape Cod Open Space Land Acquisition Program C-17
1996OH-01 Bath Nature Preserve Program C-20
1999CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program C-22
2000CA-01 Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water, and Coastal Protection Act C-25
2000CA-02 Safe Drinking Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Control Bond C-27
2000FL-03 Blueprint 2000 & Beyond Program C-29
2000FL-05 Seminole County Trails and Greenways C-32
2000IL-01 Lake County Forest Preserve District C-34
2000ME-01 Freeport Conservation Commission C-37
2000NJ-01 Open Space Trust Fund C-40
2000OH-01 Clean Ohio Green Space Conservation Program C-43
2000RI-01 Open Space and Recreation and Clean Water Bonds C-46
2004AZ-02 McMillan Mesa Open Space Land Acquisition C-48
2004AZ-03 Regional Open Space - Observatory Mesa Land Acquisition C-51
2004AZ-04 Neighborhood Open Space and Flagstaff Urban Trail System (FUTS) C-53
iv
-------
2004CO-02 Tax for Open Space C-55
2004CT-01 Purchase of the Southington Drive-In C-57
2004FL-02 Pasco County Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management Program.. C-59
2004FL-03 Waterfront Access and Waterfront Preservation Bonds C-62
2004MA-01 Program to Purchase Hillcrest Country Club C-65
2004MI-03 Recreational Authority of Traverse City and Garfield Township C-67
2004MO-01Rolla, Missouri - Stormwater and Park Land Program C-70
2004NJ-02 Open Space Trust Fund C-72
2004NY-03 Webster Open Space C-75
2004PA-01 Nockamixon Township Open Space Program C-78
2004RI-01 Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection Bond C-80
2004UT-01 Corner Canyon Program C-82
2004WA-01 Parks and Recreational Sidewalks Utility Tax Fund C-84
2004WA-02 Acquisition of Gig Harbor Waterfront Open Space and Land to Restore Eddon
Boatyard C-86
APPENDIX D: REGIONAL MAPS D-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
ES-1. Program evaluation criteria 2
1. Division of 19 programs by process and selection criteria 13
2. Criteria used in 19 land protection programs 18
3. Data sources cited (local, state, and federal) 22
4. Data sources cited (GIS data) 23
LIST OF FIGURES
1. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals 10
2. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Funding levels and explicit evaluation criteria 11
B-l. Washtenaw County Natural Areas Preservation Program property review process B-31
D-l. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals (Northeast) D-2
D-2. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals (Southeast) D-3
D-3. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals (Central) D-4
D-4. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals (West) D-5
D-5. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Funding levels and explicit evaluation criteria
(Northeast) D-6
D-6. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Funding levels and explicit evaluation criteria
(Southeast) D-7
D-7. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Funding levels and explicit evaluation criteria
(Central) D-8
D-8. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Funding levels and explicit evaluation criteria
(West) D-9
VI
-------
PREFACE
ICF International and the Global Change Research Program (GCRP) in the National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) of the Office of Research and Development at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) prepared this report. The project focused on the decision-
making processes of programs across the United States that conserve land with the goals of water quality
protection and wildlife preservation. Since climate change impacts may directly affect these conservation
goals, institutions will need to incorporate climate change information into their decision-making
processes. The approach taken in this project is similar to several other assessments and modeling efforts.
For example, the NCEA's GCRP also examined decision-making processes in the Chesapeake Bay. In
another project, the GCRP reviewed aquatic invasive species management plans to assess the capacity of
states to address climate change effects through these plans. The study summarized in this report analyzes
the land protection decision-making process to determine possible areas where climate change
information could be applicable. The study served as a proof-of-concept for the two aforementioned
projects. This study also provides detailed information on the criteria, goals and analyses, and
implementation processes that the sampled land protection programs use to make acquisition decisions.
vn
-------
AUTHORS AND REVIEWERS
The Global Change Research Program, within the National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Office of Research and Development, is responsible for publishing this report. ICF
International prepared this document under Contract No. GS-10F-0234J, U.S. EPA Order No.
076. Dr. Chris Pyke served as the Technical Project Officer who conceived of the project. Dr.
Britta Bierwagen contributed in the review and editing of the document. The review of land
protection programs was completed in December 2005 and updated in July 2009.
AUTHORS
ICF International, Washington, DC
Anne Choate, Susan Asam, Liisa Ecola1, Toby Krasney, Philip Groth
U.S. EPA
Chris Pyke2, Britta Bierwagen
REVIEWERS
U.S. EPA
Stephanie Bertaina (Office of Policy), Laura Gabanski (Office of Water), Kathy Hernandez
(Region 8)
External
Peter M. Groffman, Gary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY
Timothy O. Randhir, Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
Susanna T. Y. Tong, Geography Department, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the staff of numerous city, county, and state programs who
reviewed our summaries of their programs to ensure accuracy. Review comments from many
individuals greatly improved this document.
1 Present affiliation: RAND Corporation, Washington, DC
2 Present affiliation: U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, DC
viii
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Interactions between climate and land-use changes have the ability to amplify or dampen
climate change impacts. For example, research has shown that strategic land management,
including land protection, can ameliorate some climate change impacts. Given the rapid rate of
land development, understanding the process of land protection becomes more urgent,
particularly if this strategy becomes part of a portfolio of climate adaptation options. Such
recommendations are becoming more prevalent (e.g., Maryland's Climate Action Plan;
Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2008), especially as states and municipalities draft
plans to address climate change.
This report evaluates the current state of land trust prioritization and acquisition practices
in order to identify areas where local, county, and state programs could incorporate climate
change considerations into decision-making processes. To that end, this study reviewed how
local, county, and state governments make decisions regarding which parcels of land to protect
by analyzing three main aspects of land protection programs: (1) program goals, (2) prioritization
and analysis, and (3) implementation.
This research focused on a selected sample of the LandVote database maintained by the
Trust for Public Land. This database collects information on all ballot measures (both advisory
and funded measures) in the United States pertaining to land preservation. We reviewed all ballot
measures that were passed in 1996, 2000, and 2004. Next, we reviewed the successful measures
based on their stated goals in the LandVote database. We retained programs focusing on wildlife
and watershed protection; these programs, as compared to those citing recreation and open space
as goals, seemed more likely to have a systemized decision-making process and be concerned
with broader environmental impacts. Of the 75 programs focusing on wildlife and watershed
protection, we conducted literature searches and online research into 53 (several were eliminated
due to duplication, lack of information, or other reasons). Of those, 19 programs had definite
evaluation criteria and a quantitative or qualitative method for applying them. Summaries of all
53 programs are available in Appendices B and C. In the case of the 19 programs with definitive
evaluation criteria, we engaged program staff as reviewers of our program summaries to ensure
that we were properly characterizing their respective decision-making frameworks.l
We classified the 19 programs along two broad criteria: (1) whether they had quantitative
or qualitative methods for applying evaluation criteria; and (2) whether land was selected for
lrThe 19 programs were contacted again in 2009 and 10 programs responded. Based on these responses, the selection
frameworks have evolved somewhat in recent years, though primarily remain similar to what is discussed here. The
summaries of these programs in Appendix B have been updated, but the changes do not affect this discussion.
1
-------
Table ES-1.
Program evaluation
criteria
Top-down
Hybrid
Bottom-up
Qualitative
0
1
5
Quantitative
2
5
6
preservation by a top-down (identified by program staff
based on an objective standard), bottom-up (nominated
by landowners or public or private agencies), or hybrid
(combining aspects of top-down and bottom-up)
process. Table ES-1 shows the breakdown of how many
programs fell into each category. Eleven programs are
bottom-up, while only two are top-down; the remaining
six are hybrids.
Regarding program goals, we found that they ranged from very specific (e.g., preserve
land around a particular aquifer) to broad (e.g., preserve land for wildlife, wetlands, ecological,
recreational, and open space needs). The two top-down programs had narrow goals, while the
bottom-up programs were generally broader in nature. In 2005, only one program had considered
climate change among their goals, and no additional programs indicated in the 2009 update that
they have added climate change adaptation as a goal. Many programs were initiated because of
the threat of development.
In terms of prioritization, the most common arrangement (eight programs) was bottom-
up, in which individual landowners or other entities (such as local governments and non-profit
organizations) requested the consideration of specific parcels for preservation. The other three
bottom-up programs were conventional grant programs, in which the jurisdiction gave money to
another entity on a competitive basis. There were two types of hybrid programs: three with
separate funding tracks for bottom-up and top-down selection processes and three that accepted
nominations for parcels on a priority list. The two top-down programs selected and prioritized
parcels through scientific study of environmental characteristics.
Because they were selected based on wildlife and watershed protection, all of the
programs included those two aspects among their evaluation criteria. The other most common
criteria used were contiguity to other open space, management issues (such as maintenance and
schedule), financial issues (cost and matching funds), recreation, and threat of loss. Most
programs contain both objective (e.g., contiguity, presence of endangered species) as well as
subjective (aesthetic value) criteria.
There were more programs using quantitative than qualitative criteria. The qualitative
programs rely on expert judgment to apply the criteria, while the quantitative programs use some
type of numeric system. The range of these systems included weighting and point systems
subjectively assigned, systems with points assigned to measurable indicators, and GIS systems
that tied a variety of data together to create a ranking. Some jurisdictions were moving from
qualitative to quantitative on the basis that their decisions would be more defensible and
-------
successful if quantified, and others were moving in the opposite direction on the basis that
experts should have free rein and that a point system is too confining.
Most programs incorporated a fair amount of locally generated data to assist with
decision making, such as local open space plans, aerial photos, maps, and development
projections. Six programs used some type of state data as well, including data on groundwater
and endangered species. Five programs incorporated some federal data, such as U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) maps and Census projections. Finally, 11 programs used geographic information
systems (GIS) analysis, although the source and type of the data layers was not always clear.
In terms of program implementation, 11 of 19 programs were county-run, a higher
proportion than in the earlier sample of all programs with watershed and wildlife criteria. Almost
all of the programs had one or more advisory committees composed in part or in total of citizens,
many of whom had particular experience in land use or environmental fields. The role of the
advisory committee was to make recommendations on specific land parcels to the decision-
making authority, which in most cases is the legislative body of the jurisdiction (the city council
or county commissioners). In some cases, the legislative body usually accepted the
recommendations; in other cases, political or financial concerns prompted denials of
recommended parcels.
The land protection programs included a variety of partnership types, land purchasing
policies, and other program implementation decisions. For example, programs had different
partnership types, ranging from informal, ad hoc collaborations to acquire specific parcels to
formal relationships, particularly with land trusts. There were also differing opinions on the
value of purchasing land outright as opposed to purchasing development rights, with some
programs favoring the latter to avoid the burden of public landownership. Financial issues were a
major concern to some programs, especially to programs in areas of high land prices with
restrictions on spending more than the appraised value. Additionally, only a few programs had
provisions for funding of maintenance once the land has been acquired.
This review demonstrates that while the land protection programs sampled in this paper
did not make acquisition decisions based on climate change considerations directly, many of the
criteria and processes reviewed are sensitive to climate change impacts. Incorporating adaptive
strategies into existing decision-making processes would not involve changing existing criteria
so much as incorporating climate change information into the evaluation of existing criteria.
Mechanisms for incorporating such information include: (1) developing decision-support tools
for advisory committees; (2) providing a variety of methods to preserve lands; (3) educating
elected officials who approve land protection decisions about the climate change benefits; (4)
engaging in strategic parcel selection; (5) coordinating with land-use planning processes; and (6)
-------
developing tools for evaluating and prioritizing land parcels for protection. Incorporating climate
change information in these decision-making processes can assist with maintaining land
protection goals over time, such as wildlife, habitat and high water quality, as well as contribute
to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
Interactions between climate and land use have the potential to exacerbate or ameliorate
environmental impacts (Pyke, 2004). Therefore, land protection programs should be considered
as part of the solution in developing adaptive strategies (Pyke and Andelman, 2007; Hannah,
2008). Today, land protection programs make decisions without considering future climate
change, though decisions are often responding to program goals that play a role in adaptation,
such as habitat preservation, wetlands protection, and water quality. As states and municipalities
engage in planning their responses to climate change, they are identifying land protection as an
adaptive strategy (Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2008).
The land protection process is important to understand because land development has
been increasing at an average of 1.7 million acres per year and an estimated 6.8 million acres
have been developed since 2005\ The U.S. population is expected to increase to between
approximately 380 million to over 420 million by 2050 depending on the scenario (U.S. EPA,
2009), during which time demand for open space and other protected areas is likely to increase
(Kline, 2006).
Realizing the value of land protection for adaptation requires a realistic assessment of
existing practices, particularly decision-making processes. Understanding the decision-making
process is an important component to the success of protected areas, particularly those areas
increasingly embedded in human-dominated landscapes (Heller and Zavaleta, 2009; Steelman
and Hess, 2009). The potential use of land protection as an adaptation strategy is limited if the
decision-making process does not facilitate this use (Climate Change Science Program [CCSP],
2008).
Land protection decisions, like many other decisions made by voters and local, county,
and state officials, are particularly important in the context of climate change and projected
climate change impacts. From an operational standpoint, land protection decisions are long-term,
hard to reverse, and resource-intensive. Decisions meeting these criteria are more sensitive to
climate change than others and are therefore good candidates for decision support and climate
change information (Sussman and Freed, 2008). For these reasons, it is important that protected
lands are chosen in light of projected climate change impacts so that these long-term, irreversible
investments meet their intended goals and continue to serve their communities. From an
environmental standpoint, land-use decisions are integrally connected to climate and changes in
:Rate of 1.7 million acres per year is based on development between 1982 and 2003 from "National Resources
Inventory: 2003 Annual NRI." United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
February 2007.
-------
climate will have significant impacts on the lands that are protected and the services those
protected lands provide. To the extent that parcel selection can be done in a way that ameliorates
climate change impacts, rather than exacerbates them, the benefits of protecting these lands will
go far beyond many of their imminent objectives.
Protected lands can be used strategically to ameliorate climate change effects through a
variety of management approaches (Pyke and Andelman, 2007). Under some proposed carbon
credit trading scheme, such protected lands even have the potential to generate revenue for
landowners and state and local governments, though this report does not specifically address this
topic1. Rather, this study emphasizes decisions that are likely to identify land parcels that can
lessen the effects of climate change impacts in a given area with respect to water quality and
other environmental features.
This study reviews decision-making processes for a sample of land protection programs
in the United States. The purpose of this study is to evaluate land acquisition and prioritization
decision-making in order to find areas where decisions are sensitive to climate change impacts.
This review describes existing selection processes and considers how climate change information
may be incorporated in order to ensure that land protection goals are met in the future. Section 5
suggests possible adaptive tactics that land protection programs could pursue, such as effective
dissemination of climate change information to key partners and policy-makers. Perceptions of
climate change among decision-makers vary, but research suggests that decision-makers and
stakeholders feel that climate change information is inconsistent and not locally specific enough
to be useful (Vedlitz et al., 2007). Lack of awareness and education surrounding climate change
impacts is a barrier to adaptive land protection programs.
The review was completed and described in a draft report in 2005. Nearly 6 years later,
the findings remain relevant and timely.
1 The Land Trust Alliance has a more in-depth discussion on the role of land protection in addressing climate
change: http://www.landtrustalliance.org/about-us/emerging-issues/climate-change.
-------
3. ANALYSIS APPROACH
The scope of land protection efforts in the United States is expanding rapidly with dozens
of new programs initiated each year. The sheer number of programs makes a complete survey
impossible and motivated the development of a stratified sampling approach to compile
information about different types of programs.
This study uses a four-step framework, described below.
Step 1: Define the Universe of Land Protection Programs. We began by defining the
universe of land protection programs for this analysis to include those programs recorded in the
Trust for Public Land's LandVote database1. LandVote collects information on all local, county,
special district, and state elections in which voters choose whether to pass measures (advisory or
including funding) that are related to land preservation. LandVote covers a period of nine
years1994 to 2005.
To provide a stratified random sample of programs from the 1,632 measures in the
LandVote database, we selected three years of interest: 1996, 2000, and 2004. These coincided
with presidential election years and presumably higher voter turnout; also, each of these years
had substantially more measures up for vote than the previous year (in 1996 and 2000 there were
more than double the number from the previous year). Within each of these years, we selected
only those programs approved by voters for further consideration. Of the initial list of 1,632
measures, voters approved 406 measures.
Step 2: Screen Programs to Reflect Stated Goals. We evaluated the 406 land
protection programs identified above based on the publicly stated goals as reported by LandVote.
We assigned each program a score to reflect the relevance of land protection goals to the specific
interests of the U.S. EPA's Global Change Research Program (GCRP), namely water quality and
wildlife protection. We determined scores based on the number of times each of the criteria listed
in Table 2 were mentioned. At this stage, we selected only those programs claiming to protect
water or watershed resources (e.g., water quantity or quality) or biodiversity (e.g., wildlife or
habitat). This excluded programs whose main goal was preserving more broadly defined open
space (for recreation or scenic value) and resulted in a list of 75 programs for further research.
Although open space can contribute to carbon sequestration, thereby mitigating climate change,
the focus of this study was on climate change adaptation, not mitigation. Programs focusing on
water quality and biodiversity protection are more likely to serve as adaptive measures in
1 Trust for Public Land, LandVote database available at: www.landvote.org
-------
addressing the stressors of climate change. We used a naming convention for program
summaries consisting of year passed, state abbreviation, and program identification number to
assign a unique name to each program. For example, 2000FL-01 signifies a program that passed
in Florida in 2000; if a second program from Florida in 2000 was evaluated, it would be 2000FL-
02.
Step 3: Evaluate Programs Aimed at Protecting Water Quality and/or Wildlife. For
each of the 75 programs citing water quality and/or wildlife protection as primary goals, we
conducted preliminary analyses using published sources (generally literature searches for articles
and online research) on program goals, parcel selection, prioritization criteria, decision making,
mapping, and program outcomes. During this research, we placed a particular emphasis on
identifying the criteria used to guide parcel selection. This effort resulted in 53 write-ups,1 34 of
which are included in Appendix C.
Of the 53 programs included in this research, 20 programs mentioned explicit evaluation
criteria; 10 described quantitative means of applying criteria while the other 10 used cited
qualitative means. We used these 20 programs in the next step of the framework.
Step 4: Screen Water and Wildlife Programs to Reflect Selection Criteria. For these
20 programs, we conducted a more detailed assessment to understand the evaluation criteria used
to select parcels, the appointment of selection committee members, and the information used to
implement the evaluation criteria more thoroughly. To accomplish this, we identified specific
data gaps for various programs and discussed these data gaps with program managers.
This process yielded a set of 19 case studies with relatively in-depth information for a
well-specified subset of programs (of these, two programs were essentially the same program
authorized in different years and therefore combined into one write-up.) Appendix A has short
one-page summaries of each of the 19 programs, while Appendix B consists of the in-depth
write-ups. The 19 programs are the basis of the findings discussed in Section 4.
Figures 1 and 2 depict the geographic distribution of the 406 programs identified in Step
2. Figure 1 shows the distribution of programs as well as the program focuswetlands, wildlife,
both, or neither. Figure 1 also shows that many of the programs focus on open space, but not
explicitly on wetlands or wildlife; these programs were eliminated from further analysis. The
final subset of programs from Step 4 is indicated in the Figures 1 and 2 with a black box around
the symbol. Figure 2 shows the same programs but stratified by funding level, with darker
1 Of the 75, 15 were local programs that constituted one regional program, and were thus written up as one program.
Six programs were excluded because the land was used for existing programs, not new preservation, and three
programs could not be researched further due to lack of information. One program was added because it helped
explain a later program; these two were later combined into one write-up in Step 4.
-------
shading indicating higher funding levels. Regional maps with these same indicators are available
in Appendix D. The screening process considered programs from throughout the country, though
the narrowed list of programs may be biased toward the east coast and lake states. However, we
believe that this represents a good sample of programs throughout the nation, since those
programs analyzed represent both rural and urban areas and counties in all regions of the
country.
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals
* State Programs
Local Programs (City, County, Special Area)
_ Wetland and/or Wildlife Programs
with Explicit Evaluation Criteria
1H Watershed & Wildlife
§ Watershed
Wildlife
Other
Figure 1. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals.
10
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria
* Sate Programs
Local Programs (City, County, Special Area)
Wetland and/or Wildlife Programs
with Explicit Evaluation Criteria
SO - 2.000.000
^H $2.000.001 - 10,000.000
^H $10,000.001 - 1,200.000.000
Note Programs rn Land Vote without conservation funding
estimates are not shown on this map.
Figure 2. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Funding levels and explicit evaluation criteria.
11
-------
4. ANALYSIS FINDINGS
The analysis findings are organized around the three fundamental parts of the land
protection decision-making process. These address why programs are protecting land, how they
are selecting specific parcels, and how they implement their selection. Specifically, we examined
the following questions:
Program Goals
What is the range of program goals?
What prompted the creation of the program?
Prioritization and Analysis
How are land parcels selected?
What criteria are used?
How are criteria applied?
Where do the data come from?
Implementation
Who implements the program?
Who conducts the analysis?
Who is the ultimate decision maker?
How does it partner with other governmental agencies or institutions?
What problems have the programs encountered?
Where do program staff obtain information?
Under each theme, the emphasis is on the range of experiences across the 19 programs in
our sample, as well as any patterns noted within program types, location, size, and level of
government. General patterns are discussed, with specific examples highlighted and exceptions
noted.
To think about broad patterns within the 19 programs, we classified them according to
two criteria, which captured the processes of all of the sampled programs: (1) Is the decision-
making process top-down, bottom-up, or hybrid? Top-down refers to programs where specific
parcels of land were selected specifically for preservation, while bottom-up indicted that parcels
were suggested for preservation by landowners, public agencies, or non-profit groups and then
evaluated under the program. Hybrid programs combine elements from top-down and bottom-up;
and (2) Are decision criteria qualitative or quantitative? This refers to how the criteria are
applied. If programs applied criteria objectively using some type of point system or weighting,
we considered the program quantitative, whereas if programs applied criteria more subjectively,
12
-------
the program was considered qualitative. Note that a program could apply a general set of criteria
either way; the distinction lied in the way they were applied, not the criteria themselves.
Table 1 shows how the programs break down along these two dimensions qualitative or
quantitative.
Table 1. Division of 19 programs by process and selection criteria
Top-down
Hybrid
Bottom-up
Qualitative
Quantitative
None
2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert (Pima
County)
2000FL-01 Broward County
2000FL-02 Volusia Forever (County)
2000MI-01 Washtenaw County
2004CO-01 Adams County
2004NY-01 Nassau Countv
2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer (San Antonio)
2004KS-01 Rain to Recreation (Lenexa)
1996NY-01 Clean Water/Clean Air (NY State)
2000MI-02 Meridian City
2004CA-02 Los Angeles Clean Water
2004NC-01 Wake County
2004NC-02 Guilford Countv
1996CT-01 Town of South Windsor
2000FL-04 Alachua County
2004FL-01 Osceola County
2000WI-01 Sheboygan County
2004MI-01 Scio Township
2004NY-02 Orange County
4.1. PROGRAM GOALS
We selected these 19 programs for further analysis because of their stated commitments
to watershed and wildlife protection. In addition to watershed and wildlife protection, commonly
mentioned goals included protection of open space for public recreational use, scenic value,
ecological diversity, and encroachment from development. Only one program, 1996NY-01, had
a goal related to climate change increasing carbon sequestration in forests.
What is the range of program goals? Goals ranged from the very specific to the very
broad. The two top-down programs, 2000TX-01 and 2004KS-01, both had very specific water
quality goals. Program 2000TX-01 was set up to preserve land around the Edwards Aquifer, the
primary source of drinking water for the City of San Antonio, which administers the program.
Program 2004KS-01 focused exclusively on stream protection. Given that these two programs
were also the only two top-down models, we inferred that a program focused on a tangible goal
13
-------
is more likely to use a quantitative, data-driven approach to selecting land panels than a program
with many and/or broader goals. Program 2004CA-02 also focused almost exclusively on water
quality protection, trying to achieving total maximum daily load (TMDL) goals, but the program
did not pre-identify land parcels for preservation.
The majority of programs incorporated a wider range of goals. Some did so explicitly by
preserving land in distinct categories. For example, program 2004AZ-01, the county-wide
Sonoran Desert Open Space program, lists four categories by which land could be preserved,
each linked to a different goal: (1) community open space (scenic and recreation value), (2)
urban open space (local jurisdiction priorities), (3) habitat protection (biological indicators), and
(4) Davis-Monthan open space (prevention of encroachment at a military base). Others had a
long list of stated goals. For example, program 2000FL-02 of stated its goals as "Conserve,
maintain and restore the natural environment and provide access for the enjoyment and education
of the public; provide resources to ensure that sufficient quantities of water are available to meet
current and future needs; meet the need for high-quality resource based outdoor opportunities,
greenways, trails, and open space; preserve the habitat and water recharge; ensure that the natural
resource values of such lands are protected and that the public has the opportunity to enjoy the
lands to their fullest potential."
The programs with multiple goals tended to give them equal weight formally. However,
in some cases there was an informal understanding that some goals were more important than
others were. For example, while the 2004CO-01 program goals are "To preserve land that
protects water quality; protect wildlife areas, wetlands, rivers, and streams; preserve farmland;
protect open space to limit sprawl; and for creating, improving, and maintaining parks, trails, and
recreation facilities," according to program staff preserving lands from development had a higher
priority than creating recreational facilities. In addition, programs with multiple goals tended to
give greater weight to parcels that achieve more than one goal; even if the individual goals have
a similar ranking (program 1996NY-01 is one example).
What prompted the creation of the program? In more than half of the case studies, the
impetus for the program came from development proposals on or near those land parcels
ultimately selected for protection, and many programs were created in response to concerns from
citizens' groups. As an example, the three programs in Michigan (2000MI-01, 2000MI-02,
2004MI-01) were grassroots efforts to protect natural areas in traditionally rural or semi-rural
areas from development. Program 2000WI-01 also mentioned development pressures and the
rising cost of land, but had less emphasis on grassroots or citizens' involvement. In the 2004NC-
02 case study, a grassroots group advocated for an open space program, to which the County
14
-------
Commissioners ultimately agreed; many of the group's members serve on the committee that
helps implement the program.
Of the other programs, water quality protection was the largest motivating factor.
Program 2000TX-01 was a grassroots effort for the protection of water quality and quantity in
Edwards Aquifer, the only source of drinking water in the area. Program 2004C A-02 was
primarily a TMDL attainment program with land protection as one of several tools to achieve
that goal. Stormwater management motivated the creation of program 2004KS-01, while a desire
to protect habitat and water quality motivated program 2004AZ-01.
4.2. PRIORITIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Prioritization and analysis, the second major theme that was reviewed, addressed how
decisions were made regarding which parcels to target for acquisition. This was considered the
most important component of the analysis, as it includes how parcels are selected, what criteria
were used to evaluate them, how the criteria were applied, and what data sources were employed.
There was a substantial amount of variation among the 19 programs on these dimensions.
How are land parcels selected? We describe eleven of the 19 programs as "bottom-up,"
meaning that once the program structure was in place, a variety of stakeholders could nominate
lands for preservation. They were then evaluated using the program criteria, and selected for
preservation based on their performance against those criteria.
In the most common arrangement (used in eight programs) the county or city running the
program accepted applications from private landowners who were interested in having the public
sector purchase their land. The two programs in Michigan (2000MI-01 and 2004MI-01) also
include provisions whereby the agency could solicit landowners to apply for the program. Of the
four Florida programs (2000FL-01, 2000FL-02, 2004FL-01, and 2000FL-04), 2000FL-04,
Volusia Forever, accepted properties for consideration in two categories: within and outside of
the Conservation Corridor. If properties outside the corridor were nominated, they underwent a
selection process to determine whether they should be placed on the priority acquisition list, but
properties within the corridor were placed on the list immediately. Program 1996CT-01 had a
similar priority list, but would also take applications from landowners with parcels not on the
list. Program 2004NY-01 also fell into this category.
Three programs operated as grant programs, whereby a county provides funding for
others to purchase land or development rights. The only substantive difference from the
programs described above is that the counties administering the program do not wish to purchase
the land themselves. In program 2000WI-01, a county program, local jurisdictions or non-profit
organizations submitted parcels for consideration; if successful, the submitting organization
15
-------
received a grant to purchase the land. Program 2004CO-01 is similar; Program 2004NY-02
allowed private individuals to make grant applications, provided they had the support of their
jurisdiction.
As discussed in Section 4.1, only two programs were top-down, meaning that the
jurisdiction implementing the program targeted certain parcels for preservation and was not
interested in considering others. Program 2000TX-01 targeted only lands around the Edwards
Aquifer, while 2000KS-01 targeted only lands identified through a stream inventory. Program
2000KS-01 did accept land donations from outside these priority areas, but does not solicit or
pay for them.
The six remaining programs were hybrids, combining characteristics of bottom-up and
top-down programs. Essentially, there were two types of hybrids: those with two separate
funding tracks (i.e., some parcels were targeted based on a predetermined list and others were
nominated for preservation), and those with a priority list that accepted nominations (as opposed
to pursuing them based on internal prioritization). Program 2004AZ-01 is an example of the first
hybrid type: it listed all lands to be preserved within the bond measure, but identified them
through some top-down processes (biological review) and others through bottom-up
(nominations from community groups). Program 2004NC-01 identified specific watersheds and
stream corridors to protect and targeted those for acquisition, but also allowed potential partners
to suggest other parcels for preservation. Similarly, program 2004NC-02 had two avenues for
parcel selection: parcels located in one of nine targeted areas and a nomination process that
selected parcels.
In the second hybrid category, program 2004CA-02 began with a priority list of polluted
waters and a very specific goal of meeting TMDL standards, but also allowed the public to
propose lands for preservation. Program 2000MI-02 had an open space map developed through
GIS analysis and accepted applications from landowners whose parcels lie within those
boundaries. Under program 1996NY-01, landowners' nominations received greater weight if
they fell within a priority area. While the two top-down programs are both municipal, there did
not seem to be any other relationships between the size or level of the program and the selection
process.
What criteria are used? Another program dimension is the type of criteria used to make
decisions about which parcels to target. The top-down programs used these criteria at an early
stage to develop the targeted list, while the bottom-up programs used them to select among
nominated parcels.
All of the 19 programs included both criteria related to watershed and wildlife protection
as well as other criteria. In order to provide a snapshot of the criteria used across the programs,
16
-------
we compiled the criteria into a single table to show the frequency with which each criterion was
applied (Table 2). Since the wording varied by program, we standardized the criteria across
programs to make them comparable. In some cases, a program used multiple variations on a
single criterion, which explains why many criteria have two or more occurrences in a single
program. For example, program 2000MI-02 listed as distinct criteria "ecosystems of state,
regional or local importance," "wildlife or vegetation and/or overall high diversity of species,"
"contains habitat for protected species," and "helps connect prime greenways and wildlife
corridors." We classified all of these under "habitat," so this program shows four criteria under
habitat. In addition, we divided wildlife into habitat/biodiversity and geology/natural resources,
while we divided watersheds into wetlands and water quality. We counted each distinct
subcriterion as a single criterion (Table 2).
Programs cited habitat/land features 32 times, and water issues 34 times. The next most
frequent criterion was contiguity or buffer to protected lands, which was cited 19 times.
Management issues (such as the existence of a management plan or maintenance issues) and
financial issues (such as the availability of matching funds and appraised value) and followed
with 15 and 14 mentions respectively. This would seem to indicate that whatever the goals of the
program, financial and managerial issues are an integral part of decision making. No other
criterion was mentioned more than ten times total; others with multiple mentions included
recreational value (ten mentions), development pressure (nine), cultural/historic value (eight),
conformity with existing plans (eight), size (seven), partnerships (seven), and aesthetic value
(seven).
17
-------
Table 2. Criteria used in 19 land protection programs
Table 2: Criteria Used in 19 Land Protection Programs
Total number of times criteria cited
Program Decision
ID Criteria Type Explanation of Criteria
2000FL-01 Qualitative
11 criteria
2000FL-02 Qualitative
5 broad criteria (all component parts are checked)
2000MI-01 Qualitative
4 broad criteria (all component parts are checked)
2004AZ-01 Qualitative
2004CO-01 Qualitative
2004KS-01 Qualitative
2004NC-02 Qualitative
12 criteria
9 criteria specified, but "many factors"
2004NY-01 Qualitative
1996CT-01 Quantitative
11 types of land can be protected
parts are checked)
11 criteria for open space projects
3 criteria each scored -2 to +2 (component parts are
checked)
1996NY-01 Quantitative
2000FL-04 Quantitative
2000MI-02 Quantitative
3 very broad criteria, ranked on point system (all
component parts are checked)
6 broad criteria scored on a point basis (all
component parts are checked)
2000TX-01 Quantitative
2000WI-01 Quantitative
2004CA-02 Quantitative
6 criteria each with a maximum point value assigned
based on sub-criteria; also allow "special
considerations" not specified (sub-criteria are
checked)
3 data categories for GIS plus 1 screening criteria;
weighted and divided into tiers (component parts
checked)
16 criteria in 3 areas, ranked on a point scale
3 weighted criteria with sub-sections (component
parts are checked)
2004FL-01 Quantitative
Must meet 2 of 5 screening criteria, then be scored
on matrix (matrix not developed yet; component parts
are checked)
2004MI-01 Quantitative
2004NC-01 Quantitative
2 sets of 3 broad criteria depending whether land is
ag or open space (all open space component parts
are checked)
15 criteria
supplemental criteria; ranked on point system
1 Note: wording may differ from program documents.
18
-------
How are criteria applied? Programs applied criteria in either qualitative or quantitative
fashion. Qualitative application of selection criteria tend to be subjective, though this was not
always the case, while quantitative application indicated that some type of numeric ranking,
weighting, or scoring was applied. Although the quantitative programs are by nature more
objective because they tend to apply measurable criteria, it is possible to have a criterion that can
only be assessed subjectively (such as aesthetic value) as part of a quantitative system if it were
assigned a point value.
In fact, most programs used a mixture of objective and subjective criteria, regardless of
whether they applied these qualitatively or quantitatively. For example, program 2004NC-01 was
a quantitative program, in that it weighted the criteria, but it included such subjective criteria as
aesthetic value and manageability. On the other hand, 2000FL-01 was a qualitative program and
included objective criteria such as habitat type, presence of invasive species, and stage of
ecological succession. Only one program, 1996CT-01, was entirely subjective, in keeping with
its goal of preserving character.
As noted in Table 1, we characterized six programs as qualitative. Of these, some
provided guidance on using the criteria while others did not. Program 2000MI-01 had a checklist
of questions to be answered either yes/no or medium/high/very high. Program 2000FL-02
required that for a parcel to be considered, it must meet four of 13 subcriteria, and each criterion
received a ranking from low to high. The other programs relied on the knowledge of reviewers to
use the criteria and did not give particular instructions; the bond measure for program 2004AZ-
01 already listed the parcels to be preserved, so there was no ongoing evaluation process.
Thirteen programs were characterized as quantitative, but within this designation there
was a range in the way the prioritization was implemented. The most basic involved some type
of weighting or ranking, done on a somewhat subjective basis. For example, program 2004CA-
01 used a weighting system, in which three broad criteria were given unequal weights (water
quality improvements 40 percent, and multiple objectives and project feasibility 30 percent
each). Within each criterion, there were several sub-criteria, ranked on scales with limited room
for nuances (either yes/no or low/medium/high). Program 2000WI-01 used points for each
criterion, for a maximum possible score of 255; up to 10 points could also be deducted for
negative factors (although these are not defined). The maximum number of points available for
any single criterion ranged from 10 (economic factors, density standards) to 40 (development
potential, natural resources: water). Programs 1996CT-01, 2004NC-01, 1996NY-01, 2004NC-
02, 2004NY-02, and 2000FL-04 also used similar methods.
Programs such as 2004MI-01 relied on a point-based system in which points were
assigned based on measurable indicators, resulting in more objective findings. For example, the
19
-------
criterion wetlands and/or floodplain, points were assigned based on the percentage of the parcel
with wetlands and/or floodplain features: 0 points for no features, 3 points if less than 10 percent
of the parcel contains such features, 7 points if between 10 and 20 percent of the parcels
contained such features, and 11 points if over 20 percent of the parcels contained such features.
Program 2000MI-02 operated in a similar fashion. 2004FL-01 will eventually adopt a Site
Scoring Matrix, but at the time of this writing it had not yet been developed.
Program 2000TX-01 layered three main criteria, each with multiple subcriteria, into a
single GIS program. The GIS program then weighted the criteria, with geologic at 50 percent,
biologic 20 percent, and watershed 30 percent. The more subcriteria a parcel met, the higher the
weighting it received. The program ultimately ranked every square meter in the study region and
assigned it to one of eight categories, with the top three categories deemed the most important to
preserve. Program 2004KS-01 used a variety of measurable indicators, such as streams' biologic
health and hydraulic capacity, to create a five-tiered ranking system for streams.
Several jurisdictions noted that they were moving from a qualitative to a quantitative
selection process, or vice versa. Program 2004NY-01 contained a detailed list of criteria that was
initially intended to form the basis of a quantitative system, but committee members found it
overly restrictive and wanted to rely on their own judgment. Program 2000FL-04 previously
used the weighting to assign parcels to a priority list, but then evolved so that all parcels that
passed the screening process were considered equally important for acquisition. The system was
changed because program managers felt the county would have more leverage in negotiating
with landowners if all parcels were considered important.
On the other hand, program 2004FL-01 deliberately adopted a quantitative strategy
because research into existing programs indicated that a quantitative approach would be more
successful. Program 2004NY-02 has a subjective weighting system, but is moving towards
making it more objective, in the hopes of creating defensible decisions. This may be related to an
incident in which a parcel with low ratings was approved because the applicant threatened to sue
if the parcel was not approved for funding.
Where do the data come from? The programs varied in the extent by which they relied
on data, but all incorporated some type of data in the decision-making process. Tables 3 and 4
list all data sources mentioned either in the published information or by our contacts.
In general, for the grant programs and other bottom-up programs, applicants supplied
data. Typical data requested included maps (such as existing land use maps or topographic
maps), site plans, and hazard assessments. These programs often relied heavily on the expertise
of the committee members evaluating the application, as well as on site visits and existing city or
20
-------
county master plans or open space plans. After existing open space maps, expert knowledge was
the most commonly cited data source.
The top-down and hybrid programs, which tended to lean more towards quantitative
decision making, employed a wide range of data sources, including state and federal data such as
statewide data on endangered species and U.S. Geological Survey maps. However, no single
state or federal data source was cited more than a few times. This could be because the range of
data sources is truly wide, or because the persons contacted were not familiar with all of the data
that was employed. For example, program 2004AZ-01 conducted a five-year biologic survey to
identify species and habitat as indicators of ecological health; we identify this as a single data
source ("species and habitat survey") in Table 3 although presumably the effort involved more
extensive data collection.
Note also that in some cases programs identified specific GIS layers, while in others GIS
was simply cited as one of several data sources. While we recognize that GIS is an analysis tool,
not a data source, in some cases the staff was not familiar with the specific data layers used in the
analysis. Table 4 lists any GIS data layers under a separate GIS category, since in most cases it
was not clear who provided the original data. Likewise, in some cases programs listed
"consultant reports" as data sources, although it is not clear what data the consultants used to
determine their findings.
It was not always clear who collected the data. In some cases it was the review
committee; in others, an outside consultant or staff.
21
-------
Table 3. Data sources cited (local, state, and federal)
Table 3: Data
(Local, State,
22
-------
Table 4. Data sources cited (GIS data)
Program ID Decision
Criteria Type
2000FL-01 Qualitative
2000FL-02 Qualitative
2000MI-01 Qualitative
2004AZ-01 Qualitative
2004CO-01 Qualitative
2004KS-01 Qualitative
2004NC-02 Qualitative
2004NY-01 Qualitative
1 996CT-01 Quantitative
1996NY-01 Quantitative
2000FL-04 Quantitative
2000MI-02 Quantitative
2000TX-01 Quantitative
2000WI-01 Quantitative
2004CA-02 Quantitative
2004FL-01 Quantitative
2004MI-01 Quantitative
2004NC-01 Quantitative
2004NY-02 Quantitative
(Unspecified)
Public lands
Private forest lands
Protected lands/wetlands
4321
^|
X X >
E
E
mi
Wild/scenic/recreational rivers
1
c x
Aquifer recharge areas
Water bodies
1 1
X X
Floodplains
Coastal erosion hazard areas
1 1
X X
Coastal fish and wildlife habitat
1
X )
Lands with state/regional significance
1
( X
Biodiversity inventory
1
X
Wildlife management areas
1
X
Historic preservation
Heritage areas
1 1
X X
Geologic resources
Fiat boundary base maps
1 1
X X
Conservation easements
Open space
1 1
x
X
Endangered species
Natural Heritage
1 1
x
m
23
-------
4.3. IMPLEMENTATION
This section considers how programs implemented the goals and prioritization criteria to
preserve land. We have already discussed some implementation issues, such as parcel
identification, in the preceding sections. This section addresses the interlocking roles of the
implementing organization, the committee that analyzed the information available, the decision-
making authority, and partner organizations, whether public or non-profit. Despite the wide
differences in program goals and methods of parcel selection and prioritization, most programs
had a similar implementing structure, with an outside advisory committee conducting the
analysis, reporting to the public agency staff, and an elected body making the final decision.
Who implements the program? Of the 19 programs analyzed, six were municipal, 11
were county, one was joint city-county, and one was state. Compared to the initial 53 programs
we reviewed, this represents a larger proportion of counties and a lower proportion of
municipalities and states. Of the initial 19 county programs, 11 had quantitative or qualitative
criteria, but only six of 25 municipal programs and one of seven state programs reported
qualitative or quantitative selection processes.
Although this represents an admittedly small sample size, there seems to be a suggestion
that county programs are more likely to specify selection criteria than municipal or state
programs. One hypothesis might be that county programs are the best level at which to undertake
land preservation; perhaps municipalities overall are too small to achieve effective preservation,
or more prone to opportunistic programs in which land is preserved due to its availability, while
states are too large for such analysis. Alternatively, regional cooperation among all levels of
government and involved entities is necessary for effective land protection programs, and county
governments represent a balance of local involvement and regional coordination. However, these
are very tentative hypotheses; a larger sample size would need to be analyzed to determine if
they are valid.
Who conducts the analysis? With one exception, all of the programs had some type of
advisory committee that made recommendations as to which parcels of land should be preserved.
(In the exception, program, 2000KS-01, the public sector was responsible for all aspects of
decision making.) Twelve of the programs had one advisory committee. In large part, these were
composed of private citizens selected by an elected body. In some cases, there were strict
requirements for the composition of the committee. For example, in program 2000FL-04, the
Land Conservation Board was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The ordinance
creating the board specifies that it must contain five persons representing "diverse community
interests" and six people with expertise in natural resources. The Natural Areas Technical
Advisory Committee for program 2000MI-01 was required to include seven county residents
24
-------
with expertise in real estate or development, environmental education, fisheries biology/aquatic
ecology, land use planning, wildlife management, botany/forestry, and land trust/conservation.
2004CO-01's Open Space Advisory Board required inclusion of members from both
incorporated and unincorporated areas.
In some cases the advisory committee included public sector representation. The Task
Force for program 1996CT-01 contained some representatives from other town boards (such as
zoning and wetlands conservation) as well as the public and one land trust representative.
Program 2004NY-02 used the existing Planning Board as advisors, along with the majority and
minority leaders of the county legislature.
Six programs had two or more advisory boards. In some cases, they had clearly defined
roles. Program 2000TX-01, a rigorous top-down program, had a Scientific Evaluation Team
conduct the initial GIS analysis, a Conservation Advisory Board review the analysis, and a Land
Acquisition Team (composed of the public sector and land trusts) to pursue identified parcels.
Program 1996NY-01, a statewide initiative, had nine Regional Advisory Committees reviewing
projects in different regions. In the other four programs (2000MI-01, 2004CA-02, 2004NC-01,
and 2004NY-01) the parcels were all reviewed by two committees, but our contacts did not make
clear the relationship or individual responsibilities of the two committees.
The overall role of the committee(s) was to review information regarding the parcels
under consideration and to make recommendations on whether they should be preserved.
Generally, they analyzed data provided by the applicant or the staff administering the program;
in some cases they also collected data or visited the site. Depending on the nature of the
program, they may have created a priority list ranking parcels; in other cases they may simply
have given all parcels a yes or no recommendation. None of the advisory committees had the last
word on whether to preserve an individual parcel, but as the section below discusses, some
programs treated their recommendations more seriously than others did.
Who is the ultimate decision maker? With five exceptions, the ultimate decision maker
was the chief elected body of the jurisdiction responsible for administering the program, such as
the town council or board of county commissioners. This body took the recommendations from
the advisory committee and decided whether to accept them and proceed, or whether to turn
down a recommended parcel or alternatively fund the acquisition of a parcel not on the list. In
two of these exceptions (2004CA-02 and 2004NY-02), the executive branch was also involved in
decision making along with the legislative body.
On paper, the relationship between the elected body and the advisory committee is clear;
in practice, some elected bodies always accepted the committee's recommendations and others
overrode them. Program 2004NC-01 staff indicated that the Board of Commissioners tends to
25
-------
approve the committee's recommendations with little discussion. The same was true for
programs 2004AZ-01 and 2000TX-01 (in the latter case, the advisory board's effective screening
process was credited with giving the legislature solid recommendations, which were considered
fair and reliable).
Other programs had cases where the advisory committee's recommendations were not
always accepted, generally for political or financial reasons. Program 2004NY-02 staff reported
that in one case, the County Executive (whose approval is required along with the legislature)
dropped one program and approved funding for a previously denied project, an application from
a municipality that had threatened to sue the county if funding was not approved. The decision
was controversial as the land purchase has already been made, but the program was not supposed
to fund purchases retroactively. In program 1996CT-01, the Town Council vetoed a
recommendation by the Task Force to purchase the development rights of a land parcel, because
the Council did not want to pay 90 percent of the purchase price without purchasing the land
outright. In program 2000MI-01, a recommendation was turned down for financial reasons. In
program 2000FL-04, the County Commission acquired a low-ranked parcel since it was located
near several elementary schools, and it was felt that the educational value for the students
outweighed the fact that its natural value was lower than that of other parcels.
In three cases, it was not the jurisdiction's top legislative body that made the ultimate
decision. In two cases it was a committee of the full legislature; for program 2000MI-01it was
the Parks and Recreation Commission and for program 2000WI-01it was the County Resources
Committee. For the one state program, 1996NY-01, the final authority was the State Department
of Environmental Conservation.
How does the program partner with other governmental agencies or institutions?
Most of the programs had some type of formal or informal partnerships with other levels of
government or non-profit organizations, but more often it was on an ad hoc basis rather than a
permanent arrangement. For example, program 2004NC-01 acquired more than half of its
protected land by working with both the state and municipalities. Some county programs tended
to look to state or federal government for additional funding; program 2000FL-02 lists the
statewide Florida Forever program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as potential funding partners, and they also looked to the local water
management district for maintenance funding.
Some of the programs had well-defined partnerships with non-profit land trusts. In
program 2000TX-01, the Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, and the Bexar Land
Trust made up the land acquisition team that pursued the preservation of specific parcels. The
2004AZ-01 program relied heavily on input from The Nature Conservancy and Friends of the
26
-------
Sonoran Desert to identify priority conservation lands. 1996CT-01 had a seat on its advisory
committee reserved for a local land trust representative.
Programs differed in their attitudes towards purchasing land outright as opposed to
purchasing the development rights (also known as PDR, or TDR for transfer of development
rights). In PDR an organization purchases the right to development, on a percentage of the land's
appraised value, but the landowner still retains the title. Some programs are only interested in
outright purchase; the Town Council for program 1996CT-01 turned down a PDR offer because
they felt the price was too high if the town could not own the land. On the other hand, the
2004NY-01, 2004NY-02, and 2004MI-01 programs were oriented towards purchasing
development rights; the program 2004NY-01 contact said that placing the land in county
ownership was felt to be a long-term burden.
What problems have the programs encountered? While our research did not ask
specifically about problems encountered, several issues regarding funding came up that have had
a negative impact on some programs' ability to preserve land. The main reason was increasing
land prices, especially for Florida programs, the price of land and the need to compete with
private developers in a tight real estate market was limiting the programs' effectiveness. Program
2000FL-01, in Broward County (southern Florida) was faced with average per acre costs of
$300,000. (In comparison, in some rural areas in Florida, land was available for preservation at
$1,600 per acre.) While recent economic conditions have caused a decline in land prices in many
areas, budget deficits and declining tax receipts caused some programs to stop temporarily.
Meanwhile, programs with dedicated funding sources were able to acquire land at a faster pace
due to lower land acquisition costs.
Related to this issue were the restrictions some programs placed on funding. The
2000FL-01 program, although faced with high costs and competition from developers, could not
exceed 110 percent of the land's appraised value. Programs 2000FL-02, 2000FL-04, 2004AZ-01,
and 2004NC-01 could pay only the appraised value. Program 2000MI-02 offered the landowner
the appraised value exactly, but if the landowner objected they could get a second appraisal to
offer for negotiation. Program 2004AZ-01 had problems with landowners disputing the
appraised value of land and rising prices; in addition, the county was unable to purchase state-
owned land. The 2000WI-01 program required that all funding must all be spent in the year it is
earned, meaning that the county could not save up for larger purchases.
Only a few programs had provisions for long-term maintenance of the preserved land.
Program 2000TX-01 set aside just over 10 percent of the total funds to protect the Edwards
aquifer for maintenance. Program 2000FL-02 allowed up to 10 percent of total annual funds to
go toward stewardship. 2004NY-02 could pay stewardship costs up to 50 percent of total project
27
-------
costs. Program 2000MI-02 requires a Stewardship Implementation Plan as a condition of
purchase, although it was not clear how much funding the city provides for stewardship. Program
staff from 2004CO-01, 2004NC-02, 2004NY-01, and 2000FL-04 told us that they did not
provide any maintenance funding; staff at other programs did not address this issue.
One interesting idea came from program 2004CO-01. For their applicants without
experience in managing land acquisition or stewardship, they appointed a Project Mentor. This
gave the jurisdiction receiving funding an opportunity to learn how to manage their program.
Where does program staff obtain information? Several programs we analyzed were
explicitly modeled on other programs. Program 2000WI-01 based its design on the Dane County
program (also in Wisconsin), while program 2000FL-02 was modeled on the statewide Florida
Forever program. Program 2004FL-01 surveyed other programs within Florida and adopted what
program administrators saw as the keys to those programs' success.
28
-------
5. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Land protection exhibits the three characteristics of decisions that should reflect some
understanding of climate change impacts: it is long term, hard to reverse, and resource-intensive.
These characteristics of land protection decisions, along with the rapid pace of land
development, now and in the future, and the variety of interactions possible between climate and
land use, highlight the importance of incorporating climate change information into land
protection decisions. This study identifies several areas within the decision-making process
where climate change information could be included.
Although the land protection programs we analyzed did not explicitly consider climate
change, existing selection criteria capture some of the features and ecosystem services already
threatened by climate change (e.g., wildlife habitat and wetlands). When considering long-term
acquisition strategies, land protection programs should consider both the mitigation potential of
land through carbon sequestration and the adaptation potential of the land for preserving wildlife
migration routes, protecting water sources, and buffering infrastructure and development from
storm events.
This review demonstrates that while the land protection programs sampled currently do
not make acquisition decisions based on climate change considerations, many of the criteria and
processes reviewed are sensitive to climate change impacts. One reason for this sensitivity is that
criteria may be implicitly based on the assumption that future climate will resemble historical
climate. For example, one of the criteria for protection that the sampled programs cited most
frequently was "Contiguity/ buffer to protected land." Providing adequate space for species to
migrate and adapt to changing climate conditions is a key adaptive management goal. However,
climate change information could be included to better assess locations of wildlife migration
corridors under a range of possible climate scenarios.
Other frequently cited criteria included biodiversity, natural resources, wetlands, and
water quality. These criteria attempt to limit anthropogenic stressors from occurring on land
parcels with high biodiversity, rich natural resources, large areas of wetlands, and relevance to
water quality. Protecting these lands from development increases or maintains the resiliency of
the natural system. However, evaluating these criteria in the absence of climate change impact
information may result in prioritizing land parcels based on transient indicators. For example, if a
conservation program acquires a land parcel primarily because it contains a large number of
wetlands acres without considering projected sea level rise, the value of that land may decrease
in the future as wetlands retreat and migrate. This review also identified an important barrier to
29
-------
adaptation planning efforts of land protection programs. Many of the programs were
opportunistic and acquired land as it became available using a "bottom-up" approach. In some
cases programs did not implement a long-term strategy for prioritizing land acquisition and
applying criteria. Integrating adaptive planning into land protection programs will require
interpreting prioritization criteria in the context of long-term conservation planning.
The programs reviewed in this study provide an illustrative cross-section of the decision-
making process employed by state and local land protection programs. Of the programs we
reviewed, only one mentioned climate change as a consideration, but the number of programs
considering climate change impacts is likely to increase due to increased awareness at all levels
of government.
Based on our limited review, state and local land protection agencies, as well as
supporting state and federal agencies, interested in adding climate change to the considerations
applied to parcel selection processes would benefit from the following steps.
Develop decision-support tools for advisory committees. Advisory committees are
clearly a major aspect of land protection programs; they were present in 18 of 19 programs and
several had multiple committees. Although there are cases in which elected officials overturn the
recommendations of these advisory committees, their recommendations tend to be respected and
ultimately implemented. Any efforts to support these committees in making decisions that are
backed by science will enable incorporation of climate change considerations and will be easier
to defend to the public and other stakeholders than idiosyncratic decisions or those based on
personal knowledge.
Promulgate different preservation models. Some programs focused only on acquiring
land, while others created grant programs for local jurisdictions or purchasing development
rights. Jurisdictions without land preservation programs might be amenable to instituting them if
they were aware of the myriad of effective options available. As awareness of climate change
impacts grows, initiating land protection programs may also become more useful for
jurisdictions that are trying to use land preservation for mitigation and adaptation purposes.
Cooperate with elected officials. In almost every case, legislatures make the final
decisions regarding land to be preserved. The sophistication and information available to these
bodies seemed to vary quite dramatically. Cooperation of land protection groups or science
advisory groups with elected officials can be improved through some type of outreach program
to emphasize the environmental, economic, and social benefits of land preservation; this type of
outreach might help generate stronger support for land protection programs, particularly for their
use in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
30
-------
Engage in strategic conservation. This study found that many land protection programs
rely on an opportunistic, fragmented approach to land preservation; this works to an extent,
though a more long-term, strategic approach to land protection would better address many
climate change impacts. For example, the Conservation Fund, a non-profit focused on land and
water conservation offers a training course titled "Strategic Conservation Planning Using a
Green Infrastructure Approach."1 Other sources also provide information related to green
infrastructure and land protection.2 By adopting a strategic approach to conservation, a system of
prioritization will necessarily take precedent over existing opportunistic practices.
Coordinate with land-use planning processes. Land protection programs that are linked
to local and regional planning processes will be more successful in meeting program goals. In the
absence of strong land-use planning, land protection programs and land development occur
opportunistically. When implemented in a coordinated fashion, communities can achieve both
strategic land protection and strategic development. Several programs discussed here mentioned
such a link in program goals, including programs 2000WI-01, 2004KS-01, and others. As more
communities begin to incorporate climate change into their planning process and/or develop
specific climate change adaptation plans, land protection program should take advantage of these
additional opportunities to interface with the planning process.
Develop prototype for evaluating and prioritizing land parcels for protection. In
conducting this study, we found that many programs in Step 3 listed quantitative or qualitative
selection criteria with no specific means of using them to make decisions. Over half of the
programs were initiated in response to citizen groups desiring land protection, often due to
development on or near the parcel; this means that many of the programs are based primarily on
opportunism. Providing a simple screening approach based on a few criteria may go a long way
to prioritizing more valuable lands, particularly as part of a portfolio of strategies to mitigate and
adapt to climate change. Alternatively, if the programs have advisory committees that are not
making a good effort towards evaluating parcels, they might be receptive to some type of
outreach about available data sources and criteria.
As jurisdictions learn more about possible climate change impacts and create mitigation
and adaptation plans, it becomes more important to understand decision-making processes in
order to provide effective climate change information. This review focuses on decision-making
processes of land protection programs and identifies several areas in the process where decision
makers can use climate change information. Incorporating such information will enable land
1 The website for The Conservation Fund is http://www.greeninfrastructure.net.
2 Additional information is available at LandScope America's website: http://www.landscope.org.
31
-------
protection to be part of a portfolio of adaptation strategies that ameliorate impacts on water
quality and wildlife. States and other jurisdictions are already taking steps to use land protection
as part of their adaptation strategies (e.g., Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2008), but
require tools and more targeted information to incorporate into their decision-making processes.
5.1. LIMITATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
While the literature on adaptation approaches has increased in recent years, incorporation
and implementation of those principles into planning decisions, particularly land protection
decisions, remains sparse, as our review suggests. Future research should build off the
information provided here on acquisition practices in order to verify the feasibility of these
approaches. For example, conducting surveys or interviews with the key contact persons for each
land protection program and enlisting feedback on whether they are receptive to including
climate change information and whether they might use the stated mechanisms in their decision-
making process would be helpful in determining the adaptive potential of land protection
programs. Additional research is needed to determine how land protection programs could be
improved to address climate change impacts and specifically to assess which of the decision-
making criteria are likely to help achieve adaptation goals and which are not.
In addition, this report only considers 19 land protection programs in detail. The analysis
filtered out programs that were not approved by voters, programs that did not cite protecting
water quality and/or wildlife as primary goals, and those programs that did not sufficiently
specify selection criteria. This reduced the total number of programs under consideration from
1,632 to 19. While it was not possible to review all 1,632 programs, future efforts could improve
upon this effort by including additional programs and examining those programs at a higher level
of detail, particularly regarding zoning laws and planning tools. Furthermore, future efforts
should consider programs adopted since 2004, the last election year included in this study.
5.2. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ON LAND USE PLANNING AND ADAPTATION
The following list of resources provides additional sources of information on the
intersection between land use planning and adaptation. Given the rapidly evolving literature in
this area, this list is not comprehensive.
The Heinz Center. 2007. A Survey of Climate Change Adaptation Planning.
http://www.heinzctr.org/publications/PDF/Adaptation Report October 10 2007.pdf
This report serves as an introductory "road map" to adaptation planning resources
for communities, particularly urban areas. The first section of the report points the
32
-------
reader towards adaptation planning guidebooks and frameworks; the second
section highlights adaptation planning efforts that are currently underway.
Snover, A. K., L. Whitely Binder, J. Lopez, E. Willmott, J. Kay, D. Howell, and J.
Simmonds. 2007. Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State
Governments. In association with and published by ICLEI - Local Governments for
Sustainability, Oakland, CA. http://cses.washington.edu/cig/fpt/guidebook.shtml.
This guidebook is designed to help local, regional, and state decision-makers
prepare for climate change in the following areas: public services, environmental
quality, economic development, land use planning and zoning, fiscal
responsibility and risk management, capital investments, and other areas of
concern. The report provides guidance on issues such as evaluating climate
change impacts to major sectors, building and maintaining support among
stakeholders, and identifying major planning areas.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2009. Report to the Chairman, Select
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, House of Representatives. Climate
Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More
Informed Decisions, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/dl0113.pdf.
In this report, the GAO presents its findings on the following topics: actions that
federal, state, local, and international authorities are taking to adapt to climate
change, the challenges that decision-makers face in their efforts to adapt, and
actions that Congress and federal agencies could take to help address these
challenges.
Increasingly, states are drafting adaptation plans that may provide useful information to
land protection programs and also allow for increased interface with planning processes that
consider climate change. Example state adaptation plans include:
King County, WA (http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/climate.aspx):
New York City
(http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=ab9dOf9f-lcbl-4f21-
bOc8-7607daa5dfcc): and
Massachusetts
(http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=ab9dOf9f-lcbl-4f21-
bOc8-7607daa5dfcc).
33
-------
6. REFERENCES
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). (2008) Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive
ecosystems and resources. In: Julius, SH; West, JM; eds. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: 873
pp.
Hannah, L. (2008) Protected areas and climate change. In:Ostfeld, RS; Schlesinger, WH; eds. Year in Ecology and
Conservation Biology 2008, 1134, New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences; pp. 201-212.
Heller, NE; Zavaleta, ES. (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of
recommendations. Biol Conserv 142(1): 14-32.
Kline, J. (2006) Public demand for preserving local open space. Soc Nat Resour 19(7):645-659.
Maryland Commission on Climate Change. (2008) Climate Action Plan: Interim Report to the Governor and the
Maryland General Assembly. Maryland Department of the Environment. 110 pp.
Pyke, CR. (2004) Habitat loss confounds climate change impacts. Frontiers Ecol Environ 2(4): 178-182.
Pyke, CR; Andelman, SJ. (2007) Land use and land cover tools for climate adaptation. Climatic Change 80(3-
4):239-251.
Steelman, TA; Hess, GR. (2009) Effective Protection of Open Space: Does Planning Matter? Environ Manage
44(1):93-104.
Sussman, F; Freed, R. (2008) Adapting to Climate Change: A Business Approach. Pew Center on Global Climate
Change; 35 pp.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2009) Land-use scenarios: National-scale housing-density scenarios
consistent with climate change storylines (Final Report). Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/076F.
Vedlitz, A; Alston, LT; Laska, SB; Gramling, RB; Harwell, MA; Worthen, HD. (2007) Project Final Report: Use of
Science in Gulf of Mexico Decision Making Involving Climate Change. Project funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement No. R-83023601-0.
34
-------
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY ABSTRACTS
One-page abstracts of each of the 19 programs in Tier 4 are presented on the following
pages. In 2009, all 19 programs were contacted for updates. Those write-ups that were updated in
2009 are marked with an asterisk (*).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program* A-2
1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act A-3
2000FL-01 Safe Parks and Land Preservation Bond Program A-4
2000FL-02 Volusia Forever* A-6
2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever* A-8
2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program* A-9
2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program* A-10
2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program A-11
2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program A-12
2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection* A-13
2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup Measure A-14
2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program A-15
2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure A-16
2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater Management* A-17
2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission A-18
2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space* A-19
2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space* A-20
2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program A-21
2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program* A-22
-------
1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Town of South Windsor, Connecticut
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Program Focus: Watershed Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for acquisition of open space land
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; the Open Space Task Force provides the Town
Council with recommendations on the purchase of open space.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. South Windsor hopes to maintain its character and charm as the town
transitions into a fully suburban community. It plans to achieve this goal through the acquisition
or preservation of open spaces that provide visual "resting places" for passing motorists, preserve
natural resources (including agricultural land), and provide opportunities for the public to enjoy
outdoor activities.
Selection Process. Land protection in South Windsor involves either coordination with
developers at the time of new development or acquisition of specific pieces of land. Priority
properties were initially identified using criteria such as location, proximity (to other protected
lands, trails, or wildlife corridors), natural or environmental features, archaeological value, and
environmental sensitivity. The Town sends out letters each year to the owners of these priority
properties asking if they are interested in selling. Willing sellers of non-priority properties can
also contact the Town. The Open Space Task Force, composed of Town staff and citizens,
applies a rating system to each property and prepares recommendations for the Town Council.
The rating system looks at factors such as proposed purpose, location, and property size. The
Task Force and Town Council rely on a combination of local knowledge and existing
information as a basis for decision making. The Open Space Master Plan includes maps of
wetlands, farmland, steep slopes, environmentally-sensitive lands, and town-owned land, which
are also consulted during the decision-making process. The Town Council is the decision-
making authority regarding open space preservation, but serves primarily as an oversight body.
A-2
-------
1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
Jurisdiction Name, State: New York State
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Proposal 1, The Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996,
Bond for Preservation of State's Natural Resources (Source: Land Vote). $1.75 billion in general
obligation bonds were passed for the preservation, enhancement, restoration, and improvement
of the State's environment and natural resources (Source: New York City Independent Budget
Office). $150 million of the bond money was allocated for State land acquisition projects
identified in the New York Open Space Plan (Source: New York Open Space Conservation
Plan).
Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the program combines priority maps and proposals
using multiple stakeholder committees to evaluate proposals. The 1998 Open Space Plan states
that "every effort has been made to construct the plan from the 'bottom up'."
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The land protection portion of the bond measure is guided by the New
York Open Space Conservation Plan, which include the following goals: the protection of water
quality, scenic and cultural resources, and habitat; the preservation of open space for air quality;
and the provision of sites for outdoor recreation, education, and research.
Selection Process. Anyone can suggest a parcel for consideration. State staff and nine
Regional Advisory Committees (RAC's; including members appointed by State officials and
other appointed by the communities they represent) screen projects to determine if they: (1) are
in a priority project area (as identified in the New York Open Space plan); (2) fall into one of the
identified land protection categories; (3) meet minimum criteria for that category; (4) meet a
critical need; (5) score greater than 50 when evaluated with established resource value screens;
and (6) pass a qualitative review screen. These screens are driven by both data and subjective
analysis. Once State staff know how much money is available in the annual budget, the list of
eligible projects is further refined based on: (1) the merit of the project; (2) public support for it;
and (3) the feasibility of purchasing it within the fiscal year. RACs provide final
recommendations to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation for executive
decision.
A-3
-------
2000FL-01 Safe Parks and Land Preservation Bond Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Broward County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue for safe parks, clean water, and natural land
preservation.
Prioritization System: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations
on parcels of land submitted for consideration by staff, municipalities, or residents of the county.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The goal of the Safe Parks and Land Preservation Bond Program is to
support a comprehensive plan to improve and expand the conservation and recreation assets of
Broward County and its municipalities. By doing this, Broward County seeks to preserve and
reclaim approximately 1,425 acres of conservation land, green space, and open space in the
county. In addition, the bond seeks to repair and enhance the aging park system to provide safe
places for children to play and parks for everyone's enjoyment.
Selection Process. Any person of the county can recommend a potential acquisition
parcel to the County Commissioners, the Land Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB), or the
Land Preservation Section (LPS). The LPS reviews the proposed projects and recommends their
designation within one of three land categories (Conservation Land, Green Space, or Open
Space). Independent ecological consultants visit and complete an assessment form for each site
under consideration as a Conservation Land or Green Space site. Staff conducts reviews of
selected sites to confirm the consultants were correctly interpreting data based upon the criteria
created. Sites recommended by the LPAB are brought to the County Commission to allocate
funding and to authorize County staff to begin the acquisition process. The Real Property Section
contacts the landowner, verifies their willingness to sell, performs preliminary title work, and
obtains and reviews appraisals and surveys on the property. The LPS contacts the relevant
municipality and creates a land acquisition and management agreement for each site that the
municipality is willing to manage as a city park. Sites that are located within a municipality but
are ecologically sensitive or are an addition or buffer to existing County-owned environmentally
sensitive lands are to be managed by the Broward County Parks and Recreation Division. The
results of the site acquisition process are communicated to the LPAB. If a purchase price
-------
agreement is reached for the proposed site, a final recommendation made by the LPAB is
brought before the County Commission for final approval.
A-5
-------
2000FL-02 Volusia Forever*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Volusia County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
Ballot Measure Description: Ad valorem tax with bonding authority for acquisition and
improvement of environmentally sensitive, water resource protection, and outdoor recreation
lands.
Prioritization System: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations
on parcels of land submitted for consideration through applications from the public.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The goal of Volusia Forever is to finance the acquisition and
improvement of environmentally sensitive lands, water resource protection, and outdoor
recreation lands, and to manage the lands as conservation stewards. By doing this, Volusia
Forever seeks to conserve, maintain and restore the natural environment, provide the public with
access to these lands, and ensure that the natural resource values of such lands are protected.
Selection Process. The categories and criteria used when evaluating properties for
potential acquisition are specified by County Resolution. The categories are proximity and
connectivity, furtherance of acquisition efforts, water resources, environmentally sensitive lands,
recreation/public use, management and enhancement. Specific criteria are itemized under each
category and each property is evaluated on a Yes/No basis. In order to be eligible, a property
should receive a specified minimum number of affirmative answers to the primary criteria. Once
a property application is submitted, staff does a desk review to evaluate the property using the
criteria cited above. The application, along with the staffs evaluation, is presented to the Volusia
Forever Acquisition Committee (VFAC) for determining if the property is eligible for the
program. If the property is deemed eligible, staff will visit the site and prepare an analytical
report that is presented to the VFAC at the next bi-annual ranking meeting. These documents are
all public record and are provided to the property owner. Properties are recommended for
placement within either Group A or Group B of the Volusia Forever list. Group A is comprised
of the active acquisition properties. Properties within Group B are not the preferred candidates
for acquisition. The VFAC uses site visit data, public comment, maps, GIS, photos, local
knowledge, and availability of matching funds during consideration for list placement.
Applications for properties that fall within certain priority areas are automatically placed in
-------
group A for acquisition without further consideration. The VFAC lists are presented to the
County Council who has final approval of lists and property purchases.
A-7
-------
2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Alachua County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue to acquire, improve, and manage
environmentally significant lands.
Prioritization System: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations
on parcels of land submitted for consideration by the public.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The goal of Alachua County Forever is to acquire and protect
environmentally significant lands and to protect water resources, wildlife habitat, and natural
areas suitable for resource-based recreation.
Selection Process. Landowners or other members of the county community submit
parcel nominations to Alachua County Forever. Program staff evaluates all nominated parcels
using prioritization criteria such as protection of water resources, protection of natural
communities and landscapes, protection of plant and animal species, and social/human values.
The evaluation is a quantitative ranking process, with each parcel receiving a numeric score
between 1 and 5, based on the Land Conservation Decision Matrix (LCDM) and reflecting how
well the project addresses each criterion. The LCDM relies on weighted criteria. Environmental
Values account for approximately 2/3 of the total score. All other criteria make up the other 1/3
of the score. This score is presented to the Land Conservation Board (LCB). Final scores range
from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 10. Once a property has been evaluated with the LCDM
scoring matrix and received a positive recommendation from the LCB, it may proceed to the
County Commission for final acquisition approval.
A-8
-------
2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Washtenaw County, Michigan
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus: Wildlife and Watershed Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
Ballot Measure Description: 10-year, .25 mill., property tax increase for acquisition of
environmentally valuable areas and wildlife habitat, water quality preservation, and recreation
Prioritization System: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations
on parcels of land submitted for consideration.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. To preserve and protect from development the natural ecological
diversity and heritage of Washtenaw County, complement the existing network of publicly and
privately protected lands , and maximize quality of life.
Selection Process. Property owners submit applications to the Washtenaw County Parks
and Recreation Commission (WCPARC) that administers the program. Applications are
reviewed by WCPARC staff, who also gather background information and visit the nominated
properties. (Although it has not yet been necessary, WCPARC can initiate discussions about
potential properties if not enough applications are submitted by landowners.) WCPARC gathers
information in four main categories: public water resources; special animals, plants and plant
communities; recreational and scientific values; and proximity to protected land. The information
gathered by WCPARC is provided to the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee
(NATAC) who review and visit each nominated property. Then, NATAC recommends to
WCPARC whether the parcel should be preserved and how much the County should pay to
acquire the property. The recommendation is also forwarded to the Planning Advisory Board and
the local government who can provide comments. WCPARC qualitatively rank the nominated
properties and select the highest ranking properties to pursue for purchase. At this stage,
promising parcels are appraised and subject to a Phase 1 environmental assessment. The final
step in the process is negotiating a price for purchasing the property and a decision by WCPARC
on whether to purchase the land for that price.
A-9
-------
2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Meridian Township, Michigan
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus: Wildlife, Ecosystem and Watershed Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: 10-year, .75 mill., property tax increase for open space
acquisition, PDR, habitat preservation and recreation
Prioritization System: Hybrid; advisory board first conducted an inventory of
open space using remote sensing and GIS and now makes recommendations on parcels of land
submitted for consideration.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. To protect, preserve and enhance the township's open space and special
natural features while also maintaining a maximum degree of biodiversity and developing,
managing, and maintaining ecological infrastructure through management of protected areas.
Meridian also aims to leave an important natural legacy for future generations through its pursuit
of a harmonious balance between preservation and development.
Selection Process. Landowners submit applications to Meridian Township's Land
Preservation Advisory Board that reviews the applications and compares them to a map of open
space that was developed at the beginning of the program. If eligibility requirements are met, the
advisory board and Environmental Commission conduct an ecological review/screening. The
land screening is the main evaluation process and the criteria evaluated include ecological value,
natural or functional value, parcel size, surrounding land use, environmental quality, and
aesthetic value. Each of these categories is worth a specific number of points that are assigned by
the members of the advisory board and environmental commission that conduct the land
screening. In addition to the land screening, the advisory board may also consult the following
data sources: State of Michigan Natural Features Inventory, State of Michigan maps showing
"most likely" areas to find endangered species, Township Greenspace Plan, and census
projections. Results of the land screening and other data collection are evaluated by the advisory
board and a decision is made on whether an appraisal of the land is desired. The appraisal is
reviewed by the advisory board and a decision is made on whether to present a buy-sell
agreement to the landowner and have an environmental site assessment conducted. Upon
favorable negotiations with the landowner, a request to purchase the property is forwarded to the
Township Board for final approval.
A-10
-------
2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: San Antonio, Texas
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus: Drinking Water and Watershed Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: 4-year, 65 million, 1/8-cent sales tax increase for drinking
water and watershed protection
Prioritization System: Top-down; lands rated in the top three tiers by the GIS
model were given to the land agents, who identify potential lands for acquisition, to pursue. If
the Conservation Advisory Board gives a land purchase a favorable rating, the property
acquisition was forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and
approval.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The program seeks to locate and purchase undeveloped land in the
recharge and contributing zones of the Edwards Aquifer as a means of protecting the Aquifer's
water quality and quantity.
Selection Process. The Scientific Evaluation Team (SET) input the entire region into a
GIS model that assigned a value based on a variety of criteria to every square meter of the
region. The criteria included in the model aimed to prioritize characteristics of areas most likely
to contain recharge features and geological land features which contribute to Edwards Aquifer.
The Conservation Advisory Board (CAB) reviewed the SET's spatial model, and lands rated in
the top three tiers by the GIS model were given to the land acquisition team to pursue. The Land
Acquisition Team was composed of non-profit land conservation trusts (The Bexar Land Trust,
The Nature Conservancy, and the Trust for Public Land), the City Project Manager, and San
Antonio River Authority (SARA) staff. Potential land purchases were approved by the City
Project manager and then presented to the CAB by SARA staff, including information on quality
of the land and the availability of the tracts for acquisition based on CAB directives. While the
land acquisition team negotiated land purchases with the owners, the CAB would evaluate the
lands. If the CAB gave a land purchase a favorable rating, the property acquisition was
forwarded to the Planning Commission and then City Council for review and approval.
A-ll
-------
2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Sheboygan County, Wisconsin
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus: Wildlife and Wetlands Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Advisory measure to establish fund to protect watersheds
Prioritization System: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations
on parcels of land submitted as grant proposals by local governments and non-profits.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The goals of the Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program
are to preserve the natural resources of the County while promoting wise growth and economic
development and minimizing the loss of local property tax revenues. The program also aims to
coordinate County stewardship activities so they are in harmony with other conservation and
recreation activities already occurring or planned for the County.
Selection Process. Any town, village, city, county agency, or other government agency
completing projects within Sheboygan County or any non-profit group may apply for funds
through this program. Projects are accepted in four categories: project development, purchase of
development rights, land acquisition, and restoration of wetlands and natural habitat. County
planning department staff reviews applications first, using a point system that includes the
following criteria: natural resources, recreational opportunities, significant features, development
potential and more. Their evaluations and scores are forwarded to the Smart Growth-Stewardship
Technical and Advisory Committee (SGSTAC). The SGSTAC then reviews the applications and
discussions are held to debate point distributions and evaluations of the applications. The
SGSTAC then makes a final analysis and provides a final score for each application. These final
analyses and scores are provided to the Sheboygan County Resources Committee, which
completes a thorough review of the grant applications and recommendations and has full
discussions on the funding of the projects. The five-person committee holds a vote and measures
pass as long as they have a 3 to 2 vote.
There is also a pre-evaluation period during which agencies/non-profits can submit their
grant applications early and get feedback including a "draft" score and a list of the weaknesses in
their application. The organization can then revise their application and re-submit it during the
application period after making revisions to improve their chances of getting funded.
A-12
-------
2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Pima County, Arizona
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed Protection and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for open space, habitat protection, and forests
Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the Conservation Acquisition Commission (a
citizen advisory committee) reviews and recommends to the Pima County Board of Supervisors
properties already identified in the bond measure.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. Program goals include the acquisition of land to protect wildlife habitat,
scenic landscapes, riparian areas, and water quality, and to preserve lands in the vicinity of
Davis-Monthan Open Space. The program recognizes four types of properties, and the specific
goals for each property depend on the property type. The Community Open Space Parcels are
more focused on scenic landscapes and recreation and may not meet the goals to protect wildlife
habitat, riparian areas, and water quality. The Habitat Protection Priorities were chosen solely
based on their ability to achieve biologic goals. The Urban Space Requested by Jurisdictions
may meet a mix of the goals, depending on why a jurisdiction chose to include it on their list.
The Davis-Monthan Open Space is intended to restrict public access to land there falls in the
approach and departure corridors from the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
Selection Process. This bond measure provides funding for four categories of properties
(with monetary allocations in parentheses): Community Open Space Parcels ($37.3 million),
Urban Open Space Requested by Jurisdictions ($15 million), Habitat Protection Priorities ($112
million), and Davis-Monthan Open Space ($10 million). After the bond measure was approved
by voters, the Conservation Acquisition Commission asked county staff to identify habitat-
protection priority properties that are greater than 2,500 acres in single ownership, contain
important riparian areas, and have critical landscape connections in order to further focus
acquisition resources. However, the selection process for each property type varied according to
the goals associated with that property type. Projections of future development were also
consulted and evaluated to determine how set asides would impact biological factors and avoid
negative impacts. Properties in excess of the available funding were listed in the bond measure
with the understanding that some properties may be acquired through other sources of funding or
at no cost along the way. The Conservation Acquisition Commission reviews and recommends to
the Pima County Board of Supervisors all acquisitions of property or rights in property.
-------
2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup
Measure
Jurisdiction Name, State: Los Angeles, California
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Proposition O, Clean water bond to reduce total maximum
daily load (TMDL), including stormwater retention facilities, parks, and greenbelts.
Prioritization Type: Hybrid, non-profit organizations, and community groups
and City departments can propose parcels. The City of Los Angeles determines how funding is
allocated with oversight from two citizen committees.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. This measure is intended to protect public health by cleaning up
polluted storm water and reducing dangerous bacteria in the City's rivers, lakes, beaches, bay,
and ocean. It will also institute improvements that protect ground water quality, provide flood
control, and increase water conservation, habitat protection, and open space. The primary
program goal is to meet federal water quality standards; land protection is only one component
of the program.
Selection Process. Parcel selection is a stakeholder-driven process, involving the City
Council, environmental activists, non-profit organizations, and neighborhood councils. Non-
profit organizations and community groups can propose parcels as well as City departments.
There is a semi-annual six-month proposal and decision-making process. Proposals are submitted
to the City. The Mayor, City Council, 44 City departments, and key stakeholders are all involved
in the development of the master schedule, funding allocations, and management decisions. City
departments and other key stakeholders in the watershed gather and evaluate technical
information. The mayor appoints members to a citizens' oversight advisory committee and an
administrative oversight committee. Project review committees (including City staff and the two
oversight committees) evaluate projects based on three weighted criteria (and several sub-
criteria): water quality improvements; achieves multiple objectives; and project
feasibility/readiness/finance. One of the key sub-criteria for parcel selection is whether or not the
project addresses a pollution problem identified by the adopted TMDL. The Mayor and City
Council ultimately adopt project funding.
A-14
-------
2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Adams County, Colorado
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
Ballot Measure Description: 20-year renewal of current sales tax rate (which went into
effect in 2000) and increase of rate from .20% to .25% for open space.
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations
on grant applications submitted for consideration.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The program's goals include: preservation of land that protects water
quality; protection of wildlife areas, wetlands, rivers, and streams; preservation of farmland;
protection of open space to limit sprawl; and creation, improvement, and maintenance of parks,
trails, and recreation facilities.
Selection Process. The County initially developed two plans to establish areas of priority
for preservation at the outset of the program. No formal criteria were used to evaluate areas
established as priorities in those plans; plan development involved a qualitative discussion-based
process. Grant applications are accepted twice yearly; they must be from agencies that collect
taxes or have one of those agencies as a sponsor to ensure that they are for the public good.
Applicants must supply budget information, a timeline, what leverage the project will provide,
whether or not the project crosses city boundaries, and a land appraisal. The Open Space
Advisory Board (OSAB) meets quarterly to review grant applications and recommends projects
for funding to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The OSAB evaluates the
applications based on criteria such as: partnerships; community support or opposition; long-term
maintenance plan and funding for maintenance in place; connectivity; relevance to community
goals; and urgency. The BOCC makes the final funding decision.
A-15
-------
2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure
Jurisdiction Name, State: Osceola County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Ad valorem tax with up to 60 million dollars in bonding
authority for acquisition and manage of environmentally significant lands for the protection of
water resources, wildlife habitat, and public green space for passive recreation.
Prioritization System: Bottom up, an advisory committee makes
recommendations on parcels submitted for consideration by residents or landowners of the
county.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The goal of the Osceola County Land Protection Measure is to acquire
and manage environmentally significant lands and green space for the protection of wetlands and
surface water resources, wildlife habitat, and public green space for passive recreation. Osceola
County seeks to additionally protect present conservation lands and restore vulnerable habitats,
while implementing the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Management Plan.
Selection Process. Parcels are nominated for consideration by landowners within the
County, or by a citizen nominating a parcel with the landowner's permission. Parcels are given
an initial evaluation by the program coordinator (using information from the application) to
determine whether it meets a minimum of 2 of 5 screening criteria. Parcels that pass this initial
screening are then presented to the Land Conservation Advisory Board (LCAB) for evaluation
and ranking using a quantitative scoring matrix. The LCAB uses a variety of data to perform the
evaluation, including application information as well as data from a site visit and data prepared
by county staff. After all parcels have been ranked, the LCAB creates an Acquisition List,
consisting of two specific lists: The Target Protection List (Target List) and the Active
Acquisition List (Active List). The Active List represents parcels of highest interest to the
LCAB, and which are immediately ready for acquisition. Target List parcels are also parcels of
high interest, yet require initial restoration or improvement, or matching funds for acquisition.
The lists are presented to the County Commissioners for final approval prior to any attempts at
acquisition.
A-16
-------
2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater
Management*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Lenexa, Kansas
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: 5-year renewal, 1/8-cent sales tax for "Rain to Recreation"
program
Prioritization Type: Top-down; the City determines where land will be set aside
to improve the storm water system.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. Program goals include: reduction in flooding; protection of water
quality and natural habitat; and provision of recreational and educational opportunities. The city
seeks to achieve this goal through a proactive, integrated, watershed-based approach to storm
water management. Land protection is one part of this program.
Selection Process. The City commissioned a stream inventory that was completed by a
team of consultants in December 2001. The team did a rapid assessment that looked at streams in
their entirety using field data and a variety of criteria to classify them on a scale from poor to
good. Criteria ranged from "the ecological and hydraulic connectivity and function of the
stream" to "aesthetic and recreational value of the stream" to "the impact of stream management
on surrounding property values." Stream setback distances and recommendations about
restorative or protective actions were based on a matrix of stream type and stream order.
Everything identified in the stream asset inventory (about 1,500 acres of riparian areas) has been
protected by a Stream Setback Ordinance, which also encourages dedications of stream corridors
and greenways to the City. Additionally, the City adopted a Transfer of Development Rights
Ordinance in November 2002, which set up three incentives for dedications to the city: (1) relief
of $7,500/acre excise tax; (2) relief of the setback requirement for the residential side of a
development; and (3) relief of previous density requirement for lot sizes. The City Department of
Public Works manages the program. The City Council makes the ultimate decision about parcels
voluntarily dedicated to the city, upon recommendation of the Public Works Director.
A-17
-------
2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission
Jurisdiction Name, State: Scio Township, Michigan
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Wildlife and Wetlands Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: 10-year, .50 mill., property tax for the preservation of
farmland, open space, and habitat
Prioritization System: Bottom-up; landowners submit applications and the land
preservation commission evaluates applications based on a set of criteria.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The goal of the Scio Township Land Preservation Commission is to
preserve working agricultural land; natural areas; and open space from encroaching
development.
Selection Process. The Land Preservation Commission sends letters to landowners that
own large parcels, inviting them to submit applications. The Commission reviews the
applications and uses additional information about the properties to evaluate the applications and
land parcels based on the evaluation criteria. This program aims to protect natural areas as well
as agricultural land and the evaluation criteria are slightly different based on the type of land. In
general, the evaluation criteria include Landmark trees, rare species, habitats, wetlands, soils
quality, parcel size, groundwater recharge, water frontage, etc. The Commission then selects the
applications that meet their criteria and obtains the signature of approval from the landowner to
show their interest in selling the development rights. The Commission then presents their
findings to the Township Board for final approval. The Commission may submit a request to the
state for matching funds to help purchase development rights on the lands selected before
submitting their final recommendation to the Township Board.
A-18
-------
2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Wake County, North Carolina
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for open space, recreation, and for the protection of
water quality and wildlife habitats
Prioritization Type: Hybrid; most acquisitions originate from plans and maps
developed by County staffer Open Space Advisory Committee members (a citizen group), but
the public is also welcome to suggest a property at any time.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The Wake County Open Space Program is focused on preserving land
within four critical watersheds (Falls and Jordan Lakes, Swift Creek, and Little River), 40 miles
of stream corridors within these watersheds, and the Mark's Creek area in eastern Wake County.
Open space is prioritized to fulfill multiple objectives, including: (1) floodplain management, (2)
wildlife habitat, (3) water quality, (4) recreation access, (5) environmental and cultural
education, (6) personal fitness, (7) alternative transportation, and (8) recreational resources.
Selection Process. There are two avenues for acquiring parcels: (1) the Partnership
Program, which provides 50 cents on the dollar for any partner interested in acquiring a parcel;
and (2) the Preservation Program, through which the County buys 300 foot parcels on either side
of 8 stream corridors identified in a watershed analysis. The Open Space Advisory Committee
(OSAC), an eight-member citizen group appointed by the County Board of Commissioners,
identifies types of open spaces to be included in the program, develops prioritization criteria, and
identifies options for acquisition and conservation of parcels. Parcels over 50 acres or within 30
feet of a priority area (as defined in the countywide Comprehensive Open Space Plan) are
evaluated initially against technical criteria for 81 sub-watersheds to determine existing water
quality conditions and potential for preservation and restoration. Data from the planning
department is then used to identify development pressures. The final step of the selection process
is to identify available acquisition opportunities and potential partners and prioritize among the
highest ranked projects using 15 qualitative criteria that are subjectively weighted. A potential
acquisition undergoes several rigorous reviews by internal staff, the OSAC, the Land Acquisition
Review Commission, and, finally, the elected Board of Commissioners.
A-19
-------
2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Guilford County, North Carolina
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for parks, greenways, watershed protection, and open
space
Prioritization Type: Hybrid; parks and recreation projects were determined
before the bond, while the open space program relies on nominations and recommendations of a
citizen committee.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The Guilford County Open Space Program seeks to identify suitable
lands for acquisition and preservation and to provide public education about land conservation.
The $20 million 2004 bond measure will provide funding for the protection of natural areas as
well as specific parks projects and greenways.
Selection Process. Parcels can be selected through two routes: (1) a nomination process
that requires submission of an application; and (2) an active selection process that pursues
acquisition in nine targeted areas. Nominated parcels are evaluated by the Open Space
Subcommittee based on their environmental, social, and cultural importance, recreational and
farmland preservation potential, urgency, and cost. The Open Space Subcommittee compiled an
initial inventory of existing park land and open spaces through the use of tax records, the
watershed acquisition database, and parks and recreation records. They then selected the targeted
areas based largely on scientific criteria (e.g., groundwater recharge areas, buffers for drinking
water supply lakes and streams, sites providing significant plant or wildlife habitat) and some
non-technical criteria (e.g., sites of geologic or historic importance, suitable properties adjacent
to existing parks and open space lands). The Open Space Subcommittee works with the County
staff person to evaluate and recommend potential land acquisitions. They look at whether or not
there are willing sellers and whether or not the project meets the established environmental and
biological criteria, and to make sure that the parcel fits in with the existing plans. The
Subcommittee and Staff person use maps, surveys, and appraisals to analyze the property, and
provide recommendations to the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Parks & Recreation
Commission looks at the cost and other criteria of interest to them and then provides
recommendations to the County Commissioners (elected officials).
A-20
-------
2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Nassau County, New York
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for acquisition of open space and parkland, parkland
improvement, storm water quality improvement, and brownfield remediation.
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; citizen open space advisory committee makes
recommendations on nominated projects.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program was established
to protect Nassau County's drinking water, preserve open space and remaining farmland, protect
bays and harbors, and enhance, as well as add new parks and recreational facilities. It provides
funding for projects in four areas: (1) open space and parkland acquisition, (2) parkland
improvement, (3) storm water quality improvement, and (4) brownfield remediation.
Selection Process. Anyone can nominate a property or project for funding, including
private citizens, land preservation, environmental and civic organizations, and public officials.
The nomination form includes a description of the property or project, reasons for
recommendation, and whether or not supplemental funding is available. The Open Space
Advisory Committee (OSAC) evaluates nominees qualitatively using separate criteria for each of
the four major funding areas and some criteria that are shared (e.g., supplemental funding source,
area of benefit, maintenance responsibility, consistency with plans and policies, etc.). All
projects are evaluated in terms of their ability to get results quickly, the cost effectiveness of the
projects, and their general feasibility. The OSAC visits all of the plots before recommending
them to the County Executive. The County Executive submits recommendations to the planning
commission and the Open Space and Parks Advisory Committee (a citizen committee with some
overlapping members from the OSAC), and the 19-member County legislature makes the
ultimate funding decisions.
A-21
-------
2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Orange County, New York
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus: Watershed and Wildlife Protection
Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: Bond to acquire land to be used for open space, natural
areas, farmland, and protecting water quality.
Prioritization Type: Bottom up; the program relies on an application process for
parcel selection.
ABSTRACT
Program Goals. The Orange County Open Space Program seeks to protect five major
resource areas (listed in rank order of importance): (1) water resources (e.g., existing reservoirs
and watersheds, wellhead areas); (2) agriculture; (3) recreation (as it relates to water resources or
trails; not for general parks or ball fields); (4) significant land forms and landscapes; and (5)
biodiversity (important habitats).
Selection Process. Governmental entities, non-governmental organizations, or individual
property owners may apply for open space funding. Applications must fall within one or more of
the five program resource areas: water resources, agriculture, recreation, landforms and
landmarks, and biological diversity. The County requires each non-municipality application to
get resolution from the municipality to move forward on a property acquisition to ensure that
nothing else has been proposed for the parcel. The County also checks to make sure that the
application is compatible with both local (municipal) and County comprehensive plans for open
space protection and economic development plans. The County Planning Board reviews the
applications and evaluates them according to set criteria for each resource category as well as
supplemental criteria. They score and rank projects using a 160-point system, discuss their
rankings, and then submit a report with funding recommendations for all eligible and complete
applications. The Commissioner of Planning does a technical review of the report. The County
Executive reviews applications that contain positive funding recommendations and submits a
legislative request to approve funding for recommended projects. All funding requires the
approval of the Orange County Executive and Legislature
A-22
-------
APPENDIX B: WRITE-UPS OF TIER 4 PROGRAMS
Background information on the 19 programs with quantitative and qualitative evaluation
criteria. The research for these write-ups was originally conducted in 2005. In 2009, all 19
programs were contacted for updates. Those write-ups that were updated in 2009 are marked
with an asterisk (*) below.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program* B-2
1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act B-8
2000FL-01 Safe Parks & Land Preservation Bond Program B-15
2000FL-02 Volusia Forever* B-19
2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever* B-24
2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program* B-30
2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program* B-39
2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program B-48
2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program B-55
2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection* B-61
2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup Measure B-67
2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program B-72
2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure B-77
2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater Management* B-83
2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission B-89
2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space* B-99
2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space* B-104
2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program B-109
2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program* B-115
-------
1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
The vision, as adopted by the Town Council, follows:
The Open Space Task Force envisions a South Windsor that continues to maintain its
character and charm, often described as "rural character" as the town makes its transition
into a fully suburban community. The acquisition or preservation of carefully selected
open spaces is a key component of maintaining that community charm. The Task Force
recognizes that it is essential to provide a variety of types of open spaces, including:
Open spaces along major roadways to provide visual "resting places" for
passing motorists,
Open spaces that preserve our natural resources, and
Open spaces that provide opportunities for the public to enjoy outdoor
activities, both passive and
active.
(Source: Town of South Windsor Open South Wmdsor Qpen §pace
Space Master Plan)
Program goals:
In 1996, the Town went to referendum for $4
million with which to purchase land for open space
There have been no major changes in
preservation, recreation, conservation, or agricultural
land preservation. Another $4 million bond went up
. , _ ,^-KT 1 ~^ requirements from developers. For
for vote in the first week of November 2005. propoged proj£ctg gubj£ct fo a
Program goals focus on protection of both
human and natural environments (including farmland
preservation). The voting public seems to respond to
preservation of open space for passive recreation,
2009 Update
Program has continued to secure open
space since the initial report. Despite
declining economic conditions, the
program has become more aggressive
in land acquisition in recent years.
parcel selection criteria, though the
program has increased open space
conservation plan, developers are
required to preserve 50 percent of the
land as open space. The program has
also benefited from increasing state
grants for land conservation. (Source:
Banach)
aesthetic reasons, and to avoid future increases in
taxes due to further development. M. Gantick senses,
though, that the public is becoming more aware of the air quality and habitat issues that are tied
to the protection of open space.
-------
The goals were intentionally left wide open. Many of the acquisitions are market driven
(ability to purchase often depends on when a property becomes available). The Plan outlines 13
goals and objectives. The Town has also identified certain sites that are higher priority than
others. (Source: Town council minutes, Gantick)
Parcel selection process:
There are two avenues for land protection in South Windsor: (1) coordination with
developers; or (2) acquisition of specific pieces of land. The first option can take a number of
different forms: (1) the Town takes open space from developers at the time of development; (2)
the Town asks the developer to provide money instead of land; (3) the association of
homeowners in a new development own shares of set aside open space; (4) the developer deeds a
parcel of land to the South Windsor Land Trust; or (5) the State acquires the property as part of
the State open space program.
When specific pieces of land are considered for acquisition, there are two basic
approaches for initial parcel selection: (1) letters are sent every few years to owners of properties
that are on the top priority list; and (2) people approach the Task Force with properties to sell.
The top priority properties were initially identified using criteria such as location
(weighted more heavily than other criteria), proximity (to other protected lands, trails, or wildlife
corridors), natural or environmental features, archaeological value, and environmental
sensitivity. The selection of these properties was mostly qualitative. (Source: Gantick)
Prioritization criteria:
The Open Space Master Plan contains the following criteria for review of open space:
"Town-owned open space (subdivision or non-sub division) can generally serve a number
of functions including:
conservation of natural resources and environmentally sensitive land,
screening and buffering of residential properties from other land
uses/developments,
preservation of scenic vistas and rural characteristics, and
recreational areas (passive and/or active).
The above functions can be used to evaluate the proposed open space relative to the
criteria listed below.
B-3
-------
1. Proposed purpose
The proposed purpose needs to be determined first, as the majority of the
following criteria are directly related to the purpose.
What is the intended purpose?
What is the most appropriate purpose (active recreation [present or future],
passive recreation, open space, agriculture, natural diversity, habitat,
buffering, access to something)?
2. Location
+2 very appropriate purpose
+1 somewhat appropriate purpose
0 purpose neither appropriate nor inappropriate
-1 somewhat inappropriate purpose
-2 very inappropriate purpose
Is the property contiguous to other open space or is it a solitary property?
Is the location appropriate to the intended purpose?
Is the external access adequate?
Is this an area in which the Town would like to acquire open space?
If part of a proposed subdivision, is the open space exterior or interior to
the proposed subdivision?
+2 very desirable location
+1 somewhat desirable location
0 location neither good nor bad
-1 somewhat undesirable location
-2 very undesirable location
3. Property size
Size evaluation is directly related to contiguous/non-contiguous status.
EM
-------
Is the width appropriate for the planned purpose?
Is the length appropriate for the planned purpose?
Area? Will it serve the intended purpose? If contiguous to existing open
space, does it enhance the existing open space (just making existing open
space bigger is not necessarily an enhancement)?
+2 size is very appropriate
+1 size is somewhat appropriate
0 size is neither appropriate nor inappropriate
-1 size is inappropriate
-2 size is very inappropriate
There has historically been little weighting of criteria, but the current plan and revisions
to the scoring system above have tried to incorporate more weighting. A sliding scale is now
used to compare final scores (rather than pluses and minuses, which can cancel one another out
and not provide an accurate final score). Generally, a higher score means that a parcel is a better
candidate for acquisition. Some properties are clear winners, and some are more questionable
(and, thus, more reliant on the ranking system for evaluation)." (Source: Gantick)
Decision-making process:
The Task Force applies the rating system to each property referred to it by the Town
Council and prepares a recommendation to the Council regarding the desirability of that
property. (Source: Open Space Master Plan)
The Task Force is composed of several Town staff (representing relevant departments),
representatives from relevant Town Boards (e.g., Planning and Zoning, Wetlands Conservation,
Parks and Recreation, Agricultural Land Preservation), three residents at large, and one
representative from the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust. There are no term limits, but
there is some turnover as people change positions.
The Task Force walks each prospective property and discusses it as a group. They work
on scoring individually and then reconvene to discuss the rankings. They come to a consensus
and submit their recommendations in a report to the Town Council.
Disagreements are usually worked-through in discussions. The recommendations to the
Town Council usually represent the viewpoints of more than 50 percent of the group. The Town
Council gets a summary of what the vote was, so they are aware if there was a lot of dissent.
Task Force meetings are open to the public. There are also public input sessions, and the
Town Council has a public hearing when they are planning to purchase a property.
-------
Barriers that have arisen in the past have included: (1) cost of the property is too high; (2)
disparity in the appraisal of land by local and State appraisers (when partnering with the State
grant program); (3) property owners are not in a position to sell; or (4) the Council does not want
to purchase a parcel that the Task Force recommends (which has only happened once).
Ultimate decision maker:
The Town Council, as the legislative body for the Town, is the primary decision-making
authority regarding open space preservation. It primarily serves as an oversight body. The
Council can authorize funds, arrange referenda and bond issues, accept land gifts, and authorize
other programs (such as purchase of development rights). The Town Council has total power to
veto the recommendations of the Task Force, but they have only exercised it once. The Task
Force wanted to purchase the development rights for a high visibility property from a farmer, but
the Town Council did not want to pay 90% of the property value to simply keep the farmer from
selling out to a developer (but not own the land). (Source: Open Space Master Plan, Gantick)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
The Task Force and Town Council rely on a combination of local knowledge and
information in records as a basis for decision making. The Open Space Master Plan includes
numerous maps of wetlands, farmland, steep slopes, environmentally-sensitive lands, town-
owned land, etc. The Town has also hired consultants to do surveillance of species and habitats
(usually when partnering with the State grant program). Build-out analyses for the town have
been considered. The impacts of climate change have not been discussed. (Source: Open Space
Master Plan, Gantick)
Priority map:
Yes. There are two maps in the Plan that cover: (1) prospective properties; and (2)
prospective areas for conservation and preservation.
Partnerships:
The Town has partnered with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in
the past. The Town also partners with the South Windsor Land Trust when developers deed land
to them. The Town partners with various local and national non-profit organizations to share
information and collaborate in setting aside land (e.g., Audubon Society, Trust for Public Land, a
local Wildlife Refuge).
B-6
-------
Available and expended funding:
Most of the $4 million in the 1996 bond has been spent. Another $4 million was
approved in a vote in November 2005.
There is no upper limit on how much can be spent to acquire a parcel of land. Land
appraisals usually guide the determination of reasonableness of cost.
Acres protected:
Since the program began with bond money in 1989, 1,600 acres (out of a total of 19,000
acres in the Town) have been set aside.
Members of the Task Force did an analysis of the tax impact of business as usual (not
setting aside a parcel of land). There have also been several surveys of how the community feels
about open space. There is State surveillance of forest lands, habitat, and biological populations.
Additionally, the local high school has started tracking biological indicators as well.
South Windsor is at the front of the pack in Connecticut, but some other communities
have started to think about open space protection. (Source: Gantick)
Sources:
Town of South Windsor, http://www.southwindsor.org/Open%20Space/Openspace.htm. accessed on
August 17, 2005.
Town of South Windsor Open Space Master Plan, revised February 2005.
Gantick, Michael, Director of the South Windsor Public Works Department, personal communication
with Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, on October 26, 2005.
Banach, Marcia, Director of the South Windsor Planning Department, personal communication with
Philip Groth, ICF International, on April 24, 2009.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Michael Gantick, Director of the South Windsor Public Works Department. Phone: (860) 644-2511 ext
242. Email: Gantic@southwindsor.org.
B-7
-------
1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
The 1998 guiding principles of the Open Space Conservation Plan stated that, "Given
limited public dollars and overall economic concerns, it is essential to establish careful and
understandable priorities for State action to conserve specific open space parcels and cultural
resources; Such priorities ought to be established through the combination of objective
measurements of land conservation needs and broad based citizen opinion." (Source: 1998 Open
Space Plan)
"Objective measurements" come into play throughout the analyses by staff and the nine
Regional Advisory Committees (RACs). Databases with scientific information (described in
chapter 3 of the 2002 Open Space Conservation plan) trigger closer looks at particular parcels
and then citizen opinion (through public comments) is laid on top of these more technical
analyses. (Source: Sheehan)
Program goals:
The land protection portion of the bond measure is guided by the New York Open Space
Conservation Plan. This plan is regularly updated, and the 2002 Goals of the Open Space
Conservation Plan include:
protect water quality (including surface and underground drinking water) to
sustain aquatic ecosystems and water based recreation,
provide high quality outdoor recreation, on both land and water,
protect and enhance scenic and cultural resources,
protect habitat for the diversity of plant and animal species both to assure the
protection of unique and irreplaceable ecosystems and to sustain traditional
pastimes of hunting, fishing, trapping and viewing fish and wildlife,
maintain critical natural resource based industries of farming, wood products,
commercial fishing and tourism,
provide places for education and research on ecological, environmental and
appropriate cultural resources to provide better understanding of the systems from
which they derive, and
-------
preserve open space, particularly forest lands, for the protection and enhancement
of air quality.
The NY Open Space Plan must be updated every three years by the State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP).
None of the goals are more central to the program mission than others, but programs that
can achieve multiple objectives are favored. The Open Space Program engages both the State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the State Office of Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation (OPRHP), so it touches upon dual goals of conservation and recreation.
These goals are updated every three years along with the plan. The goals have expanded to
include biodiversity in the 2005 Plan. (Source: New York Open Space Conservation Plan;
Sheehan)
Parcel selection process:
Project review and selection process includes:
(1) Resource area screen (project is within a resource area), (2) Category & Minimum
Eligibility Screen (project meets category definition and minimum subcategory
qualifications),
(3) Vulnerability & Criticalness Screen (project is vulnerable or project meets critical
needs),
(4) Alternatives Screen (Do any alternatives provide adequate protection OR meet a
critical need? including voluntary programs, protection programs, land use regulation,
non-state protection),
(5a) if an alternative is available, implement Alternative Protection.,
(5b) Resource Value Screen (calculate resource value (RV) from Rating System
Subcategory),
(6) If RV > 50, Qualitative Review Screen (impact of location, compatibility with other
plans, compatibility with regional and local plans, multiple benefits, alternative or
additional funds for acquisition, alternative management support, agricultural or
commercial forestry impact, local economy), and
(7) Executive Decision (based on location, availability, easement potential, cost vs. value,
human benefit, other factors).
Anyone can suggest a project (including the general public), but generally projects are
put up for consideration by the DEC or the RACs. The program operates on a "willing seller
willing buyer" basis. The State has the power to exercise eminent domain, but has not.
-------
New projects can be considered at any time, but the process generally follows the annual
State budget cycle. The Governor's budget comes out in April for the Environmental Protection
Fund (EPF) and includes a list of eligible projects taken from the Open Space Plan. The list has
been recommended by State staff and the RACs (after having gone through the entire screening
process). The State legislature can add to the list. Once State staff knows how much money is
available, the list of eligible projects is further whittled down based on: (1) the merit of the
project; (2) public support for it; and (3) the feasibility of purchasing it within the fiscal year.
(Source: Sheehan)
Prioritization criteria:
(1) Needs assessment (recreation, open space, natural resources),
(2) Resource categories (forest preserve, water resource protection, significant ecological
areas, recreational opportunities, distinctive character, enhancement of public lands), and
(3) Areas of important open space values (major resource areas (i.e., specific geographic
subdivisions), major linear systems (corridors, rivers, topographic ridges, important
trails), resources of statewide importance, historic and archaeological resources, heritage
areas, urban recreation, shore access, public land improvement, water resource
protection, exceptional biological and natural sites, working landscapes, trail)
Projects that make it onto the priority list may remain on the list for years until funding is
available and the seller is willing to sell. If a new project is proposed, it can be analyzed and put
on the list in a matter of weeks (usually those projects that are clear winners).
Climate change impacts have been considered in thinking about what parcels to set aside.
The 2005 plan identifies a goal to increase carbon sequestration in forests, which is seen as and
described as a good reason for forest land preservation. The forest health group has also looked
at climate models to think about the impacts of climate change on forest structure and
composition. Climate change is recognized as particularly relevant (and taken into account)
when thinking about coastal areas. (Source: Sheehan)
Decision-making process:
See Open Space Plan 1998 (or 2002) Appendix C: Resource Value Rating Systems (Step
6 in Prioritization Process); each of the six resource categories has a set of rules that correspond
with a rating between 0 and 100. Recommendations to decision makers (Step 7).
The first screen is a check on whether or not the proposed parcel is in a priority project
area. If it is not, there is little chance it will move forward. If it is, the decision-making process
proceeds through the following steps:
-------
1. An analysis of whether or not the proj ect falls into one of the land protection
categories (listed in Chapter 3, p. 57 of the 2002 plan). If it falls into more than
one of the categories, it is noted and preferred.
2. An analysis of whether or not the project meets the land protection category
definition and minimum subcategory qualifications (also on p. 57 of the 2002
plan).
3. A look at whether or not the proj ect meets a critical need.
4. An assessment of the alternatives (i.e., if the goals can be met by alternative
approaches that do not involve purchase of the land or development rights). If an
alternative exists that is preferable, the alternative is pursued at this point.
5. If no alternatives are preferable, State department staff and RACs apply the
resource value screens to rate projects from 1-100. If a project scores above 50, it
proceeds to the next step. Project scores are not used to compare projects (i.e., a
project that receives a 70 is not considered a better candidate than one that
receives a 60; both move forward in the decision-making process as equals).
6. A qualitative review screen (chapter 4, p. 72 of 2002 Plan) is applied by staff of
relevant agencies. Projects are analyzed at the regional level first, then reviewed
at the State level, and then reviewed by the agency executive.
7. An executive decision is made by the head of the lead agency, but in consultation
with the Governor and State staff. The lead agency (either DEC or OPRHP) is
determined depending on the goals of the project. If projects overlap the domain
of both agencies, they work together.
State staff and RAC members carry out the resource value screen and assigning rankings,
all of whom have technical expertise, rank projects. The rankings are both data driven and
subjective analysis. See more details above.
Many citizens and groups choose to comment. There are State-wide public hearings. The
overwhelming majority of comments (on a scale of about 2,000 to 3,000 in the last round of
public hearings) are positive. The public can (and do) propose projects. The RAC's are half
appointed by the State and half by the community they represent (which is another avenue for
public participation). This program is among the most popular planning efforts in State history.
Communities have the power to veto any land acquisition in their domain, which has
brought a lot of trust to the process, but can also create barriers. As an example, four
communities vetoed a plan to create a working easement in the State's largest working forest.
The State negotiated a working easement for 250,000 acres owned by International Paper. The
area fell into the domain of 31 towns in the Adirondacks. The four communities that have vetoed
-------
the project account for about 30,000 of those acres. The State is working with those communities
to convince them of the merits of the plan, but will have to move forward without those 30,000
acres if the communities will not budge.
Most places, however, are begging the State to come buy land. In particular, communities
facing development pressures are looking to preserve open space at a critical time in their
development. The State is encouraging local government measures to complement their efforts.
The State has produced an open space planning guide for local governments that provides step-
by-step advice on creating and implementing an open space program. The State is also
encouraging communities to come up with local revenue sources. (Source: Sheehan)
Ultimate decision maker:
The nine Regional Advisory Committees (RACs) provide recommendations to the New
York DEC for "executive decision."
The RACs and State staff work closely together and engage in ongoing dialogue. There is
mutual respect for the expertise that both bring to the table and a good working relationship
towards shared goals. (Source: Sheehan)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
The New York Open Space plan is based on an elaborate set of GIS-based resource
inventories, including public lands, private forest lands, protected wetlands, agricultural areas
and agricultural districts, wild/scenic/recreational rivers, aquifer recharge areas, waters,
floodplains, coastal erosion hazard areas, significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, local
government, lands of statewide or regional significance, significant ecological and wildlife
resources (via a contractual agreement with The Nature Conservancy, the DEC maintains a
statewide biodiversity inventory of significant natural resources for the state of New YorkNY
Heritage program), wildlife management areas, historic preservation area, heritage area, geologic
resources (importance of areas for geologic education and study), fiat boundary base maps.
State staff and members of the RACs constantly consider available data and technical
information. Some steps of the decision-making process (as described above) are solely
qualitative, though. (Source: New York Open Space Conservation Plan, Sheehan)
Priority map:
Yes, state-wide conservation value maps (appear to be pixels or small analytical units).
B-12
-------
Partnerships:
Guiding principles for the open space conservation plan include: the State should work in
partnership with others including local governments, not-for-profit conservation organizations
and private landowners to establish and achieve land conservation goals.
Partnerships are preferred, particularly easements and cost sharing with private/non-profit
organizations; implementation is based on creating effective partnerships including:
Regional Advisory Committees (membership shall represent sportsmen, farmers,
forest owners, environmentalists, historic preservationists, recreationalists, and
educators) that consult with and advise agencies on regional projects and
priorities;
Local Governments (including promoting the creation of local open space plans);
Conservation, Recreation, and Preservation Organizations (are playing an
increasingly important role, including fund raising, obtaining land donations,
acting as an intermediary for the acquisition of land, managing open space areas,
providing volunteers for management and maintenance, providing technical
assistance to governments and others involved in land conservation);
Private Landowners (especially via conservation easements);
Tourism and Travel Industry (promote link between land protection and
tourism/visitor experiences); and
Federal Government (including funding and technical assistance via USFWS,
USNPS, GSA Rural Development Program, FERC, ACOE, Conservation Reserve
Program, USD A, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Wetlands
Reserve Program).
The Nature Conservancy, The Open Space Institute (regional), Trust for Public Land,
Scenic Hudson (regional) have partnered with the State to pursue its open space goals. The State
views the local land trusts and other groups as the eyes and ears on the ground. They work
closely with State staff and the RACs to provide information and advice. (Source: New York
Open Space Conservation Plan, Sheehan)
Available and expended funding:
$150 million was set aside for State land acquisition projects identified in the New York Open
Space Plan. All of the $150 million in bond money has been spent, but the Open Space Program gets an
annual budget through the Environmental Protection Fund. (Source: New York Open Space Conservation
Plan, Sheehan)
IM3
-------
Acres protected:
Unavailable (many different numbers are presented in the Plan).
925,000 acres have been set aside through the New York Open Space Program. There are
numerous general studies and New York-specific studies showing the benefits (including the
economic benefits) of open space protection. There have been no specific studies showing how
particular open space parcels set aside through the New York Open Space Program have resulted
in public benefits.
Sources:
The Department of Environmental Conservation and The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation. 1998 Conserving Open Space in New York State: Final State Open Space Conservation
Plan and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement..
Pataki, George E. 2002 Letter from Governor George E. Pataki to New Yorkers..
New York Open Space Conservation Plan. 2002. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/opensp/. accessed
online October 25, 2005.
Sheehan, Francis, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests,
personal communication with Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, October 27 and 28, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Francis Sheehan, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests.
Phone: (518) 402-9405. Email: fesheeha@gw.dec.state.ny.us.
B-14
-------
2000FL-01 Safe Parks & Land Preservation Bond Program
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
"To support a comprehensive plan to improve and expand the conservation and recreation
assets of Broward County and its municipalities." (Source: Broward County Website)
Program goals:
"Preserve and reclaim approximately 1,425 acres of conservation land, green space, and
open space in Broward County; Repair and enhance our aging park system to provide safe places
for our children to play and parks for everyone's enjoyment." (Source: Broward County Website)
Parcel selection process:
Anyone can recommend a potential acquisition project to the Land Preservation Advisory
Board. Proposed projects may be submitted to the County Commissioners, the Land Preservation
Advisory Board, or the Land Preservation Section. (Source: Broward County Website)
Prioritization criteria:
Habitat type and diversity
Exotic or invasive species presence
Development pressure
Management needs
Passive recreation potential
Aesthetic significance
Stage of ecological succession
Structural diversity
Wildlife utilization
Protected species
Species diversity
Ecological consultants were hired to visit and complete an assessment form for each site
under consideration as a Conservation Land or Green Space site. Staff conducted reviews of
selected sites to confirm the consultants were correctly interpreting data based upon the criteria
created. The main criteria that differentiated between a Conservation Land and a Green Space
-------
was whether the resource was considered by staff to be a "restorable" resource. (Source:
Broward County Website)
Decision-making process:
Participants include the public, Board of County Commissioners, Land Preservation
Advisory Board, Broward County municipalities, Land Preservation Section (Environmental
Protection Department), Real Property Section (Public Works and Transportation Department),
County Attorney's Office, and the Parks and Recreation Division (Community Services
Department). (Source: Burgess)
Anyone can recommend a potential acquisition project to the Land Preservation Advisory
Board. Proposed projects may be submitted to the County Commissioners, the Land Preservation
Advisory Board, or the Land Preservation Section. (Source: Broward County Website)
The Land Preservation Section reviews the proposed projects and recommends their
designation within one of the three land categories identified in the Land Preservation Resolution
2000-1230 (sites that do not meet the criteria for Conservation Land or Green Space may be
proposed for acquisition as Open Space). The Land Preservation Advisory Board recommends
the addition of each site into the Land Preservation Inventory within one of the three land
categories. (Source: Burgess)
The sites recommended by the Land Preservation Advisory Board are brought to the
County Commission to allocate funding for the sites and to authorize County staff to initiate the
acquisition process. (Source: Burgess)
The Real Property Section or their designee contacts the landowner, ascertains the
landowner's willingness to sell, and, in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office, performs
preliminary title work and obtains and reviews appraisals and surveys on the property. The Land
Preservation Section contacts the relevant municipality and prepares, in conjunction with the
County Attorney's Office, a land acquisition and management agreement for each site that the
municipality is willing to manage as a city park. The Land Preservation Section will obtain a
letter of support from the city or town for sites that are located within a municipality but would
be managed by the Broward County Parks and Recreation Division because of their ecological
sensitivity and/or their potential as an addition or buffer to existing County-owned
environmentally sensitive land. (Source: Burgess)
The results of the site acquisition process are communicated to the Land Preservation
Advisory Board. If a purchase price agreement is reached for the proposed site, the LPAB's
recommendation is sought and an Agenda Item is placed for the County Commission discussion,
including a 28-day advance notice of acquisition, when required by the Administrative Code.
IM6
-------
The Agenda Item will include the results of the due diligence and negotiation process and the
Land Preservation Advisory Board recommendation. (Source: Burgess)
Staff generally recommends into which category a site qualifies. The category of
Conservation Lands is essentially natural communities considered restorable. Green Spaces
contain a component of a natural community but are not considered restorable (e.g., tree canopy
only with understory highly disturbed, or drained wetland that cannot be rehydrated.) Everything
else is lumped into the Open Space category: agricultural lands, vacant lots, even motels on the
beach to be removed and replanted with trees and grass. (Source: Burgess)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
There is no prioritization in the Conservation Land (CL) or Green Space (GS) categories.
Open Space parcels are narrowed down to the following: sites in County Commission districts
with funding shortfalls (in an attempt to provide district equity); sites in cities with no other land
acquisition projects in the CL or GS categories; and the projects that provide the best passive
recreational amenities. (Source: Burgess)
Ultimate decision maker:
The Broward County Board of County Commissioners are the ultimate decision makers,
with recommendations from the Land Preservation and Acquisition Advisory Board (LPAB).
(Source: Broward County Website)
The ultimate decision as to whether or not a site is acquired is based on the price offered.
While it is estimated that the program could acquire approximately 75% of the sites in the CL
and GS inventories, the actual percentage was closer to 30% because of the hot real estate market
in south Florida in 2005. Many sites were lost to development, others had unwilling sellers, and
some resulted in failed negotiations because the County relied upon property appraisals that did
not always appear to reflect the "market value" that others were willing to pay. (Source: Burgess)
Some of the main constraints for the program have been: the willingness of a property
owner to sell to the County; a lack of support for specific sites by the municipality within which
the sites lie; the unwillingness of the County Commission to exceed 10% above the appraised
value; or the unwillingness of a municipality to manage a small site within their jurisdiction (i.e.,
they support acquisition but are not interested in managing). (Source: Burgess)
Priority map:
All Conservation Land and Green Space sites were selected for acquisition (no
prioritization). The Open Space sites were ranked by the LPAB, utilizing various criteria based
B-17
-------
upon the funding cycle, with a main priority to ensure that each municipality received at least
one land acquisition within their jurisdiction if they requested any.
Partnerships:
Trust for Public Lands (TPL); TPL assisted initially in acquiring sites that were subject to intense
development pressure before we were able to contract with private acquisition consultants. TPL worked
independent of the County (not under contract) and assisted in several early acquisitions. The partnership
was discontinued after the early stages of the program's inception. (Source: Burgess)
Available and expended funding:
As of October 2005, $135 million spent on land acquisition and ecological restoration costs.
(Source: Burgess)
Acres protected:
As of October 2005, 145 acres of conservation land, 111 acres of green space, and 545
acres of open space have been protected. The dollar per acre average is approximately $300,000
(this figure averages beachfront and commercial sites with more rural lands). (Source: Burgess)
Sources:
Broward County Parks and Recreation Commission: http://www.broward.org/ourfutureA accessed on
August 2005.
Donald Burgess, Land Preservation Administrator Environmental Protection Department, personal
communication with Toby Mandel, ICF Consulting, on November 14, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Donald Burgess, Land Preservation Administrator Environmental Protection Department. Phone:
(954)519-0305. Email: dburgess@broward.org.
B-18
-------
2000FL-02 Volusia Forever*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
"The Mission of Volusia Forever: Finance the acquisition and improvement of
environmentally sensitive, water resource protection, and outdoor recreation lands, and to
manage these lands as conservation stewards in perpetuity." (Source: Volusia Forever Website)
Program goals:
Volusia Forever was created by vote (61%) of the county's citizens in the year 2000. This
twenty year program is supported by an annual ad valorem assessment (0.2 mills). "Conserve,
maintain and restore the natural environment and provide access for the enjoyment and education
of the public; provide resources to ensure that sufficient quantities of water are available to meet
current and future needs; meet the need for high-quality resource based outdoor opportunities,
greenways, trails, and open space; preserve the habitat and water recharge; ensure that the natural
resource values of such lands are protected and that the public has the opportunity to enjoy the
lands to their fullest potential." (Source: Volusia Forever Website)
Parcel selection process:
The Volusia Forever Advisory Committee (VFAC) provides assistance on potential
acquisitions by reviewing and ranking properties under consideration and making formal
recommendations to the County Council. (Source: Volusia Forever Website)
Committee is comprised of nine citizens appointed by the County Council. Each district
County Council member appoints one Committee member and the County Council Chair and
Vice-Chair each appoint two Committee members. The Committee's term is for two years and
members can be re-appointed. Other than being a registered elector and resident of the county,
there are no formal qualifications required in order to be appointed to the VFAC. The members
of the VFAC typically represent a wide variety of backgrounds and interests.
In general, when designing the program (not just the VFAC), Volusia looked at other
counties with programs in place, and then took the best practices of each of the other programs.
In particular, Volusia Forever looked heavily at the State's Florida Forever program.
Volusia Forever is a voluntary program relying exclusively upon willing sellers.
Applications are only accepted from the landowner or his/her authorized representative.
IM9
-------
Members of the public may not submit an application to the program for land that they do not
own or are not authorized by the landowner to represent.
There are two application cycles each year, typically concluding in June and December.
The application solicits information describing the site and explaining why the property should
be considered for the program. Applications received are forwarded to the VFAC for
determination of eligibility using the established criteria. (Source: Isenhour)
Prioritization criteria:
The categories and criteria used when evaluating properties for potential acquisition are
specified by County Resolution. The categories are proximity and connectivity, furtherance of
acquisition efforts, water resources, environmentally sensitive lands, recreation/public use,
management and enhancement. With the exception of the enhancement category, each of these
categories are primary.
Specific criterion are itemized under each category. Each property, as it relates to the
criterion, is evaluated on a Yes/No basis. A sliding scale, ranging from Low to High, is used to
further define the applicability of an affirmative response to a criterion. In order to be eligible, a
property should receive a specified minimum number of affirmative answers to the primary
criteria. (Source: Isenhour)
Decision-making process:
Once a property application is submitted, staff does a desk review to evaluate the
property using the criteria cited above. The application, along with staffs evaluation, is
presented to the VFAC for the purpose of determining if the property is eligible for the program.
If the property is deemed eligible, staff will visit the site and prepare an analytical report
that is presented to the VFAC at the next bi-annual ranking meeting. These documents are all
public record and provided to the property owner.
Properties are recommended for placement within either Group A or Group B of the
Volusia Forever list. Group A is comprised of the active acquisition properties. Properties within
Group B are not the preferred candidates for acquisition, and more importantly, typically do not
have a funding partner. If a funding partner were to become available, a Group B property could
be elevated to Group A.
When considering placement of property within a Group, the Committee uses the criteria
cited above plus additional information including public comment, maps, GIS, photos, local
knowledge and the probability for receiving matching funds from other land acquisition sources.
Climate change is not considered at all, as it is beyond the scope of what is necessary to
determine if a property is worthy of acquisition.
-------
The VFAC's recommended ranking of eligible properties is subsequently presented to the
County Council, which has final approval of the ranking. The meetings of both the VFAC and
County Council are public hearings. (Source: Isenhour)
Ultimate decision maker:
The County Council has final approval of the Ranking list and approves all property
purchases. (Source: Walsh)
A property must be Group A to be acquired. The County Council can move properties
between Groups A and B, but cannot place a property within either Group without prior
eligibility review and recommendation by the VFAC. The County Council has been very
supportive of the recommendations of the VFAC. (Source: Isenhour)
There is no ranking scheme of the properties within Groups A or B. Acquisition efforts
for multiple properties within Group A may be undertaken concurrently. Initially, there was a
ranking system within the Groups, but it was removed. Prioritization ceased for several reasons:
conflicts with partners, coordinating grant cycles with the highest priority sites didn't work out,
and many prime sites could not be acquired. Volusia is attempting to acquire properties as the
opportunity arises, rather than having to wait for a certain property to make it to the "top of the
list." This strategy promotes the effectiveness of the program's overall acquisition efforts by
eliminating the scenario wherein a landowner placed in a preeminent position could delay or
preclude negotiates for other properties. Volusia also has the ability to buy a property with 100%
funding and can seek matching funding later. (Source: Isenhour)
Significant time constraints of a potential acquisition are the requirements associated with
the process by which a local government purchases real property (i.e., the appraisal process,
surveying, etc.).
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Priority map:
Priority areas are the Volusia Conservation Corridor (VCC), which bisects the county, the
Ponce Preserve Conservation Project and the Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve, both of which
are located in the eastern portion of the county, and the Lake George Conservation Area, located
in the northwestern quadrant of the county.
All properties that fall within these priority areas move to Group A without any other
considerations (prioritization criteria, etc.).
B-21
-------
When looking outside of the priority areas, connectivity of a potential acquisition with
other conservation lands is a significant consideration. Conservation lands represent
approximately one quarter of the county. Other important considerations are property size and
habitat(s).
Partnerships:
A goal of the program is to leverage each local dollar with a dollar from a funding
partner. Potential acquisition partners include; the St. Johns River Water Management District,
State agencies (e.g., Florida Division of Forestry, Florida Communities Trust), Federal agencies
(e.g., Department of Agriculture), local municipalities and non-profit organizations (e.g., the
Trust for Public Lands). (Source: Isenhour)
Available and expended funding:
Monies generated from a $40 million bond (issued in 2005) and annual ad valorem
revenue support the Volusia Forever program. While the bond funds represent a "one-time"
source of revenue, the ad valorem assessment is for the 20-year life of the program. As recently
demonstrated, the real estate market can be volatile. The amount of revenue generated yearly
varies dependent upon the taxable base upon which the millage is levied. Ten percent of the total
annual funds are allocated for land management. (Source: Isenhour)
To date, approximately $52 million in Volusia Forever funds have been expended for
acquisition. This amount has been furthered by the expenditure of approximately $33 million by
our acquisition partners. (Source Isenhour)
Acres protected:
To date, Volusia Forever has protected, with our funding partners, approximately 33,000
acres. This acreage consists of 39 purchases (both fee simple and less-than fee) plus numerous
parcels acquired in antiquated subdivisions/plats through the "small-lot" initiative of the Volusia
Forever program. (Source: Isenhour)
Other Information:
Volusia County was one of the first counties to have a taxpayer funded program,
established in 1986. The Volusia Forever program is the second land acquisition endeavor.
The Volusia Forever program has received both national and state awards;
- "Better Community Award" (2008) from the 1000 Friends of Florida
"County Leadership in Conservation Award" (2006) from the Trust for Public
Lands and the National Association of Counties, and
-------
"Achievement Award (2003) from the National Association of Counties.
Sources:
Ed Isenhour, Volusia Forever Program Coordinator, County of Volusia, personal communication with
Philip Groth, ICF Consulting, May 8, 2009.
Volusia Forever, http://volusiaforever-echo.com/forever/default.htm. accessed on August 2005.
Robert J. Walsh, Volusia Forever Program Manager, Land Acquisition & Management, personal
communication with Toby Mandel and Anne Choate, ICF Consulting, November 11, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Ed Isenhour, Volusia Forever Program Coordinator, County of Volusia, Division of Land Acquisition and
Management. Phone: (386) 740-5261. Email: eisenhour@co.volusia.fl.us.
B-23
-------
2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
"Alachua County Forever is a land conservation program to acquire and protect
environmentally significant lands. Through this program, Alachua County seeks to acquire,
protect and manage environmentally significant lands, protect water resources, wildlife habitat,
and natural areas suitable for resource-based recreation." (Source: Alachua County Forever)
Program goals:
Alachua County Forever will be a conscientious, innovative, progressive leader in land
conservation and use acquisition, stewardship and funding development practices to preserve the
environmental integrity of Alachua County and improve the quality of life for current and future
generations. (Source: Alachua County Forever)
Parcel selection process:
On July 25, 2000, the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC)
approved Ordinance 00-13, enabling the creation of a Land Conservation Board (LCB).
Appointed by the BoCC, the 11 citizens volunteer to review and recommend lands within
Alachua County to be acquired for conservation purposes. The LCB is composed of five
members representing diverse community interests and six members whose qualifications
include education and experience in natural resources. (Source: Alachua County Forever
website)
Selection of a property generally takes between two and six months. A landowner or
another member of the community submits parcel nominations. Approximately 1/3 of non-
landowner nominations do not progress past the nomination stage, as the owners are not
interested in selling the land. Of the remaining 2/3, half are eager to participate, and half are only
interested in considering alternative arrangements such as easements, etc. (Source: Buch)
Program staff evaluates all nominated parcels using the prioritization criteria below. The
evaluation is a quantitative ranking process, with each parcel receiving a score. This score is
presented to the LCB. (Source: Buch.
http://www.alachuacounty.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/Files/Resolution%2009-
010 Web.pdf)
-------
Prioritization criteria:
I. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
1.1. Protection of Water Resources
A. Whether the property has geologic/hydrologic conditions that would easily enable
contamination of vulnerable aquifers that have value as drinking water sources;
B. Whether the property serves an important groundwater recharge function;
C. Whether the property contains or has direct connections to lakes, creeks, rivers, springs,
sinkholes, or wetlands for which conservation of the property will protect or improve surface
water quality;
D. Whether the property serves an important flood management function.
1.2. Protection of Natural Communities and Landscapes
A. Whether the property contains a diversity of natural communities;
B. Whether the natural communities present on the property are rare;
C. Whether there is ecological quality in the communities present on the property;
D. Whether the property is functionally connected to other natural communities;
E. Whether the property is adjacent to properties that are in public ownership or have other
environmental protections such as conservation easements;
F. Whether the property is large enough to contribute substantially to conservation efforts;
G. Whether the property contains important, Florida-specific geologic features such as caves or
springs;
H. Whether the property is relatively free from internal fragmentation from roads, power lines,
and other features that create barriers and edge effects.
1.3. Protection of Plant and Animal Species
A. Whether the property serves as documented or potential habitat for rare, threatened, or
endangered species or species of special concern;
B. Whether the property serves as documented or potential habitat for species with large home
ranges;
C. Whether the property contains plants or animals that are endemic or near-endemic to Florida or
Alachua County;
D. Whether the property serves as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities
such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering;
E. Whether the property offers high vegetation quality and species diversity;
F. Whether the property has low incidence of non-native invasive species.
1.4. Social/Human Values
A. Whether the property offers opportunities for compatible resource-based recreation, if
appropriate;
B. Whether the property contributes to urban green space, provides a municipal defining
-------
greenbelt, provides scenic vistas, or has other value from an urban and regional planning
perspective.
ILL MANAGEMENT ISSUES
A. Whether it will be practical to manage the property to protect its environmental, social and
other values (examples include controlled burning, exotics removal, maintaining hydro-period,
and so on);
B. Whether this management can be completed in a cost-effective manner.
II.2 ECONOMIC/ACQUISITION ISSUES
A. Whether there is potential for purchasing the property with matching funds from municipal,
state, federal, or private contributions;
B. Whether the overall resource values justifies the potential cost of acquisition;
C. Whether there is imminent threat of losing the environmental, social or other values of the
property through development and/or lack of sufficient legislative protections (this requires
analysis of current land use, zoning, owner intent, location and market conditions);
D. Whether there is an opportunity to protect the environmental, social or other values of the
property through an economically attractive less-than-fee mechanism such as a conservation
easement. (Source: Alachua County Forever
http://www.alachuacounty.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/site scoring criteria.pdf.
http://www.alachuacountv.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/Files/Resolution%2009-
010 Web.pdf)
The Decision Matrix uses weighted criteria (the most important criteria are more heavily
weighted). Environmental Values account for approximately 2/3 of total score. All other criteria
make up the other 1/3 of the score. (Source: Buch)
Decision-making process:
Staff evaluates projects, or portions of projects, with the Land Conservation Decision
Matrix (LCDM) and assigns a numeric score between 1 and 5 reflecting how well the project
addresses each criterion. The Environmental and Social/Human Values that make up Section I of
the LCDM determine if a property meets the intent of the Alachua County Forever Program.
This section is weighted so that the average of the scores in this section equals 2/3 of the total
final score calculated by the LCDM. The Management and Economic/Acquisition Issues make
up Section II, which assess a property's vulnerability and the economic feasibility of acquisition
and management. This is weighted so that the average of the scores from this section equals 1/3
of the total score calculated by the LCDM. Total final scores range from a minimum of 2 to a
maximum of 10. (Source: Buch.
-------
http://www.alachuacounty.us/assets/uploads/itnages/EPD/Land/Files/Resolution%2009-
010 Web.pdf).
Ultimate decision maker:
The County Commission (CC) is the ultimate decision maker. The LCB makes
recommendations to the CC. Once a property has been evaluated with the LCDM scoring matrix
and has received a positive recommendation from the board, it may proceed to the CC.
Properties that do not meet these two requirements are not eligible for consideration or
acquisition. Approximately /^ of the properties that are presented to the LCB by the program
staff are approved to the CC. (Source: Buch)
A total of 31 properties have been recommended to the CC from the LCB. Although it
was initially specified in the ballot language, there is not a priority list or ranking among the
properties. Prioritization was discontinued to try to increase negotiation power for the county. By
keeping all parcels on an equal playing field, landowners may be more apt to accept an offer
made by the County since there are other parcels the County can choose if any given landowner
is difficult during negotiations. (Source: Buch)
There is a loose link between the results of the evaluation of prioritization criteria by the
LCB and the ultimate decision to purchase a parcel. The highest scoring property would ideally
be the highest priority for acquisition, but the County is a political environment with additional
factors that need to be considered. One example of a low scoring property that was elevated for
acquisition is a property that is close in proximity to three elementary schools. The CC decided
that it was more valuable to instill a sense of environmental ethic in the younger population of
the County than choose a parcel with a higher score. In short, the CC has the ability to deviate
from top scorers, but will only do so for the greater benefit of the community. (Source: Buch)
There are not too many legal, regulatory or political constraints, but there are significant
financial constraints to acquisition. There is huge competition with developers for many of their
properties. Unfortunately the county tends to "lose" the battle with developers, since the upper
limit of purchasing price is not allowed to exceed the appraised price per acre of land. The issue
has always been present, but it is becoming increasingly prevalent. (Source: Buch)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Many data sources are used to evaluate a property, including technical sources. GIS
mapping and current aerial maps are used in addition to a property walk. The LCB also uses 1-2
foot laser shot contour lines from aircraft showing fine scale hydrology and topography, aiding
them to see sink holes and microclimates. (Source: Buch)
-------
Priority map:
There is a map available on the web site, with color coded parcels for the county.
(http://www.alachuacountv.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/Images/ACF%20Project%20Ma
p%20090313.pdf.)
Partnerships:
Partners include the State of Florida, regional water management authorities, city of
Gainesville, The Nature Conservancy, other private groups, and the Forest legacy program
(grant). (Source: Buch)
Available and expended funding:
From 2001 through March 2008, acquisitions were funded through $29 million in voter-
approved bonds, payable through a quarter-mill ad valorem property tax, levied for 20 years.
(Source: Alachua County Forever Website). With its passage in 2008, the "Wild Spaces Public
Places" referendum funds new acquisitions from April 2009 onward. This new 0.5% Local
Government Infrastructure Surtax is expected to raise between $10 million and $15 million for
land conservation through December 2010.
Both funds must be used for land acquisition or acquisition activities. Up to 10% of the
funds can be set aside for initial capital improvements, and none can be used for stewardship or
management. In order for there to be any management of the property, the County must
designate County funds in the annual budget. (Source: Buch)
The program has experienced significant financial restraints in acquiring lands. There is
an extremely high level of competition with developers for many of the properties on the
acquisition list. Unfortunately, many properties are "lost" to the developers, as the County is
restricted to paying up to the appraised value for the property. (Source: Buch)
Acres protected:
Currently (through March 27, 2009) the Active Acquisition List has $98 million and
42,863 acres. Included in this estimate is the 17,086 acres that have already been protected.
Those acquisitions cost $74 million, $23 million of which came from the program budget. Prices
have ranged from $1,000 to $50,000 per acre. (Source: Buch.
http://www.alachuacountv.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/Files/Program%20Summary.pdf)
B-28
-------
Other Information:
The Florida Communities Trust (a state agency) (www.myflorida.com) has a very good
system for soliciting and evaluating applications. This program, like the other state programs is
funded through bonds and transfer taxes, which might be a statutory requirement. (Source: Buch)
In Florida, approximately 30 of all 67 counties have some form of land protection and
acquisition program. Programs, which have dedicated management/stewardship funding built
into the measure, are clearly in the best situation for long term success. (Source: Buch)
Sources:
Alachua County Forever, www.alachuacountyforever.us. accessed June 15, 2009.
Ramesh Buch, Environmental Program Supervisor, personal communication with Toby Mandel, ICF
Consulting, October 31, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Ramesh Buch, Environmental Program Supervisor. Phone: (352) 264-6804. Email:
rpbuch@alachuacounty.us.
B-29
-------
2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
"The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners declares that Washtenaw County is a
desirable place to live, work and visit in large part because of the existence of natural areas
within the County. Natural areas have aesthetic as well as practical benefits for County citizens.
In addition, the purchase of natural areas can be used to protect fragile lands and environmentally
threatened lands. The purchase of natural areas within the County will further these public
benefits. Passive recreation would be appropriate use of this land." (Source: NAPP)
The property tax millage and land preservation program was established through a
grassroots effort to set aside natural areas and protect them from development. (Source:
Freeman)
Program goals:
"Preservation of the natural, ecological diversity/heritage of Washtenaw County;
complement the existing network of publicly and privately protected lands; maximize the public
benefit." (Source: Parks and Recreation Commission)
The phrase "maximize public benefit" means "maximize quality of life". The
preservation of natural areas is a key component of quality of life and that water resources and
wildlife are included in the term natural areas. In addition, all land areas preserved are required
to be viable habitat for wildlife or plants and as such, larger parcels often receive higher priority.
(Source: Freeman)
Parcel selection process:
Property owners are invited to submit applications to the Washtenaw County Parks and
Recreation Commission (WCPARC), which administers the program,-(Commission has elected
to prohibit initiating contact with owners Applications are reviewed by WCPARC staff, who also
gather background information and visit the nominated properties. The information gathered by
WCPARC is provided to the Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC), who
reviews and visits each nominated property. Then, NATAC recommends to WCPARC whether
the parcel should be preserved, and how much the County should pay. The recommendation is
also forwarded to the Planning Advisory Board and the local government who can provide
-------
comments. WCPARC ranks the nominated properties and selects the highest ranking properties
to pursue for purchase. At this stage, promising parcels are appraised and subject to a Phase 1
environmental assessment. The final step in the process is negotiating a price for purchasing the
property and a decision by WCPARC on whether to purchase the land for that price. See Figure
B-l .
NOMINATION
FORM
SUBMIT! AL
BY OWNER
WCPARC STAFF
GATHERS
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
NAT AC REVIEW
& SITE VISIT
NATAC
RECOMMENDATION
TO WCPARC
FORWARD DOCUMENTATION TO
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND
LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT
NOTIFY OWNERS
NOT SELECTED
THIS CYCLE
OBTAIN
APPRAISALS
ON SELECTED
PROPERTIES
NEGOTIATION
BETWEEN
OWNER & WCPARC
FINAL DECISION
BY WCPARC
PURCHASE OR
NOT PURCHASE
Figure B-l. Washtenaw County Natural Areas Preservation Program
property review process.
(Source: Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission)
B-31
-------
The Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC) includes seven county
residents with the following expertise: Professional Real Estate or Development Practice,
Environmental Education, Fisheries Biology/Aquatic Ecology, Professional Land Use Planning,
Wildlife Management, Botany/Forestry, and Land Trust/Conservation. Currently, three positions
are filled by faculty or staff at the University of Michigan; the others are a realtor, a public
school employee, and a design professional. (The affiliation of the member holding the land trust
position was not available.)
Prioritization criteria:
"A. Public Water Resources.
I. Water Resources Access/Frontage. Does the property have frontage on a lake or
perennial stream? yes no.
If the property borders an aquatic ecosystem, assign relative screening score following the table
below. If it fits in more than one category use highest value.
Borders Lake, large pond, or
chain of ponds
Frontage is 100-500 ft.
Frontage is 50 1-1000 ft.
Frontage > 1000 ft. or the entire
system is contained in the
parcel.
Medium
High
Very high
Borders perennial
stream (@i:24,ooo)
50-100 ft.
100-2000 ft
>2000ft. or>500
ft on both sides
Medium
High
Very high
II. Surface water quality protection. Is the property directly connected to a surface-water
ecosystem? yes no
Does the property drain to:
A seepage system with significant public access and/or ownership (Medium)
A small drainage system (median discharge of 5-25 cubic ft/sec) (High)
A larger drainage system (median discharge greater than 25 cubic ft/sec) (Very high)
III. Ground water quality protection. Does the parcel contain any known or expected
recharge areas? yes no
B-32
-------
Does the property contain significant areas of known or expected:
Regional groundwater recharge (Medium)
Local high velocity recharge for throughflow/groundwater connections to surface water
(High)
Local high velocity recharge for throughflow/groundwater connections to public
well/water supply systems (Very high)
IV. Wetland Conservation/ protection. Does the parcel contain or border wetland areas?
yes no
Does the property contain:
5-15 acres of lacustrine fringe, riverine, or palustrine marsh wetlands (Medium)
15-50 acres of lacustrine fringe, riverine, or palustrine marsh wetlands (High)
>50 acres of any type of wetland or a complete palustrine wetland >20 acres in size (Very
High)
NOTE: Lacustrine = lake; Riverine = river; Palustrine = standing water.
B. Special Animals, Plants and Plant Communities
I. Wildlife Habitat. Does the property support important terrestrial or aquatic populations or
habitat or add to already protected property/ies that would protect wildlife populations or
habitat? yes no
The property contributes high quality home range habitat for wide ranging resident
wildlife compatible with surrounding land uses. (Medium)
The property secures important habitat within the property or in combination with
protected adjoining properties for at least one of the following: migrating songbirds,
migrating waterfowl, desirable resident species requiring specialized habitat conditions.
(High)
The property secures essential habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species. (Very
high)
II. Special Plants and Plant Communities. Does the property have some native vegetation?
yes no
The property contains sufficient components of pre-European settlement vegetation to
allow restoration to pre-European settlement conditions. (Medium)
-------
The property supports populations of plant species that show a fidelity to high quality
natural communities and specialized habitats within the property. (High)
The property secures essential habitat for rare, threatened or endangered plant species or
rare, imperiled or critically imperiled plant communities. (Very high)
C. Recreational and Scientific Values
I. Recreation. Will the property provide access to public waters or trails, or protect a trail
corridor?
(a) Will the property, or a specifically granted affirmative right to public access if a
conservation restriction, provide deeded public access to public waters where no such
permanent access now exists in the vicinity?
(b) Will the property abut a trail, or be within reasonable proximity of a trail that is now
or could be regularly used by the general public for recreation?
II. Scientific Site. Is the property a recognized, or potential, site of scientific/interpretive
study (e.g., natural communities, species, archeological resources)?
D. Proximity to Protected Land
I. Adjacency. Does the property abut, or is otherwise integral to, a permanently protected
tract of public or private land being held for conservation or recreation purposes?
II. Enhancement. Will the property enhance the ecosystem integrity of an adjacent,
permanently protected tract of public or private land being held for conservation or recreation
purposes?" (Source: Parks and Recreation Commission 2001)
WCPARC intentionally did not develop a point based system. The program did not want
to be held back or restricted from purchasing a property because of a point score. Instead, a more
subjective system was developed which evaluates properties through comparison of the
qualifications of all nominated properties. Essentially, the properties are ranked in order of
importance for preservation. They are also able to review properties submitted in earlier years if
the property owner agrees. Under this system, the properties that are evaluated as having highest
priority are pursued first. (Source: Freeman)
In their evaluation criteria, there is no single most important criteria for selection
although there is an emphasis on water resources and stream/river frontage. While the focus in
the water resources criteria above is on amount of water frontage, wetlands, and recharge zones,
they do consider the condition of the water resource as well. In addition, they do not specifically
-------
consider the implications of climate change, pollution, or habitat loss, on the properties in the
evaluation process but they do consider development pressures. The program might consider
pursuing a property above another if there is an imminent development threat. (Source: Freeman)
Decision-making process:
NAT AC recommends properties to WCPARC for purchase. WCPARC evaluates the
recommendation and selects properties to pursue. These properties are then appraised, subject to
a Phase 1 environmental assessment and cost negotiations are begun with property owners.
WCPARC reviews the appraisals, environmental assessments, and cost negotiations for these
properties and makes final decision on whether to purchase each property. For the full parcel
selection process, see Figure B-l .
The process takes about 4to 6 months to come to a decision on which properties the
Commission would like to acquire. The actual acquisition process can take much longer,
especially if extensive Title work is required for the property. The process is slow and deliberate
but necessary to assure the acquisition of prime properties. (Source: Freeman)
Ultimate decision maker:
Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission.
The Commission thoroughly reviews the recommendations made by NATAC and makes
the decision on which lands to purchase and how much money they are willing to spend. In one
instance, a piece of land recommended by NATAC for purchase was rejected by the Parks
Commission. In this instance, the Parks Commission decided that this land parcel was not as
high a priority as other lands being recommended and funding is limited such that not all parcels
can be purchased. (Source: Freeman)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Data used in the evaluation process include data from the University of Michigan on
groundwater and water quality, maps of groundwater/recharge areas from the Department of
Planning and Environment, analysis of the land by the naturalist on NATAC, endangered
species/species of concern data from state DNR, and additional GIS layers/maps from the
County Planning and Environment Office - including protected land and conservation easement
information. In addition, WCPARC staff, NATAC, and WCPARC decision makers walk the
properties nominated. (Source: Freeman)
B-35
-------
Priority map:
No county wide map of priority lands has been developed. The program is still receiving
numerous nominations each year and is working to keep on top of them. If the number of
nominations decreases, they would consider putting together a map of priority areas in the
County and perhaps contacting landowners. (Source: Freeman)
Partnerships:
Parks Commission partnered with a local land trust, the Southeast Michigan Land
Conservancy on protection of a 64-acre parcel, part of the 325 acre LeFurge Woods Nature
Preserve, owned by the Conservancy. A 205-acre site near the River Raisin included an
agreement that The Nature Conservancy would purchase an additional adjacent 40 acres.
(Source: the Nature Conservancy) Applicants are asked if they have been working with an
organization.
There is no specific partnership with one NGO or land protection agency. The program
will work with other groups to purchase land or help purchase land if needed though. (Source:
Freeman)
Available and expended funding:
$27.5 million is current estimate. Implementing legislation allows up to seven percent to
be spent on program administration.
They receive about 2.75 million per year from the property tax. (Source: Freeman)
Through June 2009, they have spent a total of $ $17.75 million to purchase land. They
are in their ninth funded year. So far, land costs have ranged from $5,000/acre to $25,000/acre
depending largely on location. (Source: Freeman)
They are able to carry any excess funds over to the next year for future land purchases.
They can also work with a property owner to purchase a land area in two installments if there are
not enough funds in the budget to purchase a property. So far however, they have not had to do
this.
They have noticed an increase in wildlife activity on the natural lands that they have
protected, especially if the lands were previously being used (or farmed) regularly. Scientific
articles discussing these types of impacts have not been identified, but the program keeps the
public informed of their process regularly through local newspaper articles on land that has been
protected. Providing this information to the public will be critical in making sure that the millage
is renewed in 2010.
B-36
-------
Acres protected:
Twenty-four parcels, ranging in size from six acres to 205 acres, have been
acquired since 2002.
As of June 2009, a total of 1,687 acres have been protected. (Source: Freeman)
The land can't be sold or removed from protection while the millage is in effect.
Technically, if the millage is not renewed in 2010, the legislation could be interpreted such that
the land could be sold (this is unlikely as WCPARC has not sold any land in 35 years). The
Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission is the owner of the properties purchased
and they hold the properties under state statute in the name of the County.
The lands purchased through NAPP are kept completely natural. No buildings are put on
the lands (not even bathrooms) and only passive recreation, essentially walking, is allowed on
the properties. The public is allowed to access the land but there are no paved trails and neither
bikes nor pets are allowed. The naturalist on staff does hold nature walks periodically. (Source:
Freeman)
NAPP focuses on the fee simple purchase of land rather than the purchase of
conservation easements. As of June 2009, only three conservation easements, totaling 82 acres,
have been purchased. Public access is an important aspect of the program in Washtenaw County
and if public access were not allowed, they would not even consider purchase of a conservation
easement. (Source: Freeman)
NAPP was not modeled after any other land preservation program but it did draw on the
experience of some citizens (members of NAT AC) that had prior work experience at a Land
Trust. (Source: Freeman)
As far as providing helpful information for other Counties interested in similar programs,
it is critical to have a public forum for discussion of the program and that it is imperative to get
the local home builders association to support the program. They were able to do this by
convincing them that they would receive less public opposition to the developments they were
building if the public felt that key natural areas were being preserved in the process. Although
the process may be slow-going at times, it is important to be deliberate and not rush the process.
(Source: Freeman)
Sources:
Freeman, Tom. 2005. Telephone conversation between Tom Freeman, Superintendent of Park Planning,
Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission, and Amanda Vemuri, ICF Consulting on October
25,2005.
B-37
-------
Parks and Recreation Commission,
http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/parks_recreation/napp/pr_natac.html. accessed on
July 19, 2005.
Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission. 2001. Natural Areas Preservation Program
Screening System for Review of Potential Acquisitions. Received by email from Tom Freeman, October
25,2005.
Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission. Natural Areas Preservation Program Property
Review Process. Received by email from Tom Freeman, October 25, 2005.
Natural Areas Preservation Program (NAPP). Ordinance No. 128. Declaration of Purpose.
http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/parks_recreation/napp/pr_natac.html/pr_natacord.ht
ml, accessed on October 25, 2005.
Washtenaw County,
http://bocdob.ewashtenaw.org/bocdob/jsp/ad boards.jsp?value=Natural%20Areas%20Technical%20Advi
sory%20Committee%20&subid=32. accessed on July 19, 2005.
The Nature Conservancy, http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/michigan/funding/.
accessed on July 19, 2005
Michigan Natural Areas Council Newsletter, October 2001, No. 42:3, http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~ranecurl/mnac/News&Views 1001 .pdf. accessed on July 19, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Tom Freeman, Superintendent of Park Planning, Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission.
Phone: (734) 971-6337, ex. 323. Email: FreemanT(g),ewashtenaw.org.
B-38
-------
2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
Purpose from the Land Preservation Program Ordinance (Article III. Division 1. Sec. 22-
57):
"This article is adopted for the following purposes: (1) To protect, preserve and enhance
the township's open space and special natural features. (2) To serve additional public purposes
through the purchase of property or interests in property for open space, enhancement of the
natural habitat and water quality, and the establishment of a reserve fund to ensure that funding
is available for the perpetual stewardship of these lands. (3) To leave an important natural legacy
for future generations. (4) To take deliberate steps to ensure the continuation of a pleasant and
livable community that will benefit our residents, visitors, and the local economy by employing a
variety of techniques that will allow areas of natural landscape to remain in perpetuity
throughout the township." (Source: Meridian Township Ordinance)
Meridian residents have a long history of very active pursuit of keeping their community
"rural in character." As a regional shopping destination, a population of nearly 40,000 and
excellent school systems in Michigan, this is not an easy task. Meridian residents have the
benefit of living beside Michigan State University with many of its professors of forestry,
wetlands, fisheries, agriculture, etc., as members of the community. As a result, Meridian has
many residents who highly value the surrounding natural resources, have an in-depth knowledge
and understanding of its value, and are willing to assist the Township in its pursuit of finding a
harmonious balance between preservation and development. (Source: Helmbrecht)
Program goals:
"The criteria were developed to reflect principles established by landscape ecology and
land conservation objectives to maintain a maximum degree of biodiversity and to develop,
manage, and maintain ecological infrastructure through management of protected areas."
(Source: Thomas)
B-39
-------
Parcel selection process:
The Land Preservation Advisory Board based their screening process (in part) "on
principles of landscape ecology using a weighted, multi-variable approach similar to USDA's
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment procedure." (Source: Thomas)
The process consists of four main components. First, open space was inventoried using
remote sensing and GIS. Second, land screening criteria were developed and tested. Third,
nominated properties are reviewed in the field and results are archived in the GIS. Fourth,
technical information are input into a public information program. (Source: Thomas)
Property owners are invited to submit applications.
Prioritization criteria:
"The screening criteria include ecological value, natural or functional value, parcel size,
surrounding land use, environmental quality, and aesthetic value." (Source: Thomas)
Each of the categories listed also has subcriteria with associated point values. Ecological
value is worth 100 points total, spread across the following five subcriteria: (1) contains
ecosystems of state, regional or local importance (40 points); (2) contains protected wildlife or
vegetation and/or overall high diversity of species (30 points); (3) contains habitat for protected
species (15 points); (4) helps connect prime greenways and wildlife corridors (10 points); and (5)
other ecological values (5 points).
Natural or functional value is worth a total of 90 points and has the following subcriteria:
(1) significant upland buffer to an area otherwise protected (wetland, riparian area, or shoreline)
(31.5 points); (2) contains significant woodlot or woodland (22.5 points); (3) contains
prime/unique soils or agricultural values (18 points); (4) provides ground water recharge and
water quality enhancement; provides flood and storm water control (13.5 points); and (5)
important natural feature not protected by other means (4.5 points).
Parcel size is worth 80 points with four subcriteria: (1) large land area with potential,
through succession, to become significant natural resource (40 points); (2) parcel > 5 acres,
contiguous to permanently preserved property or one that has PDR offered (20 points); (3) parcel
> 5 acres (12 points); and (4) parcel < 5 acres having important habitat value (8 points).
Surrounding land use is worth a total of 70 points and has the following five subcriteria:
(1) property contiguous to protected property (e.g., wetland, riparian area, park) (24.5 points); (2)
open space value of property can be protected after purchase (17.5 points); (3) property
contiguous to agricultural area (14 points); (4) property contiguous to residential area (10.5
points); and (5) property contiguous to mixed use area (3.5 points).
B-40
-------
Environmental quality is worth 40 points total, spread across three subcriteria: (1)
property contains no environmental contamination (32 points); (2) property contains possible
environmental contamination (6 points); and (3) property contains known environmental
contamination (2 points).
Aesthetic value is worth 40 points and has three subcriteria: (1) provides open greenspace
to separate incompatible land uses or monotony of same uses (22 points); (2) provides unique
multiple use opportunities (12 points); and (3) aesthetic values average for township (6 points).
Special considerations can be worth up to 40 points. (Source: Thomas)
The most important criteria/intent is to select properties with significant natural feature1
value. Program money is set aside for "enhancement" which allows for projects such as returning
a wetland to its more natural state or rescuing plants, e.g., Trillium, from a development site and
having it transplanted onto a Land Preservation property. (Source: Helmbrecht)
Occasionally the advisory board has debates regarding the point values for highly visible
parcels carrying a higher aesthetic value than natural feature value. The debates are "lively" and
generally board members fall into the following two categories, academics versus "sensitives."
(Source: Helmbrecht)
The program has targeted many properties alongside water features or known spawning
habitats. Red Cedar River flows across the Township and the Township also boasts medium-size
Lake Lansing. That said, Helbrecht stated that "One of the beauties of this program is its
intentional diversity. Unlike other programs focusing on one specific type of land, e.g., Leelanau
County, MI and the cherry farms, we have selected to preserve a wide variety of lands." (Source:
Helmbrecht)
In discussions of the evaluation criteria, the advisory board has considered change over
time and this is projected to some extent in the Stewardship and Stewardship Implementation
plans. Climate specific discussion, however, has not occurred. (Source: Helmbrecht)
Decision-making process:
"Amend Section 22-61 as follows:
(a) Application completion and submission. A property owner interested in
submitting property for consideration shall personally or through an agent
complete the township's land preservation application form. Application forms
shall be obtained from, and completed applications shall be submitted to, the
office of the township clerk.
1 Natural features include lakes, rivers, animals, plants, ecosystems, etc. and maps of this information can be
obtained from the Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
B-41
-------
(b) Application receipt and review. The office of the township clerk may receive
applications at any time and shall take them to the Advisory Board no less
frequently than on a quarterly basis.
(c) Advisory board initial review. Within sixty (60) days after the applications are
forwarded by the township clerk the advisory board shall perform an initial
review to determine whether the subject properties meet applicable eligibility
requirements. Advisory board members, accompanied by Environmental
Commission members shall cause an ecological review applying the land
screening criteria outlined in the rules of procedure to be performed with respect
to each eligible property and the results of that ecological review shall be timely
reported to the advisory board.
(d) Advisory board evaluation and recommendation. Following receipt of the
ecological review, the advisory board may obtain appraisals, title work, surveys
and such other information as it deems reasonably necessary to conduct its final
evaluation and arrive at a determination as to which property interests, if any, may
be recommended to the township for acquisition. No appraisal shall be required
for property to be donated to the land preservation program.
(e) Negotiations for acquisition. Upon determining that a property interest may be
recommended to the township for acquisition, the advisory board may undertake
negotiations with the property owner to arrive at mutually acceptable terms for the
township's acquisition of that property interest.
(f) Conditional agreements for property interest acquisition. After completion of
negotiations all terms and conditions agreed upon for the acquisition of a property
interest by the township shall be set forth in a writing executed by the property
owner and the township's designated representative. This agreement shall be
expressly conditioned upon approval by a majority vote of the township board.
(g) Environmental site assessment. An environmental site assessment shall be
authorized by the township manager and conducted on behalf of the township
before any acquisition of a property interest is submitted for final approval by the
township board.
(h) Final board approval. After a conditional agreement for the township's acquisition
of a property interest is obtained, that agreement and the advisory board's
recommendation with respect to the subject acquisition shall be submitted to the
township board. Upon review of the conditional agreement and recommendation,
the township board shall determine, by a majority vote taken at a regularly
EM2
-------
scheduled or special meeting, whether to approve the purchase or donation as set
forth in the conditional agreement.
(i) Completion of acquisition. The advisory board shall take all actions necessary to
complete the acquisition of property interests approved by the township board and
the township clerk shall record all documents necessary to evidence those
acquisitions with the Ingham County Register of Deeds."
The decision-making process as presented above reflects recommended changes in the
ordinance. (Source: Helmbrecht)
To summarize the official language above for the decision-making process, Helmbrecht
provided the following synopsis of the process as it actually functions.
Applications are received at any time.
Applications are taken to the Advisory Board during their next regularly
scheduled meeting, but not less than quarterly. (Advisory Board meets on a
monthly basis).
Advisory Board members discuss the merits of the property having been
submitted and determine if walking the property to evaluate using the Land
Screening Criteria is appropriate. If yes, members of both the Land Preservation
Advisory Board, as well as the Township Environmental Commission select a
date and walk the property to determine its desirability.
Land Preservation Advisory Board members are provided the Land Screening
Criteria results at their next meeting.
Following presentation of the "field results" the Advisory Board determines if the
results warrant contracting for an official appraisal of the property.
The completed appraisal is reviewed by the Advisory Board and determination is
made if we choose to go forward and present a buy-sell agreement to the property
owner.
An Environmental site assessment is requested and received.
Upon completion of favorable negotiations with the landowner and Advisory
Board, a request to purchase is forwarded to the Township Board (which is the
same as a city council).
Upon favorable response for purchase of the property from the Township Board,
the recommended property is forwarded, through resolution to the Planning
Commission for a section 9 review as required.
Upon favorable response from both Township Board and Planning Commission
all approvals are complete and closing documents can be prepared.
EM3
-------
Following purchase an environmental consulting firm is hired to complete an
extensive "Stewardship Plan" for the property. The "plan-report" includes: Site
Description; Environmental feature descriptions for all types of trees, scrubs, wet
and dry meadows, open water, wetlands, upland and any rare plants and wildlife.
Additionally it describes easements and restrictions, management opportunities,
constraints, recommendations for enhancement, use - both long and short term,
photographs and maps.
The final step is the Stewardship Implementation Plan. This plan describes where trails
should go or where existing trails should be diverted to protect rare species etc.; where signs
identifying property as a Land Preservation Natural Area should be placed; an annual schedule
for completion of recommended actions (e.g., remove dangerous little bridges, culverts, car parts,
debris; remove invasive non-native species, place interpretive signage, etc.); and finally, an
annual schedule for general monitoring and reporting. (Source: Helmbrecht)
All applications offering property to the Advisory Board are available to the public. All
discussion following receipt of the application through signed agreement is conducted in closed
session. Once a buy-sell agreement is taken to the Township Board the information is available
to the public. The Advisory Board has a very strong commitment to using the millage dollars
wisely and openly, as well as a complete responsibility and gratitude to the residents for funding
this program. (Source: Helmbrecht)
Ultimate decision maker:
Township Board.
There have been no modifications to the properties or prices presented to the Township
Board. Helmbrecht did not think modifications or rejections would be likely. However, the
Township Board is the ONLY body capable of approving expenditures and therefore they have
all the discretion they choose to effect. (Source: Helmbrecht)
The time it takes to acquire a new parcel for protection (from parcel identification
through the acquisition process) varies widely depending on circumstances associated with each
property. Their acquisitions have ranged from as short as 6 months to as long as 4-5 years.
(Source: Helmbrecht)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
State of Michigan Natural Features Inventory (Source: Helmbrecht); Ecological
Assessment (Source: Thomas; Meridian Township Ordinance); Local biological surveys; and
open space identified through remote sensing and GIS. Land screening was also used as a data
source. The Township and advisory board have access to State of Michigan maps identifying the
EM4
-------
"most likely" areas to find endangered species and have used it as a data source on occasion as
well. (Source: Helmbrecht)
In addition, the data are validated by the Township's Environmental Commission and/or
by an Environmental Consultant. The advisory board also considers census projections and
development in general during its discussions of potential properties. (Source: Helmbrecht)
Priority map:
Yes. They developed their own map by first mapping available open space. As open
space is nominated for acquisition, the parcels are reviewed in the field and the results of the
review are input into the GIS map. (Source: Thomas)
Independent of Land Preservation, the Township Board commissioned the research and
development of a Greenspace Plan for the Township, which includes consultant data plus
resident data gathered during four public forums for discussion and identification of the public's
perception of the valuable properties in the Township. The completed Greenspace plan is used
on a regular basis by the Land Preservation Advisory Board. (Source: Helmbrecht)
Partnerships:
Michael Thomas, Former Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and
Resource Studies, Michigan State University (wrote a paper and poster of activity).
Available and expended funding:
$9.5 million is current estimate for total funding that will be generated. (Source: Meridian
Monitor, Summer 2005)
Thirty properties have been acquired so far through purchase, donation, and tax
delinquency. (Source: Helmbrecht)
The cost of the properties has ranged from $3,500 to $38,000 per acre depending upon
whether the property consists mainly of wetlands or uplands. Approximately 20% of current
acquisitions have been 100% donation. Donated parcels are among the highest ranking
acquisitions from an environmental perspective. (Source: Helmbrecht)
In the process of purchasing the properties, an appraisal is required (except for donated
parcels) and the Township shares the appraisal with the landowner and does not offer less than
the appraised value. There have been multiple instances when the seller has offered to donate a
portion of the value, which is allowed. There is a "general, unwritten rule" that if someone wants
the property to carry their name, there must be at least a 50% donation of its appraised value.
Additionally, when there is a lack of agreement between seller and buyer on the Township's
B-45
-------
appraised value, the landowner may choose to obtain his/her own appraisal, after which the
discussion begins anew toward finding a purchase price. (Source: Helmbrecht)
Acres protected:
Since implementation in 2001, five properties had been acquired through donation (90
acres), 19 properties (376 acres) through purchase, six properties (28 acres) through tax
delinquency, for a total of 494 +/- acres as of Summer 2009. (Source: Helmbrecht)
The ordinance states that the land is permanently preserved with strict requirements. The
land could only be sold if there was a public vote resulting in a 75% majority vote in favor of
selling. More importantly the ballot language used when the millage was passed included the
words "for the purchase of land and/or interests in land for permanent preservation of open green
spaces and natural features throughout the township." Should future boards choose to change the
ordinance language, the permanency issue will revert to the intent written into the original ballot
language from which the funds for purchase were derived. (Source: Helmbrecht)
Only one difficulty was identified related to the purchase of development rights.
Michigan law does not provide the authority to Townships to purchase development rights.
However, legislation was found that permits Townships to purchase conservation easements of
any size that allows them to reach the same goal. While it takes a long time to finalize land
protection deals, the people who want to have their land protected are very passionate about its
protection. These people "have no interest in the money they receive and have no need to sell it
quickly, as long as it will be protected in perpetuity." (Source: Helmbrecht)
Sources:
Helmbrecht, Mary. 2005. Email from Mary Helmbrecht, Clerk of Meridian Township, to Amanda
Vemuri, ICF Consulting including an attachment with typed responses to questions. Sent October. 24,
2005. Telephone conversation between Mary Helmbrecht and Amanda Vemuri on October 20, 2005.
Thomas, M.R. The Use of Ecologically Based Screening Criteria in a Community-Sponsored Open Space
Preservation Program. Poster Presentation at 2004 Michigan Land Use Summit.
http://www.landpolicy.msu.edu/resources/2004summit/thomas_eco.pdf. accessed on July 15, 2005.
Meridian Township Board. Meridian Land Preservation Program Growing. Meridian Monitor. Summer
2005. http://www.twp.meridian.mi.us/frame meridmon.htm, accessed on July 18, 2005.
Meridian Township. Ordinance No. 2001-15, 1(127-2), 11-8-2001. Article III. Land Preservation
Program. Section 22-56 through Section 22-89.
http://www.municode.com/services/mcsgateway.asp?sid=22&pid=13564. accessed on July 18, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
EM6
-------
Mary Helmbrecht, Meridian Township Clerk. Phone: (517) 853-4324. Email:
Helmbrecht@meridian .mi .us.
B-47
-------
2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
There is no specific mission statement for the program. The main focus of the program
was to buy sensitive land1 over the Edwards Aquifer to protect water quality and quantity.
(Source: Spegar (a))
The program itself was the result of a grassroots effort when it became apparent in the
1980s and 1990s that development in the northern band of Bexar (pronounced Bear) County
along Loop 1604 (local interstate) was beginning to increase. This area is known for winding
roads, trees, and the ability to overlook downtown San Antonio, which makes it an attractive
place to live. People in the area became concerned about the rapid development and its potential
impact on Edwards Aquifer, which is their sole drinking water source. As a result, the
Proposition 3 initiative was developed. The initiative was successful, resulting in the approval of
a sales tax to collect up to $45 million for the purchase of sensitive land over Edwards Aquifer
and $20 million to create linear parks along the Leon and Salado Creeks. (Source: Spegar (a),
(b))
The Proposition 3 initiative passed in 2000 went through January of 2005. A new sales
tax referendum has already passed and will kick off in Fall 2005/Winter 2006. This sales tax
included an additional $90 million for the purchase of sensitive land over Edwards Aquifer.
(Source: Spegar (a))
Program goals:
Locate and purchase undeveloped land in the recharge and contributing zones of the
Edwards Aquifer as a means of protecting the Aquifer from increased pollution. (Source:
Corzine)
Parcel selection process:
The entire region was input into a GIS model that assigned a value based on a variety of
criteria to every square meter of the region. Lands rated in the top three tiers by the GIS model
were given to the land agents to pursue for acquisition. (Source: Stone and Schindel)
1 Sensitive lands are lands located in the recharge and contributing zones of the Edwards Aquifer where the water
more readily seeps into fractures, fissures, and caves to replenish the aquifer. (Source: Spegar (b))
B-48
-------
Prioritization criteria:
The Scientific Evaluation Team (SET)1 developed a matrix using GIS to allow objective
comparison of all properties in the recharge and contributing zones (about 150,000 acres). The
three primary data categories included in the spatial model were geologic, biologic, and
watershed data. Specific criteria were selected for each category. The geologic criteria included
were terrain slope, stratigraphy, mapped faults, caves and sinkholes, and soils. The biologic
criteria included were the habitat of the Golden-Cheeked Warbler to represent surface biologic
datasets and to represent the subsurface component they selected nine species of karst
invertebrates found only in caves in this area. The Golden-Cheeked Warbler is an endangered
species that needs mature mixed ash juniper and oak forests for nesting. These nine invertebrates
include three beetles, five spiders, and one harvestman and are listed on the Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife List. The third category, watershed, consisted of multiple criteria including
property size, adjacency, and proximity of a property to other "Open Space" properties. The SET
also set a minimum property size at 60 acres; this size was deemed necessary for effective
wildlife management.
These three data categories were combined into a GIS spatial overlay and given the
following weightings by category, geologic (50 percent); biologic (20 percent); and watershed
(30 percent). The GIS modeling process assigned a value based on the weighted overlay to every
square meter of the region. Lands meeting the greatest number of criteria had the higher values.
"The results of the modeling were divided into 8 tiers with the 3 highest tiers meeting the
overall criteria developed by the SET to be considered for evaluation for purchase." (Source:
Stone and Schindel)
The goal of the model was to "prioritize characteristics of areas most likely to contain
recharge features and geological land features which contribute to Edwards Aquifer." Since the
focus of the land acquisition was to protect Edwards Aquifer water quality, quantity, and
recharge potential, the geologic features associated with the recharge and contributing lands were
of most importance. They were not very concerned with the protection of wildlife habitat
specifically although it was often the case that areas important for wildlife habitat were also
important for the aquifer. (Source: Spegar (a), (b))
1 The SET was an advisory board charged with developing a spatial model to identify potential land for acquisition.
The SET spatial model was developed by or included databases from the following agencies and individuals, Texas
Parks and Wildlife, Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio Water Systems, COSA Public Works Department,
COSA Parks and Recreation Department, U.S. Geological Survey, University of Texas at San Antonio, Natural
Resource Conservation Service, San Antonio River Authority, George Veni and Associates, and ESRI.
B-49
-------
In addition to the criteria embedded in the spatial model, the CAB focused on additional
selection criteria. The CAB was especially concerned with areas for acquisition where
development was imminent and they made an effort to negotiate and acquire land prior to
development. Specific considerations during the process also included "size, cost, proximity to
other public property, open space linkages, and adjacency to other Prop 3 property, advance sale
of small parcels around property indicating development direction, location in relation to
developed areas, status of development plans, visible street centerline staking or initial street cut,
and extension of utilities or considered extension of utilities." (Source: Spegar (b))
In the criteria development and evaluation process, climate change was not specifically
considered. (Source: Spegar (a))
Decision-making process:
The Conservation Advisory Board (CAB)1 reviewed the SET's spatial model and then
lands rated in the top three tiers by the GIS model were given to the land acquisition team to
pursue. The Land Acquisition Team was "composed of non-profit land conservation trusts (The
Bexar Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, and The Trust for Public Land), the City Project
Manager, and San Antonio River Authority (SARA) staff. The non-profit land conservation
trusts each focused on lands in a different part of the county and would suggest potential land
purchases. When the non-profit conservation trusts identified a potential land purchase, they
would get approval by the City Project manager and then work with SARA staff to develop a
presentation for the CAB. SARA would present each potential land purchase to the CAB,
including information on quality of the land and the availability of the tracts for acquisition
based on the CAB directives. "While the land acquisition team negotiated land purchases with
the owners, the CAB would evaluate the lands. If the CAB gave a land purchase a favorable
rating, the property acquisition was forwarded to the Planning Commission and then City
Council for review and approval." After land is purchased, CAB works with City staff to
determine appropriate park land use intensity. (Source: Spegar (a), (b); Stone and Schindel)
Ultimate decision maker:
City Council.
1 The CAB had nine members with the following affiliations, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Edwards Aquifer Authority,
San Antonio Water Systems, COSA Public Works Department, COSA Parks and Recreation Department, San
Antonio River Authority, Open Space Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and Business
Representative. (Source: Spegar (b))
B-50
-------
The City Council approved each of the land acquisitions put before them. Spegar thinks
this is a result of the effective screening process by the CAB. A few land purchases did not get
approval from the CAB. (Source: Spegar (a))
After approval from City Council, the City Project Manager would finalize the land
purchases, sometimes going to closing as soon as two days after final approval. (Source: Spegar
(a))
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
U.S. Geological Survey GIS map of terrain slope, stratigraphy, mapped faults,
caves and sinkholes, and soils.
SET provided GIS layer of golden-cheeked warbler habitatan endangered
species.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided GIS layer of nine species of karst
invertebrate (subsurface) habitaton the list of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife.
Texas Parks and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided GIS
overlay of vegetation.
Priority map:
Yes. Full explanation of the map is in the prioritization criteria section. In general, a map
was created using biologic, geologic, and watershed overlays and rankings from these overlays
generated ranked tiers of lands needing protection. They developed the map using data from a
variety of sources listed in "Information used to apply prioritization criteria".
They also have maps of the lands that have been protected through this program. (Source:
Spegar (b))
Partnerships:
"With approximately half of the aquifer's 80,000 acres of recharge zone already
developed or planned for development, the Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy and
the Bexar Land Trust are working closely with the City of San Antonio, the San Antonio Water
System, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to quickly protect the remaining sensitive
lands before further development can take place. Since 1993, the Trust for Public Land has
protected almost 10,000 acres of recharge land over the Edwards Aquifer in the San Antonio
area. Most of the land has been conveyed to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and water
quality conservation easements on the properties are conveyed to the City of San Antonio."
(Source: Ernst, Gullick, and Nixon)
-------
The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, and the Bexar Land Trust made up
the Land Acquisition Team and were responsible for identifying willing sellers of high priority
land for the protection of the Edwards Aquifer. They were responsible for negotiating purchase
prices and being the contact person for the landowner during the acquisition process. They also
attended the CAB land acquisition evaluation meetings, so that they could answer questions if
needed (Source: Spegar (a))
Available and expended funding:
The sales tax initiative was for a total of $65 million, only $45 million of which went
towards Edwards Aquifer land acquisition. The remaining $20 million was for the purchase of
parks along the Leon and Salado Creeks. (Source: Spegar (a), (b))
About $40.5 million from the sales tax initiative was used to purchase land or
conservation easements while about $4.5 million was set aside for maintenance and operations
after purchase. (Source: Stone and Schindel; Spegar (a))
A further breakdown of the $40.5 million for land acquisition is the following, $36.4 for
land acquisition, $1 million for park infrastructure, $2 million for due diligence, and $1.1 for
commercial paper. (Source: Spegar (a), (b))
In total, $36.71 million was spent on land acquisition. Money remaining in the
improvements/due diligence funds was able to be put toward acquisition. Currently, $710,000
remains and will be used for clean-up. (Source: Spegar (a))
The average purchase price was $5,808/acre. In just a few years, land costs have risen in
the area to $35,000/acre. (Source: Spegar (a))
No studies have been done yet to access the impacts of the protection of land in the
recharge and contributing zones of Edwards Aquifer but this is something that they would like to
do in the future. (Source: Spegar (a))
Acres protected:
About 6,484 acres (from 17 purchases and 3 donations) have been protected through the
program. Two additional parcels are still in the acquisition process and if purchased will add an
additional 60 acres. (Source: Spegar (a), (b))
The land acquisition process would take anywhere from 45 days to 3 years from initial
identification to acquisition. (Source: Spegar (a))
The land is protected permanently. Under state law, once property becomes park land, the
decision to sell land must be approved by a majority vote of the voters. They are able to grant
public easements for utilities if needed. (Source: Spegar (a))
-------
When they started the process to develop the program, there were no other programs in
Texas on which to base their program. Spegar is aware of another land preservation program in
Austin, Texas, but its goals and method of identifying land for protection are significantly
different. (Source: Spegar (a))
Some difficulties that were encountered include the following:
They initially had some difficulty purchasing and owning Bexar County land
since the purchase was being made by the City of San Antonio. Some initial
purchases were annexed to the City but then they were able to change the law
slightly to allow the City to purchase the land.
Some of the developers that owned the land were rather greedy and made it
difficult to settle on a deal. The City could not pay over the appraisal cost and the
sellers were in a willing seller program but still the negotiation process could be
difficult.
Properties might have an option period for purchase and it could be difficult to get
the entire process completed before the period during which the property could be
purchased expired.
The program had a number of different agencies and parties involved which could
make the process difficult and slow moving.
Coordination between different agencies and organizations could be difficult as
each has a different culture and set of constraints. This problem lessened over
time as the groups began to understand each other better. (Source: Spegar (a))
Sources:
Spegar, Susan, (a) Telephone conversation between Susan Spegar, Special Project Manager, Proposition
Three Special Projects Office, and Amanda Vemuri, ICF Consulting, November 1, 2005.
Spegar, Susan, (b) Prop 3 Edwards Aquifer Program. PowerPoint Presentation, sent via email from Susan
Spegar to Amanda Vemuri, November 1, 2005.
Corzine, Jason. "San Antonio Protects 90 Acres for Park (TX)." Trust for Public Land. May 15, 2003.
http://www.tpl.org/tier3 cd.cfm?content item_id=11723&folder_id=264. accessed on July 18, 2005.
Ernst, C., Gullick, R., and Nixon, K. "Protecting the Source: Land Conservation as a Drinking Water
Protection Tool." Trust for Public Land, www.lgean.org/documents/tplforest.doc. accessed on July 18,
2005.
Stone, D, and Schindel, G.M. 2002. "The Application of GIS in Support of Land Acquisition for the
Protection of Sensitive Groundwater Recharge Properties in the Edwards Aquifer of South-Central
-------
Texas." Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 64(1): 38-44.
http://www.caves.org/pub/journal/PDF/V64/v64n 1 -Stone.pdf. accessed on July 18, 2005.
Bexar Land Trust. "Our Help to the City of San Antonio as it Acquires Land to Protect the Aquifer."
Bexar Land Trust News. Volume 5, issue 1, 2004.
http://www.bexarlandtrust.org/BLT2004WinterNewsletter.PDF. accessed on July 18, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Susan Spegar, Special Project Manager, Proposition Three Special Projects Office, City of San Antonio.
Phone: (210) 207-2815. Email: SSpegarigjSanAntonio.gov.
B-54
-------
2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
No mission statement was specifically written for this program. (Source: Haydin)
The County wanted to be engaged in the land acquisition process and provide a pot of
money that could assist in the acquisition of key lands as land acquisition costs were rising and
non-profits were finding it more difficult to purchase some of these lands. (Source: Haydin)
Program goals:
The goals are the following:
Ensure citizen involvement in the County's Stewardship process,
Cultivate environmental stewardship within individuals, organizations, and
government entities,
Help implement projects identified in the County's Outdoor Recreation and Open
Space Plan,
Provide County-matching funds for leveraging dollars from federal, state, local,
and private entities for conservation activities,
Coordinate County stewardship activities so they are in harmony with other
conservation and recreation activities already occurring or planned for the
County,
Initiate only those stewardship activities that cannot be accomplished by current
or upcoming regulatory tools, such as land use planning, zoning, land division
ordinances, and shoreland-wetland-floodplain regulations,
Preserve the County' s natural resources while minimizing the loss of local
property tax revenues,
Form green space and wildlife habitat corridors by linking existing natural areas
together,
Acquire, protect, and restore only those resources that can adequately be
maintained by specific public or private custodians in the future,
Preserve the natural resources of the County while continuing to promote wise
growth and economic development,
-------
Part A
Promote beautiful, healthy, and thriving cities and villages, so new and existing
County residents will always have attractive alternatives to living in rural areas,
and
Municipalities that have adopted "Smart-Growth" compliant comprehensive plans
will receive higher priority for County Stewardship Funding. (Source: 2004
application form)
Parcel selection process:
"Any town, village, city, county agency, or other government agency completing projects
within Sheboygan County or any non-profit group as reported in federal form 501(c) may apply
for funds through this program." (Source: 2004 application form) Projects are accepted in four
categories: (1) project development, (2) purchase of
development rights, (3) land acquisition, and (4) restoration of
wetlands and natural habitat. Other projects not fitting these
categories can be awards, provided they meet program goals.
County planning department staff review applications
first, then forward them to the Smart Growth-Stewardship
Technical and Advisory Committee (formerly named the
Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) in 2002 (Source: Haydin))
for recommendations. Final decisions are made by the
County's Resources Committee.
Applications are due October 14th, the Smart Growth-
Stewardship Technical and Advisory Committee meets in
November and the County Resources Committee meets in
December to give final approval. The entire process takes
about 2-3 months from the time applications are received until
they are approved and funds dispersed. (Source: Haydin)
Natural Resources: Water
Natural Resources: Land
Recreational Opportunities
Cultural/Historical Qualities:
Community Cooperation
30
20
25
15
10
PartB
Prioritization criteria:
"Projects that are tied to the Sheboygan County
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan,
another municipality's Outdoor Recreation and Open Space
Plan, or a Smart Growth-compliant comprehensive plan will
receive first consideration." (Source: 2003 press release)
PartC
Project Availability
Economic Factors
Management Factors:
Planning Factors
Density Standards
Negative Factors
Significant Natural Features
Significant Archaeological
Features
Significant Historic Features
10
10
10
15
10
-10
10
10
10
Quality of Farmland
Development Potential
30
40
B-56
-------
Decision-making process:
The program uses a detailed checklist to award points in three broad categories:
Part A evaluates each project against the overall goals and priorities of the Sheboygan
County Stewardship Fund.
Part B weighs other project factors that play an important part in the viability of these
proposals to result in a desirable and completed project.
Part C evaluates Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) applications. (Source: 2004
application form)
The checklist is composed largely of yes/no questions. Maximum points are awarded as
shown on the above table.
The planning staff is the first to evaluate each application using the point system and they
pass their evaluation along to the Smart Growth-Stewardship Technical and Advisory
Committee. The Smart Growth-Stewardship Technical and Advisory Committee then discusses
the program and may or may not agree with the point distribution as provided by planning
department staff. Meetings are held to discuss any differences in opinion, and the Smart Growth-
Stewardship Technical and Advisory Committee then makes a final analysis and provides a final
score for each application. This final analysis and score is what is provided to the Sheboygan
County Resources Committee. (Source: Haydin)
There is also a pre-evaluation period when agencies/non-profits can submit their grant
applications early and get feedback including a "draft" score and a list of the weaknesses in their
application. The organization can then revise their application and re-submit it during the
application period after making revisions to improve their chances of getting funded. (Source:
Haydin)
In terms of water resources, they are looking at both water quality aspects and the
aesthetics of water resources. (The water component was based on the Dane County and other
state stewardship programs.) An example of a project that would receive high marks for the
water components is the following: A public/private partnership needed $10,000 for habitat
construction in a trout stream that was located in a watershed that historically had a great deal of
agriculture - resulting in agricultural run-off into the stream as well as dredging and trenching in
the stream. The larger project was reconstructing stream flow to a more natural, meandering
stream. Habitat construction would complement this larger project and result in improved water
quality, habitat, and aesthetics. (Source: Haydin)
Climate change has not been a part of the discussions on these grant applications.
Personally, Haydin thinks that climate change will impact these resources but specific grants or
-------
projects have not been pursued for climate change related reasons. In thinking more broadly
about global change, the land use aspect is discussed when evaluating grant applications. She
suspects that some of the reasons why climate change is perhaps not forefront in the discussion is
because Sheboygan County already has a great deal of public land, specifically state-owned
forest which is already protected. (Source: Haydin)
Ultimate decision maker:
Sheboygan County Resources Committee.
This committee does a thorough review of the grant applications and recommendations
that are put before them and have full discussions on the funding of the projects. The five-person
committee holds a vote and measures pass as long as they have a 3 to 2 vote. So far all
recommended projects have been funded, but at least one received some opposition by a
Resources Committee member. (Source: Haydin)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Applicants are required to provide, among other items: a project narrative; project
information (including county map, plat map, topographic map, aerial photograph, soils survey,
site plan, additional graphic information); environmental hazards assessment form (only
necessary if an acquisition); information on community support; and a management plan.
County planning department staff use information provided by applicants as well as their
own databases to evaluate properties. Specifically, county staff use GIS to review land
information such as aerial photography, contour maps, USGS topographic maps, wetland
inventories, parcel and zoning maps. In addition, they review County/state agency plans such as
outdoor recreation plans, water quality plans, etc. to see if a project would contribute to the
achievement of an agency goal as laid out in the agency plan. (Source: Haydin)
Typically no projections or forecast data are used; occasionally census projections would
be reviewed, but the growth rate in Sheboygan County is not changing much so this is generally
not necessary. (Source: Haydin)
The grant applications can vary widely in what they are aiming to do, which means that
the most useful information in the evaluation process is application specific. (Source: Haydin)
Priority map:
No priority maps are used. However, GIS is used when evaluating grant applications - on
a site by site basis. (Source: Haydin)
B-58
-------
Partnerships:
The Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program has no formalized partnerships.
However, funds are often provided to assist one aspect of a larger project or funds are joined
with funds from other organizations such as the Sheboygan County Conservation Association
(and association of non-profit conservation organizations in the county). The groups that the
grant program might work with ranges from non-profits to local, county, or state agencies.
(Source: Haydin)
Available and expended funding:
$40,000 available in 2004 grant cycle; expenditures not available.
There is political pressure for the program to spend all its money each year and since
some of the money comes from impact fees levied during the year, the money is not allowed to
be carried over to the next year. (Source: Haydin)
There is no documented evidence of economic, environmental or social impacts resulting
from the grant applications that have been funded, but Haydin suspects that some do result from
specific projects. She provided three examples. First, they provided money to help with the
development of a promenade along a river in the City of Sheboygan that has provided access and
possibly generated positive economic impacts. Second, the habitat restoration in the trout stream
described in the "Decision-making process" above will likely provide positive environmental
impacts. Third, they provided funding for a wetlands delineation project as part of a Village park
development that will likely result in positive social impacts since the parks has natural areas as
well as trails and a playground. (Source: Haydin)
The greatest challenge Haydin has found is the amount of money they have available and
the inability to carry funding over into the next year if applications are not as worthy in one year
or if a larger/more important acquisition might be coming up in a future year. (Source: Haydin)
Acres protected:
This program is not a direct land acquisition program. Some of the grant applications do
support direct land acquisition but they often support other goals. In addition, the funding that
goes toward land acquisition is often only a smaller part of a larger funding source for the
acquisition, so the acres that are acquired are only purchased through this program in part. As a
result, no specific information on the number of acres protected through this program is available
or applicable. (Source: Haydin)
Haydin did note that land costs have varied for the projects they have been involved in,
ranging from a cost of $12,000 for 10 acres of marshland to costs of $5,400 per acre and $7,500
per acre for other projects. (Source: Haydin)
-------
As mentioned in the "Mission Statement" discussion above, this program was modeled
after the Dane County Stewardship Fund Program. The idea for implementing this type of
program in Sheboygan County came from Adam Payne, the County Administrative Coordinator,
who had lived in Dane County for many years. It was also a nice alternative to a sales tax
program because sales tax referendums are not popular in Sheboygan County. (Source: Haydin)
Sources:
Haydin, Shannon. 2005. Telephone Conversation between Shannon Haydin, Sheboygan County Planning
Director, and Amanda Vemuri of ICF Consulting, October 24, 2005.
Project web site, http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.us/html/d%5Fplanning%5Fstewardship.htm. accessed on
July 15, 2005.
Application forms for 2002, 2003, and 2004
Grants guidelines, 2002
Press release, 2004
POINT OF CONTACT:
Shannon Haydin, Sheboygan County Planning Director. Phone: (920) 459-3060. Email:
planning@co. sheboygan. wi .us.
B-60
-------
2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
Voters approved the sale of general obligation bonds "for the purpose of acquiring open
space and habitat protection, including Sonoran Desert open space, protecting wildlife habitats,
saguaro cacti, ironwood forests and lands around rivers, washes and recharge areas to ensure
high water quality, and the acquisition of lands in the vicinity of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
to prevent urban encroachment." (Source: Pima County (a))
Program goals:
Program goals include, "the acquisition of land in fee or for the purchase of conservation
easements, to protect wildlife habitat, scenic landscapes, riparian areas, and water quality, and to
preserve lands in the vicinity of Davis-Monthan Open Space." (Source: Pima County (b))
The specific goals depend on the category of properties. The Community Open Space
Parcels are more focused on scenic landscapes and recreation and may not meet the goals to
protect wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and water quality. The Habitat Protection Priorities were
chosen solely based on their ability to achieve biological goals. The Urban Space Requested by
Jurisdictions may meet a mix of the goals, depending on why a jurisdiction chose to include it on
their list. The Davis-Monthan Open Space is intended to restrict people from the land that falls in
the approach and departure corridors from the Davis-Monthan air force base.
The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan was developed over several years and identified
55 vulnerable species that are indicators of ecological health. An analysis of the habitat they need
to thrive was undertaken and a 2-million acre Conservation Land System was identified.
Approximately 1 million acres of the Conservation Lands System was already protected in
federal, state, and local reserves. The remaining 1 million acres was narrowed down to 500,000
acres that were identified for protection first. The 2004 Open Space bond is one tool for
acquiring that land. A second tool is development set asides.
The County will only purchase land from a willing seller. The County cannot use eminent
domain; that clause was included in the bond measure to gain the support of voters. (Source:
Fyffe)
B-61
-------
Parcel selection process:
There are four categories of properties included in this measure: (1) Community Open
Space Parcels ($37.3 million), (2) Urban Open Space Requested by Jurisdictions ($15 million),
(3) Habitat Protection Priorities ($112 million), and (4) Davis-Monthan Open Space ($10
million). Properties in excess of the available funding were listed in the bond measure with the
understanding that some properties may be acquired through other sources of funding or at no
cost along the way, and that others would have owners unwilling to sell. Habitat Protection
Priorities are prioritized into highest priority and secondary priority categories. During
implementation of the program, secondary priority properties were sometimes acquired before
highest priority properties depending on when opportunities arose.
The Community Open Space Parcels were selected for their scenic and recreational value
through a qualitative selection process with no set criteria. Some of the parcels remained
unpurchased from 1997 Bond measure. Others were important to the Parks and Recreation
department and still others were nominated by individual community groups that approached
Pima County. The Urban Space Requested by Jurisdictions parcels were requested by
jurisdictions, or community members on behalf of those jurisdictions, who compiled lists based
on their own open space plans or community priorities. The Habitat Protection Priorities were
selected based on biological indicators and analysis, as described above. Pima County contracted
out the development of the priorities to the Arizona Open Space Land Trust and The Nature
Conservancy. The Davis-Monthan Open Space included all the land in the approach and
departure corridors surrounding the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
The list of properties is intentionally static to provide the voters with an idea of what may
be purchased. The process to select parcels initially was driven by the community and the
County, though, and the list of properties to acquire is much longer than could possibly be
achieved with the available money. Owners can apply to sell a property and the County can buy
it if it is already on the list. Owners occasionally approach the County looking to sell a property
that is not on the list, but in these cases, the County tries every avenue possible to protect the
property without acquiring it, or seeks other funding sources. (Source: Fyffe)
Prioritization criteria:
After the bond measure was approved by voters, the Conservation Acquisition
Commission asked county staff to identify habitat-protection priority properties that meet the
following criteria: "greater than 2,500 acres in single ownership, parcels with important riparian
areas, and parcels within critical landscape connections in order to further focus acquisition
resources." (Source: The Nature Conservancy)
-------
Properties identified from the following sources were evaluated to develop a list of
Community Open Space parcels: "1) remaining parcels included in the voter-approved 1997
Open Space Bond Program; 2) parcels identified as important to the open space goals of Pima
County's Natural Resources, Parks, and Recreation Department; 3) additional parcels located on
the urban fringe or within urban Tucson that were identified by community and environmental
groups as well as individual members of the community as being of special merit...; and 4)
parcels reclassified to conservation status by the Arizona State Land Department through Pima
County's Arizona Preserve Initiative Application." (Source: Pima County (c))
There were not that many Community Open Space properties on the list, so the County
targeted all of them. The decision-making process for "Urban Open Space Requested by
Jurisdictions" involved jurisdictions giving the County a list of properties for inclusion in the
bond measure. The properties were chosen based on criteria such as location in flood prone areas
or historical value of the area. There are more urban areas than are acquired through other
components of the Open Space Program. The County typically negotiates with landowners and
then consults the jurisdiction to make sure that they support the acquisition of the land. There is
no formal application process.
The parcels that fall within the Davis-Monthan Open Space portion of the program were
based on a report by the Davis-Monthan Air Force base and the City of Tucson. The goal for
now is to simply restrict people from lands that are already vacant. The space may be used in the
future for solar photovoltaic ground mounted panels. (Source: Fyffe)
Decision-making process:
The Conservation Acquisition Commission must review and recommend to the Pima
County Board of Supervisors all acquisitions of property or rights in property. It calls upon
county staff to initially identify candidate properties. (Source: Pima County (c))
The Conservation Acquisition Commission members are appointed. The Board of
Supervisors appoints several people who are conservation-minded. The County Manager
appoints a person (who currently represents real estate interests). Additionally, certain
organizations have representatives that sit on the Commission (e.g., realtor groups, rancher
groups, environmental groups). The members serve 8-year terms.
The Commission plays both an oversight role for work done by county staff and
participates in detailed analyses and evaluation of properties. The County staff negotiates deals
with varying levels of involvement from the Commission. The Commission may also get
involved with prioritization and instruct the County to look into particular issues.
B-63
-------
The Commission votes on decisions. They meet about once a month. They are required to
meet four times a year, but they have been meeting more frequently due to the number of
acquisitions underway.
The biggest barrier is having a willing seller, which, by definition, is willing to sell at the
appraised value of the land. There is sometimes disagreement over appraisals. At the beginning
of the program rapid increases in land prices meant that less land could be acquired with
available funds. However, after the housing market collapsed, land prices dropped, and the
number of potential buyers dropped, and the County was able to acquire a significant number of
properties at reasonable prices.
Another barrier is the inability to purchase State land, which is a huge proportion of land
in Arizona. The State auctions land off, with the profits going to schools. The County cannot
outbid developers in an auction. Numerous efforts at State Trust land reform at the State
Legislative level and the ballot box have failed.
Meetings of the Conservation Acquisition Commission are open to the public and the
press (which had a strong presence in the early months of the program). The public can comment
during meetings and generally provides comments in support. There have been a few incidences
when the public is opposed to an acquisition (e.g., mining interests were worried about how their
rights to mine land would be impacted by an acquisition). (Source: Fyffe)
Ultimate decision maker:
Pima County Board of Supervisors.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors generally supports the recommendations of the
Conservation Acquisition Commission and does not try to overturn or block acquisition
decisions. The Board, which consists of five members, is elected for 4-year terms. They serve a
role similar to a City Council. Most of them have been educated about land protection over the
past years by going through the conservation process and are pretty savvy in this area. (Source:
Fyffe)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
The multi-year planning process mentioned previously involved considerable collection
and analysis of data. Decisions about the Habitat Protection Parcels were based heavily on the
data analysis. Other land protection decisions are based on more qualitative information.
Projections of where development was expected to go in the future were consulted and evaluated
to determine how set asides would impact biological factors and help avoid negative impacts.
The impacts of climate change have not been specifically considered. (Source: Fyffe)
-------
Priority map:
Thousands of maps were developed during the planning process. A single map was
referenced in the bond measure and it shows all properties that are eligible to acquire under the
acquisition program.
Maps are heavily consulted and analyzed. There are in-house County GIS staff members
who work full time to update and analyze maps. (Source: Fyffe)
Partnerships:
The Nature Conservancy and Friends of the Sonoran Desert worked together to identify
Pima County's priority conservation lands and encourage the County's Board of Supervisors
to include the open space bond measure on the ballot. (Source: The Nature Conservancy)
The County continues to get information from The Nature Conservancy. The County also
contracts out work to the Arizona Open Land Trust, which acts as the County realtor in
negotiating some land acquisitions. The Friends of the Sonoran Desert was a political group that
was set up to help the bond measure pass initially. They continue to put out a periodic newsletter
covering the performance of the County and will help to get voters on board for another measure
in the future. Counties can partner with a state open space program. The Heritage Fund Program
is a voter initiative that is supposed to provide $20 million a year for land protection, but the
legislature cuts from it each year when preparing the budget. Pima County has partnered with the
State in the past for some grant money for open space and trails.
Pima County is a bit of an anomaly in the state in terms of their open space program.
There are not other counties in Arizona that are so proactive. (Source: Fyffe)
Available and expended funding:
$140 million of the available $174.3 million has been spent to date, and it is expected that
all but $10 million will be spent by August 2009. The County can only spend at or near
appraised value for the land. (Source: The Nature Conservancy, Fyffe)
Acres protected:
42,000 acres of land have been bought through this measure to date. 130,000 acres worth
of grazing rights have been purchased. (Source: Fyffe)
Sources:
Fyffe, Nicole, Pima County, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, November 4,
2005.
B-65
-------
The Nature Conservancy. "Bond Celebrates First Anniversary," June 2, 2005,
http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/arizona/press/pressl948.html. accessed on July 18,
2005.
Pima County (b), Completed Projects Question 1, June 2005,
http://www.bonds.pima.gov/bonds2004/pdf2004/OpenSpaceCompleted2004.pdf. accessed on July 18,
2005.
Pima County (c), Bond Implementation Plan, May 18, 2004,
http://www.bonds.pima.gov/bonds2004/pdf2004/BIPOtoc.pdf. accessed on July 18, 2005.
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/index.html. accessed on November 3,
2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Nicole Fyffe, Pima County. Phone: (520) 740-8162. Email: nfyffe(g),pima.gov.
B-66
-------
2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup
Measure
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
The program mission is: "to protect public health by cleaning up polluted storm water;
keeping pollution, trash, toxic chemicals, dangerous bacteria from rivers, beaches; preserving
clean drinking water by protecting groundwater quality; reducing flooding; increasing water
conservation; protecting bays, rivers, lakes from storm water contamination." (Source: League of
Women Voters)
Program goals:
"The improvements will clean up polluted storm water and reduce dangerous bacteria in
the City's rivers, lakes, beaches, bay, and ocean. The measure will also institute improvements
that protect ground water quality, provide flood control, and increase water conservation, habitat
protection and open space." (Source: League of Women Voters)
The primary purpose of the program is to improve water quality in the city. Human health
and environmental protection are intertwined, so (in the opinion of S. Kharagani) improving
water quality benefits both humans and the environment (including wildlife habitat). The
primary goal is to meet TMDL standards; compliance is not an easy task. Land protection is one
tool in the effort to reduce TMDL. The City is using an adaptive management approach (which
adapts as conditions and needs change), employing green technologies, and considering
achieving compliance to be an iterative process. If there are other needs (e.g., protection of
human health, habitat protection) that can be met while improving water quality, then it is a
bonus. (Source: Kharagani)
Parcel selection process:
Program priorities were identified at the outset based on the Clean Water Act §303(d),
which lists polluted water bodies and specific pollutants. In the Los Angeles area, entire water
bodies are polluted with a variety of pollutants (e.g., trash, heavy metals, etc.). The driving factor
in the initial prioritization effort was to identify the most polluted areas (among those on the
CWA §303(d) list) to tackle first, which turned out to be the Los Angeles River). Beaches were
also identified as a priority, because they are so visible to the public and tourists. Additionally,
-------
there was a lawsuit concerning beach clean-up and, subsequently a court-mandated order to take
action. Cleaning up these polluted areas is one of the key goals of the program. One of the sub-
criteria for project selection is whether or not the project addresses a pollution problem identified
by the adopted TMDL, since meeting TMDL standards is a key aspect of the program.
Parcel selection is a stakeholder-driven process, involving the City Council,
environmental activists, non-profit organizations, and neighborhood councils (of which there are
123-124 each containing members nominated by their community to advise elected officials). All
of the stakeholders can, and do, consult available sources and many are experts in the field of
water quality. Non-profit and community organizations can propose projects during two-month
windows that occur twice a year. Neighborhood councils can provide input at public meetings.
(Source: Kharagani)
Prioritization criteria:
"The primary criteria are divided into three categories, with the following weighting: (1)
Water Quality Improvements at 40%; (2) Achieves Multiple Objectives at 30%; and (3) Project
Feasibility/Readiness/ Financial at 30% of the overall scoring." Within these three categories,
there are a number of sub-criteria (ranging from compliance with regulations to subjective
criteria) to help evaluate potential projects. These sub-criteria are evaluated on a yes/no or
low/medium/high basis. See Exhibit 1 below for more detail. Criteria for selection are dynamic;
they can be amended as necessary if it becomes apparent they should be revised.
B-68
-------
Exhibit 1. Evaluation Criteria, Sub-criteria, and Scale
Criteria
Water Quality Improvements
Multiple Objectives
Project Feasibility/
Readiness/Financial
Weighting
40%
30%
30%
Sub-criteria
Pollution problem identified by adopted
TMDL
Meets wet weather water quality
regulations
Meets dry weather water quality
regulations
Reduces pollutant loads
Enhances drinking water source
Provides potential for beneficial reuse
Enhances environment
Provides open space/recreational areas
Reduces flooding
Consistent with the Integrated Regional
Watershed Management, Plan, the Los
Angeles River Revitalization Plan, and
the Watershed/Water Management Plan
Durability of project
Cost of project
Relies on proven technology
Project ready for implementation
Potential for external funding
Strong community support
Scale
Yes/No
Low/Med/High
Low/Med/High
Low/Med/High
Low/Med/High
Low/Med/High
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Low/Med/High
Low/Med/High
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
(Source: City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program)
The project review committees (including a citizens oversight advisory committee
(COAC) and an administrative oversight committee (AOC) consult technical information and
discuss issues). There has only been one set of projects to go through the evaluation process, and
it was probably an exceptional case due to the tight deadline. There was not enough time for
discussion; funding for trash technologies had to be passed to be implemented before surpassing
the TMDL limits in September 2006.
B-69
-------
The committees make final decisions with a vote and then send them to the City Council
and Mayor (the ultimate decision makers). (Source: Kharagani)
Decision-making process:
There are 44 City departments (e.g., Recreation and Parks, Water and Power, Street
Services, Engineering) as well as key stakeholders that are involved in the development of the
master schedule, funding allocations, and management decisions. The time-frame for decision
making is two months to receive proposed projects, another two months to evaluate them, and
then an additional two months to adopt them. This is a semi-annual process; projects in 2005 can
be proposed from October 15 to December 15 (and are submitted to the City).
The Mayor and City Council approve criteria for selection of individual projects, the list
of projects, the general scope of each project, and the overall program budget and schedule. The
Mayor appoints members to the citizens oversight advisory committee (COAC) and the
administrative oversight committee (AOC) for 3-year terms. The COAC and AOC oversee
everything that happens in the Prop O. Committee members bring considerable expertise to the
table (in water, land protection, and other subjects) and represent a cross-sectional cut of the
community. The AOC develops and reviews project criteria (which are dynamic) and has the
power to make some adjustments to projects along the way.
Deputies from the City Council and the Mayor's office are involved in the process and
staff provide input at various points in the system. Any outstanding issues arise at those points,
rather than at the final decision point. Staff review technical information and participate in
discussions throughout. The elected officials ultimately adopt the project funding.
The process is very political, but also very transparent and open to the public. All
meetings are open to the public. Some meetings are held in the communities to get more
involvement. (Source: City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program, Kharagani)
Ultimate decision maker:
City Council and the Mayor.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Adopted TMDLs and EPA water quality information are used. The program also uses a
number of existing plans in the watersheds. GIS and dynamic modeling is used and life-cycle
costs are considered. Community needs and input is also used in decision-making. The system is
monitored daily and weekly. More effort is focused in areas where things are working
(responding to changes).
B-70
-------
Data is one factor among many considered. City departments and other key stakeholders
in the watershed gather and evaluate the technical information. There is an expert review of the
scientific information before it is used in decision making. (Source: Kharagani)
Priority map:
GIS-based maps have been developed and used. The City prioritizes based on TMDL
requirements. The community may have other concerns that are parallel to the TMDL goals. The
City strives to work on projects that achieve multiple objectives. (Source: Kharagani)
Partnerships:
Partnerships include: Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF); Clean Water
Association; Southern California Coastal Water Research Project; and others. The City tries to
leverage the resources (often studies, expert advice) they provide. (Source: Kharagani)
Available and expended funding:
The measure authorizes the City to issue up to $500 million in general obligation bonds.
The City is just starting the process; they have approved $17 million for trash TMDL
compliance. (Source: Kharagani)
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program,
http://www.lastormwater.org/WPD/general/measure o/about.htm. accessed on August 8, 2005.
League of Women Voters, http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11 /02/ca/la/meas/O/. accessed on August 8,
2005.
Kharagani, Shahram, LA Stormwater Program, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF
Consulting, October 25, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Shahram Kharagani, LA Stormwater Program. Phone: (323) 342-1582. Email:
sxkhragh@ san. 1 acity. org.
B-71
-------
2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
The bylaws of the Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) include the vision, which
incorporates the program goals listed below.
Program goals:
"To preserve land that protects water quality; protect wildlife areas, wetlands, rivers, and
streams; preserve farmland; protect open space to limit sprawl; and for creating, improving, and
maintaining parks, trails, and recreation facilities." (Source: Rocky Mountain News)
The Adams County area is under a lot of pressure by development. The OSAB, thus,
considers land acquisition to be a more primary goal than building recreational sites. (Source:
Spinella)
Parcel selection process:
The Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) consist of seven members, four of whom are
residents of unincorporated Adams County and three of whom are residents of cities or towns
located in Adams County.
The OSAB meets quarterly to review grant applications and recommend projects for
funding to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). (Source: Open Space Grant Program)
To establish initial priorities, the County developed two plans: (1) the Adams County
Open Space Plan; and (2) the South Platte River Heritage Plan. These plans identified areas of
priority for preservation, and were developed by an extensive steering committee that
represented varying interests. They are taken into consideration during project evaluation.
"The Open Space plan was developed by a steering committee of interested citizens,
representatives of the Adams County cities and staff from the county and cities. Barr Lake State
Park, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Urban Drainage,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory also participated in the
planning process." (Source: Adams County Open Space Plan)
No formal criteria were used to evaluate areas. A more qualitative, discussion-based
process was undertaken to develop the plan.
B-72
-------
Members of the OSAB are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
for four-year terms. The OSAB is set up to get representatives from unincorporated areas (who
often serve repeat terms) and different cities (who rotate). People who want to sit on the OSAB
can submit a letter as to why they want to be on the Board.
Grant applications follow a twice yearly cycle, due on February 1 and August 1. Rejected
applicants are encouraged to reapply, and the Board sometimes offers suggestions on what to
change in their application before they reapply.
Grant applications must be from agencies that collect taxes or must have one of those
agencies as a sponsor. This provision was designed to limit applications to those that seek to
benefit the public good. It is meant to eliminate applications from individuals seeking benefits
for themselves.
The program is constantly evolving, so the information that applicants must supply also
changes. The Board generally wants to see budget information, a timeline, what funding leverage
the project will provide, whether or not the project crosses city boundaries, and a land appraisal.
The OSAB receives about 9-12 grants each cycle, of which nearly all get recommended
to the BOCC. The BOCC can choose to fully or partially fund projects, so it has some flexibility.
(Source: Spinella)
Prioritization criteria:
The OSAB makes funding recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners
based on a set of criteria. The criteria are:
Project funding and quality of leverage summary
Partnerships
Community support information
Project budget
Estimated proj ect timeline
Proposed grant fund use(s)
Long-term maintenance
Connectivity
Fulfilling the needs of the community and meets the open space tax goals
Project management and performance
Urgency
Opposition
B-73
-------
The OSAB generally considers projects with partners to be better. Partners provide
funding support, as opposed to advice or information. The most successful projects tend to have
partners.
The County frequently uses the sales tax funds as seed money for other grants. They have
tapped into the State Lottery Funds for open space (called Great Outdoors Colorado, or GOCO).
There are also various State grants available such as the "Fishing is Fun" grants or the State
Trails Program that can be accessed depending on the project goals. There are community
donations that can act as partnerships (such as a donate-a-brick program). The Colorado Rockies
(the baseball team) has also provided support in the past to build ball fields.
Applicants need to provide evidence that they have a plan for long-term maintenance; the
OSAB wants to see that there is a plan. Cities with maintenance departments are often the
applicants, and need to demonstrate that they have considered how they will maintain an area.
The OSAB has not chosen to provide grant money for maintenance in the past, but could in the
future. Funding typically goes towards improvement or acquisition of a parcel.
Connectivity refers to wildlife corridors and recreation areas, as well as anything else that
could be instrumental in a larger effort (e.g., trails, connecting cities, etc.). It is broadly defined.
In determining if the needs of the community will be met, the OSAB looks at how
projects will contribute to the community and how they will benefit the public. Community
surveys are often done and are included with application materials. The OSAB wants to see that
the community supports the measure (and likes to see letters of support from community
members).
Project management and performance is assessed by looking at whether or not the
applicant has experience in similar projects. If they have never undertaken a similar project, the
OSAB is likely to recommend a project mentor (e.g., the Parks Department).
The OSAB wants to know if there is any opposition from the community (if anyone is
strongly against the project and why) before approving a project. If there is opposition, they
suggest the applicant return to their community and mitigate the conflict before funding is
granted. There is infrequently opposition from community members. (Source: Spinella)
Decision-making process:
Grants are submitted twice yearly. County staff review the applications first and then
forward them to the OSAB. The OSAB visits the sites under consideration and applicants
provide three-minute presentations at the next OSAB meeting. The OSAB then recommends
projects to the BOCC, who review the projects and ask further questions. Decisions are driven by
qualitative criteria (as described above).
-------
It typically takes three months to make awards from the time the application is submitted.
The entire decision-making process is open to the public. The public attends meetings, which are
posted on the website. Comments are generally positive. There was more significant involvement
by the public in the beginning of the program when it was being developed. (Source: Spinella)
Ultimate decision maker:
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC gets involved in the final
decisions. They ask a lot of questions, but do not typically analyze much data. (Source: Spinella)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
This program relies more on a qualitative analysis of projects. (Source: Spinella)
Priority map:
There are priority maps that are available online and are closely consulted during the
decision-making process. One of the criteria used in evaluating projects is how they fit with the
open space plans and existing maps. The Boards want to know if a project is part of their larger
goals. (Source: Spinella)
Partnerships:
Adams County and Trust for Public Lands are working together to purchase a 70-acre
farm along with 10 shares of the Lower Clear Creek Ditch Company. The land is currently being
farmed to produce irrigated grass/ alfalfa mix hay. Adams County would like to purchase the
land and water to place conservation easements on the land, and then trade the land for
conservation easements on other nearby farms (Riverdale Road Farmland Purchase, $800,000).
The Conservation Fund, in partnership with Colorado State Parks and Adams County
Open Space, proposes to purchase the 153-acre Maul Property as an addition to Barr Lake State
Park buffer (Maul Property Acquisition, $400,000). (Source: Funded Open Space Projects)
Available and expended funding:
$173 million ($8.65 million per year starting January 2007 and ending December 2026)
in additional revenue is expected from increasing the dedicated sales tax from 0.2 to 0.25
percent. (Source: Rocky Mountain News)
As of 2004, the Open Space Sales Tax had funded 87 grants (totaling $17.8 million and
leveraging over $78 million in matching funding from other sources) since the program's
inception in 1999 (1999CO-01). Sixty-eight percent of revenues are earmarked for Open Space
B-75
-------
grants. Thirty percent is returned to the local jurisdiction in which it was collected. Two percent
goes towards administrative costs. (Source: Open Space Report)
To date (November 2005), a total of $25 million has been spent. (Source: Spinella)
Acres protected:
3,500 acres have been protected through tax funds to date. (Source: Spinella)
Sources:
Adams County Open Space Plan, http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/parks/open space-
plan.html. accessed on November 4, 2005.
Open Space Sales Tax Program, http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/index.htmL
accessed on June 28, 2005.
Rocky Mountain News.com, http://election.rockymountainnews.com/issueDetail.cfm?issu_id=2104.
accessed on June 28, 2005.
Open Space Grant Guidelines,
http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open_space/grant_info.html. accessed on June 28, 2005.
Open Space Report,
http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open_space/2004_Open_Space_Report.pdf. accessed on
June 28, 2005.
Spinella, Kathy, Adams County Open Space Program, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF
Consulting, November 4, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Kathy Spinella, Adams County Open Space Program. Phone: (303)637-8004. Email:
kspinella@co.adams.co.us.
B-76
-------
2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
Synopsis of mission statement:
"To acquire, protect and manage environmentally significant lands and green
space that
S contain natural upland or wetland communities, native plant communities,
rare and endangered flora and fauna, endemic species, endangered species
habitat....
-S offer optimal human social value, including balanced geographic distribution
when possible, resource and nature-based recreation, and protection of water
resources ....
S serve to recharge the county's aquifers and protect its wetlands and surface
water resources...
To protect present conservation lands by acquiring, protecting and managing adjacent
properties.. .and add to resource connectivity and to existing natural areas and
wildlife corridors;
To restore the natural functions, as necessary, to any impacted and vulnerable
habitats....
To help implement the objectives and policies of the County's Comprehensive
Management Plan....
To identify the County's environmental lands and green spaces for acquisition,
including... development rights, environmental easements, leases, leaseback
arrangements and life estates ....
To... maintain and preserve their natural resource values, and provide appropriate
resource and nature-based recreational and educational opportunities....
To have the acquired sites available.. .to educate the general public....
To protect natural resources which are adjacent to the boundaries of other
conservation land acquisition programs....
To cooperate actively with other acquisition, conservation, and resource management
programs....
B-77
-------
The Program fund shall be in addition to... current and future funds for parks and
recreation....
To purchase lands not to exceed $60 million as outlined in Resolution 04-55R...."
(Source: Ordinance 04-28 text)
Program goals:
The goal of this measure is to "acquire and manage environmentally significant lands for
the protection of water resources, wildlife habitat, and public green space for passive recreation."
(Source: Ballot measure text)
Parcel selection process:
Synopsis of parcel selection process:
The Land Conservation Advisory Board (LCAB) shall be made up of nine Osceola
County residents, exclusive of elected officials ... .The nine members shall... provide the
following representation:
Members of the LCAB shall have expertise in ecology, conservation of natural resources,
real estate or land acquisition, land appraisal, land management, ecotourism or
environmental education....
The LCAB shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
... .[R]ecommend to the Board an Acquisition List consistent with the goals of the
Program.
... .[M]ay recommend to the Board proposed expenditures from the fund; additional
selection or acquisition policies, procedures, and programs....
... .The actions and recommendations of the LCAB are advisory only."
(Source: Ordinance 04-28 text)
Applications for the LCAB were solicited from any citizen or business owner in Osceola
that had an interest in participating. After soliciting the applications, approximately two dozen
applications were received for all board seats. The county commissioners selected the LCAB
based on the qualifications of the applicants. (Source: Matthews)
Prioritization criteria:
Synopsis of prioritization criteria:
"The evaluation of each acquisition proposal shall be based on satisfying at least two of
the initial screening criteria in this section. Qualified sites shall then be prioritized by a Site
Scoring Criteria Matrix ("Scoring Matrix") to be developed by the LCAB and County staff,
B-78
-------
based on similar scoring systems used by the State of Florida's Conservation and Recreational
Lands program and/or other land acquisition programs. The initial screening criteria are:
1. Land with the rarest, most unique and endangered habitats found in the
County, in the following order of preference: sandhill, lake margin swamps,
wetlands, bayheads, pine uplands and flatwoods, river floodplain, dry prairie,
wet prairie, cypress domes, xeric oak, scrub, high quality open range, other
native habitats.
2. Lands offering the best human social values, including balanced geographic
distribution, where possible, proximity to population, connectivity to other
green space, green way and/or other conservation areas, appropriate access for
passive and compatible uses, and enhancement of the aesthetic setting of the
County.
3. Land, which protects the most natural water resource values, including aquifer
recharge, water quality, wetland dependant species habitat, and flood control.
4. Land containing the most biological value, including biodiversity, listed
species habitat, connectivity, restoration potential, and ecological quality.
5. Land, which enhances and/or protects the environmental value of current
conservation lands through function as a buffer, ecological link, or habitat
corridor.
Any qualified land that meets at least two of the above criteria, and has matching funds
available and/or which the Program has funds available and could leverage a significantly higher
funding rank if submitted with another acquisition program.
The proposed acquisition lands which are qualified under the initial screening criteria
shall be evaluated and ranked by the LCAB, with the assistance of County staff, using the
Scoring Matrix described [above], and site visit information which confirms or refutes the initial
screening criteria evaluation, and based on comparative size (to prefer larger or similar lands),
vulnerability to destruction (to prefer most threatened of qualified lands), and the estimated
feasibility and costs of management (to prefer most manageable lands).
The Board shall approve a list of Target Protection Areas that contains specific sites that
generally satisfy the initial screening criteria and meet the goals of the Program. Inclusion on this
list is not a guarantee of subsequent purchase. All proposals will be evaluated and ranked by the
LCAB, with the assistance of County staff, for recommendation to the Board." (Source:
Ordinance 04-28 text)
The criteria above are solely for the purpose of an initial evaluation. Once a property
passes the initial screening, it is evaluated with the scoring matrix. At this stage of evaluation the
-------
county is trying to "weed out" parcels that are not worth being presented to the LCAB. The
program coordinator is likely to perform the initial evaluation based on the surveys and
boundaries provided by the nominator, as well as natural data collected by county government
biologists and private individuals. (Source: Matthews)
The LCAB recommends projects into one of two categories, "Target Site" or "Active
Acquisition." The "Target" designation indicates that the county is interested in the site, although
matching funding may need to be sought, or the site might not be ready for purchase. An "Active
Acquisition" designation indicates that the county commission will actively seek to purchase the
site. Target sites can become Active sites as funds become available or as properties become
"ready" for purchase. The program coordinator will likely make that determination. (Source:
Matthews)
No exceptions can be made to the initial screening criteria requirement of having a
minimum of at least two of five criteria. In many cases a program that passed the initial
screening will be removed from consideration once more information is acquired and the LCAB
begins scrutinizing more closely. (Source: Matthews)
The program sought to model itself after the most successful programs in Florida. In
order to do this, known land protection programs in Florida were surveyed during the design
phase. The program adopted what was considered best practices from the other programs. The
adoption of a quantitative ranking system was a key feature in the design of the program.
(Source: Matthews)
Decision-making process:
Synopsis of decision-making criteria:
".. .County staff will publish a notice requesting all interested landowners who meet the
eligibility criteria to submit an application to the County for participation in the Program.
County staff may also send letters of inquiry to the eligible landowners....
Proposals, which satisfy the initial screening, are forwarded to the LCAB and staff for
secondary criteria review and ranking. Staff shall include with each proposal: boundary
and location maps for each site; descriptions of the biological and hydrological
characteristics; a summary of its potential for appropriate use; development potential of
the site and adjacent land; an assessment of the management needs and costs; the
assessed value; and any potentially available matching funds. This acquisition proposal
information shall be the Initial Criteria Screening Report ("Screening Report").
B-80
-------
Upon completion of the Screening Report, the LCAB shall hold a public hearing to
consider the recommendations regarding each site, the applicant and/or landowner's
comments, and comments from the public... .The LCAB shall evaluate all qualified
proposals using the Scoring Matrix and propose top-ranked projects for the Active
Acquisition List.
The Board shall vote on whether to approve all or part of the proposed Active
Acquisition List... .After approval of the list, the Board will direct the County Manager to
begin negotiations for property acquisition(s) ...." (Source: Ordinance 04-28 text)
Parcel applications must come from a landowner within the county, or from a citizen who
would like to nominate a parcel with the landowner's permission. The County will only negotiate
with willing sellers and does not wish to spend time and effort on parcels that are not "really" for
sale. There is no condemnation involved in the acquisition process. (Source: Matthews)
Ultimate decision maker:
Osceola County Board of County Commissioners. (Source: Ordinance 04-28)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
In order to evaluate each property, staff will provide the following to the LCAB in a
screening report: boundary and location maps for each site; descriptions of the biological and
hydrological characteristics; a summary of its potential for appropriate use; development
potential of the site and adjacent land; an assessment of the management needs and costs; the
assessed value; and any potentially available matching funds. Landowner/applicants comments,
as well as public comments about each property are also taken into consideration. (Source:
Ordinance 04-28 text)
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
The amount available is $60 million. The County has not bonded anything as of yet. In
2006, the program intends to bond $20-30 million, with the option of increasing the bond
deemed necessary. The program will run for 20 years, or until the funding has run out. After all
funding has been spent, another vote for additional funding may be proposed. (Source:
Matthews)
B-81
-------
Acres protected:
No acres have been protected yet. On January 1, 2006, the LCAB will begin to review
applications. It might take at least 12 months of evaluation and negotiation before the first
purchase. (Source: Matthews)
Other Information:
The saveosceola.org website was created to gather support for the program, rather than
use it as a way of communicating updates to the public. It has been shut down since the measure
is passed, and will not re-open. (Source: Matthews)
The program will be publicized though different types of events and fliers, and through a
newly created website. A key element to the program's success will be transparency to the
County citizens since their money is funding the measure. A website listing the accomplishments
and status of the acquisition will be established in January 2006. Applications will be available
on the website and will also be advertised in the local newspapers. (Source: Matthews)
Sources:
Ballot measure text, http://saveosceola.org/Resolution%20Ballot%20Question.pdf. accessed on July 12,
2005.
Ordinance 04-28 text, http://saveosceola.org/Ordinance%20No.%2004-28.pdf. accessed on July 12, 2005.
Randy Mathews, Environmental Lands Coordinator, Osceola BOCC, personal communication with Toby
Mandel, ICF Consulting, October 28, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Randy Mathews, Environmental Lands Coordinator. Phone: (407) 962-1314. Email: rmat2@osceola.org.
B-82
-------
2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater
Management*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
"The mission of the Watershed Management Division is to reduce flooding, protect water
and environmental quality, and create recreational opportunities for the citizens of Lenexa
through a proactive, integrated, watershed-based approach to storm water management."
(Source: Rain to Recreation)
Program goals:
The "goals of the Program are to reduce flooding, protect water quality and natural
habitat and provide recreational and educational opportunities." Land protection is one part of
this program. (Source: Rain to Recreation)
Parcel selection process:
In the growth area of the city: "Criteria will be established to identify and create an
inventory of natural streams that deserve protection. The City will then develop plans to
conserve the identified natural streams. The inventory will also identify degraded reaches. Their
restoration potential will then be ranked and prioritized." Property owners may also dedicate land
parcels to the City if the City determines that the proposed dedication meets the City's watershed
purposes. (Source: Rain to Recreation)
The City commissioned a stream inventory that was completed in December 2001. It was
created by a team of consultants, including Patti Banks Associates (a local firm), a local branch
of Tetratech, and Applied Ecological Services (a contractor based out of Wisconsin). The team
did a rapid assessment that looked at streams in their entirety using a variety of technical criteria
to classify them into five categories ranging from "sensitive" to "significantly impacted." A
matrix of the type of stream versus the stream order (a measure of the relative size of streams)
was created to help prioritize what kinds of restorative or protective actions to take.
In March 2002, the City adopted a Stream Setback Ordinance to encourage dedication of
stream corridors or greenway trails (which fits in with the parks and recreation plan). The Stream
Setback Ordinance protects everything identified on the map in the stream asset inventory by
requiring new developments or changes in the land to comply with the ordinance (and, thus,
-------
restrains development). This protection covers about 1,500 acres of riparian areas. Dedication of
greenway trails is an opportunity to provide flood control while providing recreational
opportunities. Regional stormwater facilities have been identified, so it is clear what plots of land
are good for watershed purposes. The parks and recreation master plan identifies what is good
for parks in terms of greenways.
The City requests dedications, but also is approached with dedications (only dedications
that will be good for the City are accepted). In November 2002, the City adopted a Transfer of
Development Rights Ordinance, which set up three incentives for dedications to the city: (1)
relief of $7,500/acre excise tax; (2) relief of the setback requirement for the residential side of a
development; and (3) opportunity to achieve previous density on fewer acres. (Source: Beezhold
(a))
Prioritization criteria:
"Criteria used to prioritize stream conservation or restoration efforts may include many
factors, such as:
The ecological and hydraulic connectivity and function of the stream within the
overall watershed or drainage system
The physical and biological health of the stream and its supporting ecosystem
The potential to control natural flow regimes within the stream after the
surrounding area is developed
Aesthetic and recreational value of the stream
Hydraulic capacity of the natural stream
Impact of stream management on surrounding property values
Existence of wetlands
Development potential of area immediately surrounding the stream
Unique environmental or aesthetic characteristics of the stream"
(Source: Rain to Recreation)
These criteria were wrapped into the Stream Setback Ordinance that emerged from the
stream asset inventory. The decision-making process is mostly data driven. There has not really
been an instance when climate change was considered, but the larger metropolitan area has been
thinking about it. (Source: Beezhold (a))
In the mature part of the city, there is also a sub-watershed process that involves a fluvial
geomorphologist and consultants' assessment of stresses from a hydrologic standpoint.
B-84
-------
Expenditures are prioritized based on where current stream restoration is needed or where it will
be needed in the future.
Decision-making process:
The City Department of Public Works manages the program. The City Council makes the
ultimate decision about parcels voluntarily dedicated to the city.
The City Council is involved in the adoption of new standards and new ordinances
(including the Erosion and Sediment Ordinance, the 2002 Transfer of Development Rights
Ordinance, and the 2004 Manual of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Quality).
For the adoption of the 2004 Manual of Best Management Practices for Stormwater
Quality, the City Council was brought up to speed on new standards issued by the American
Public Works Association (APWA). They generally follow technicalities closely. The Economic
Development Council is also important to engage. Everything presented to these councils is
couched in terms of improving the quality of life for citizens.
There are public Council meetings when the Council takes actions. There is a lot of
public participation. Vision 2020, a comprehensive planning effort that initially sparked the
concern for stream protection, was begun in 1998. It involved over 100 groups interested in
keeping a balance between development and environmental protection.
The public also regularly attends Stormwater neighborhood meetings. These public
meetings are critical to bringing stream restoration to suburban areas and taking proactive steps.
They provide opportunities to communicate with the public about upcoming and ongoing
projects. (Source: Beezhold (a))
Ultimate decision maker:
The ultimate decision maker is the City Council, upon recommendation of the Public
Works Director. The City Council is very engaged and gets briefed at a high level of detail. They
are concerned about efficiency and effectiveness of policies.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
"The streams in western Lenexa were assigned a type designation, based on stream
quality assessments conducted by Patti Banks Associates for Lenexa's Stream Inventory. Field
data, based on key indicators and environmental criteria, was used in a weighting/scoring system
to determine stream type. Stream type and stream order served as the criteria upon which stream
setback distances were based." (Source: Rain to Recreation)
B-85
-------
Priority map:
The Western Lenexa Stream Type Map "indicates stream type and order information to
be used in the determination of stream setback requirements." (Source: Rain to Recreation)
Partnerships:
The City plans to try to "identify and take advantage of all available opportunities to
cooperate with other communities to effectively manage storm water" and protect the shared
Mill Creek watershed. (Source: Rain to Recreation)
Lenexa is a municipality within Johnson County, which it sometimes partners with for
funding and works with to facilitate communication with neighboring municipalities. Working
with other municipalities is one of the eight guiding principles behind the program. It participates
in Johnson County's Stormwater Management Advisory Council (SMAC) by sharing proposed
projects and cost-benefit analyses to determine whose project will best meet the needs of the area
for the lowest cost. There are some joint projects underway.
Lenexa took the lead in working with the Mid-America Regional Council and the Kansas
City Chapter of the American Public Works Association to bring municipalities together across
state lines to develop regional water quality standards. It also partners with some environmental
groups and land trusts, such as the Blue River Watershed Organization, the Kansas Land Trust,
the Arbor Day Foundation, the Kansas Alliance for Wetlands and Streams, the Friends of the
KAW (as the Kansas River is sometimes referred to), and the Audubon Society. (Source:
Beezhold (a))
Available and expended funding:
Anticipated revenue totals $7.9 million (includes county funds and grants).
Funding comes from several sources: (1) a Stormwater utility charge for impervious areas
($4.50 per month per equivalent dwelling unit or EDUconsidered to be the size of an average
single family lot at 2,750 square feet), which generates about $1.4 million per year; (2) a 1/8 cent
sales tax passed by 78% of the voters twice, which generates about $1.5 million per year; (3) a
system capital development charge (each new home pays a one-time charge of $850 per EDU
and then pays the Stormwater utility charge for the rest of the life of the home), which contributes
about $450,000 per year; and (4) a land disturbance fee, which generates about $100,000 per
year.
Before these charges were put into place, the City did a survey of residents to assess how
much they were willing to pay for water quality and quality of life. Eighty percent of respondents
expressed a willingness to pay to protect these resources. The survey revealed that citizens were
-------
concerned with water quality and habitat preservation and valued passive recreational activities
such as walking, bird watching, and similar hobbies. (Source: Beezhold (a))
Acres protected:
The City already owns 470 acres that are protected and is protecting about 1,300 acres of
future streams by ordinance. About 115 of the 470 acres have been dedicated to the city.
The City has looked at benefits in terms of money. An analysis showed that green
infrastructure would save 25 percent over the business as usual approach. Other public benefits
that have been considered are: improved recreational opportunities; taking people out of flooding
situations; providing educational opportunities (signage is provided at all facilities for
educational purposes); and improving quality of water going to Kansas City. (Source: Beezhold
(a))
Lake Lenexa was completed in 2006 with a park soft opening to the public the summer of
2008 and a Grand Opening of Black Hoof Park and Lake Lenexa on May 2, 2009. The park is
over 300 acres of preserved and restored streamways, three wetlands, and protected upland
forest. The lake is 35 acre surface area with a boat launch for nonmotorized boats. Miles of trails
and boardwalks give the community access to the park, water, and spillway. (Source Beezhold
(b))
The program has completed several other small lake and park amenities/facilities for the
city including Mize Lake (7.5 acre surface area) at Cedar Station Park that incorporates wetlands
and bioretention cells to clean road runoff and the restoration of a 2.5 acre lake at the 27 acre
Hidden Woods Park. The program has also completed several stream restoration projects all of
which have won the APWA Environmental Project award including Brentwood Neighborhood
Stormdrainage Improvements and Stream Stabilization ($9 million completed in 2008),
Manchester Park Neighborhood Stream Restoration and Wetland ($750,000 with $350,000 of
that from EPA 319 grant completed in 2006) and Parkhurst Neighborhood Stream Restoration
done with new in-house green crew for a fraction of the cost of hiring a contractor (completed in
2007).
The program is currently completing a capital project in association with our new
urbanist development (live, work, play) called City Center. The project, City Center Central
Green, includes a transition of formal green space to a series of recirculating pools into a
constructed wetland that enters into the Parkhurst Stream Restoration (noted above). These
connected spaces are accessible by a trail. The stormwater that is cleaned in the Central Green
flows down stream to Shawnee Mission Lake that is the most visited lake and park in the State of
Kansas and thus an important resource that must be protected.
-------
Sources:
Beezhold, Mike (a), Watershed Manager, City of Lenexa, Personal Communication with Susan Asam,
ICF Consulting, November 9, 2005.
Beezhold, Mike (b), Watershed Manager, City of Lenexa, Personal Communication with Philip Groth,
ICF Consulting, May 28, 2009
City of Lenexa, http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/Stormwater/index.html. accessed on August 10, 2005.
Creating Quality Places, http://www.qualityplaces.marc.org/4a studies.cfm?Case=42. accessed on
August 10, 2005.
Rain to Recreation, http://www.raintorecreation.org/index.html. accessed on August 10, 2005.
POINTS OF CONTACT:
Ron Norris and Mike Beezhold, City of Lenexa. Phone: (913) 477-7680. Email: rnorris@ci.lenexa.ks.us.
or mbeezhold@ci.lenexa.ks.us.
B-88
-------
2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
There is no specific mission statement available. However, the millage was passed
because of strong public sentiment that land needed to be protected and saved from encroaching
development. Many people specifically moved to the area for a semi-rural life style and rapid
development was threatening the area. (Source: Knol)
Program goals:
To preserve working agricultural land; natural areas; and open space. (Source: Scio Info
Newsletter, Fall 2004)
Parcel selection process:
A land use consultant is familiar with the area and has identified many of the properties
that are relevant for the program. He contacts some of the landowners directly and invites them
to apply. The Land Preservation Commission also sends letters to people in the township that
own land parcels of a certain size or larger. In this first round of applications for agricultural
land, letters were sent to 50-60 landowners. (Source: Knol)
Landowners submit applications that are reviewed by the Land Preservation Commission.
The Land Preservation Commission uses the criteria listed below to evaluate the applications and
determine which the best options are. (Source: Knol)
Prioritization criteria:
Scoring System for Review of Potential Acquisitions
The scoring system below is used to review potential land, easement, and development
rights acquisitions. The system is intended to identify high-quality agricultural, open space, and
park and recreation lands that are appropriate for protection through the Scio Township program.
In addition to the points identified for each criteria, the Land Preservation Commission may
employ discretionary points in each category to address factors not included.
Agricultural Land
1. Characteristics of the Land
a. Soil Quality. Percent of the property with prime, unique, or locally important soil types
(as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture).
-------
For scoring, divide the number of acres of quality soils by total acres and then multiply
that by 13 to produce the score.
b. Parcel Size.
<40 acres 2
40-80 acres 3
>80 acres 5
c. Road Frontage.
<500 feet 0
500-1,000 feet 1
> 1,000 feet 2
d. Groundwater Recharge/Protection. Percent of property serving as a groundwater
recharge area or protecting groundwater resources.
<50% 2
50-75% 4
>75% 5
e. Woodlands. Does the property contain Landmark Trees?
Up to five points may be awarded.
f Other Habitats. Does the property contain other important habitats such as wetlands,
grasslands, or stream corridors?
Up to five points may be awarded.
g. Public Water Resources Frontage/Proximity. Amount of frontage on open water or a
perennial stream.
No frontage 0
<100 feet 2
100-500 feet 4
>500 feet 6
2. Context
a. Adjacent Zoning Classification. Percent of the properties contiguous with the subject
property that is in agricultural or open space zoning. (Refer to Scio Township Zoning
Ordinance.)
<50% 1
50-89% 2
90% or more 4
-------
b. Adjacent Land Use. Percent of the properties contiguous with the subject property that is
in an agricultural or open space use.
<50% 2
50-89% 4
90% or more 6
c. Master Plan Designation. Is the property designated for an agricultural or open space use
in the Scio Township Master Land Use Plan?
10 Yes 0 No
d. Proximity to Protected Land. Distance to land that is permanently protected by a public
agency, a land conservancy or other conservation organization, or by a perpetual
conservation easement.
>1 mile 0
1 mile or less 5
adjacent 10
e. Scenic Value. Does the property provide a broad, sweeping view from publicly
accessible sites such as public roads and waterways?
Up to five points may be awarded.
f Historic Value. Does the property have important historical or cultural
features?
Up to five points may be awarded.
g. Connectivity. Does the property provide a connection or decrease the distance between
existing trails, parks, preserves or natural feature complexes?
Up to ten points may be awarded.
3. Acquisition Considerations
a. Matching Funds. Percent of the appraised value of development rights available
from sources other than the landowner or the Township.
No matching funds 0
<20% 5
20-50% 10
>50% 14
b. Landowner Contribution. Percent of the appraised value of development rights the
landowner is willing to donate.
-------
No contribution 0
<10% 5
10-20% 8
>20-30% 12
>30% 15
c. Development Pressure. Is the property currently on the market or otherwise threatened
with development?
Up to ten points may be awarded.
4. Discretionary Points. The Land Preservation Commission may award up to 15
discretionary points for factors not considered in the scoring system.
Draft Criteria for Natural Areas and Open Space
1. Characteristics of the Land
a. Woodlands. Does the property contain Landmark Trees?
Up to five points may be awarded.
b. Rare Species. Does the property feature species of special concern or interest?
Up to five points may be awarded.
c. Other Habitats. Does the property feature contain other important habitats such as
grasslands or scrub/shrub?
Up to five points may be awarded.
d. Parcel Size.
<20 acres 2
20-40 acres 3
>40 acres 5
e. Road Frontage.
No frontage 0
<500 feet 1
500-1,000 feet 2
> 1,000 feet 3
f Wetlands and/or Floodplain. Percent of the property with those features.
No features 0
<10% 3
10-20% 7
>20% 11
B-92
-------
g. Groundwater Recharge/Protection. Percent of property serving as a groundwater
recharge area or protecting groundwater resources.
<50% 2
50-75% 4
>75% 6
h. Slopes. Percent of the property that features slopes >12%.
<10% 0
10-20% 2
>20% 4
i. Public Water Resources Frontage/Proximity. Amount of frontage on open water or a
perennial stream.
No frontage 0
<100 feet 5
100-500 feet 10
>500 feet 14
2. Context
a. Adjacent Zoning Classification. Percent of the properties contiguous with the subject
property that is in agricultural or open space zoning. (Refer to the Scio Township Zoning
Ordinance.)
<50% 1
50-89% 2
90% or more 4
b. Adjacent Land Use. Percent of the properties contiguous with the subject property that is
in an agricultural or open space use.
None 0
<50% 3
50-89% 4
90% or more 5
c. Proximity to Protected Land. Distance to land that is permanently protected by a public
agency, a land conservancy or other conservation organization, or by a perpetual
conservation easement.
>1 mile low 0
1 mile or less medium 5
adjacent high 9
d. Scenic Value. Does the property provide a broad, sweeping view from publicly accessible
sites such as public roads and waterways?
Up to five points may be awarded.
-------
e. Historic Value. Does the property have important historical or cultural
features?
Up to five points may be awarded.
f. Connectivity. Does the property provide a connection between existing trails, parks,
preserves or natural feature complexes, or close the distance?
Up to ten points may be awarded.
3. Acquisition Considerations.
a. Matching Funds. Percent of the appraised value of development rights available from
sources other than the landowner or the Township.
No matching funds 0
<20% 4
20-50% 8
>50% 11
b. Landowner Contribution. Percent of the appraised value of development rights the
landowner is willing to donate.
No contribution 0
<10% 2
10-20% 4
>20% 6
c. Urgency for Acquisition. Is the property currently on the market or is otherwise
threatened with development?
Up to ten points may be awarded.
d. Recreation Potential. Can or will the property provide access to public lands, waters or
trails, or protect a trail corridor?
10 Yes 0 No
4. Discretionary Points. The Land Preservation Commission may award up to discretionary
points for factors not considered in the scoring system.
Parks and Recreation Land (criteria to be developed)
Glossary of Terms
Agricultural soils:
B-94
-------
Prime: Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical
characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, and is
available for these uses. It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture
supply needed to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when
treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water
management. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water
supply from precipitation or irrigation; a favorable temperature and growing
season; acceptable acidity or alkalinity; acceptable salt and sodium content; and
few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not
excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they
either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding.
Unique: Land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific
high value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality,
location, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce economically
sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and
managed according to acceptable farming methods. Examples of crops are tree
nuts, olives, cranberries, citruses and other fruits and vegetables.
Locally Important: Specified prime farmland soils with slopes of 6-18% and non-
prime farmland soils with slopes up to 12%.
Groundwater recharge area: Land where permeable soil and rock materials relatively close to the
land surface transfer an excess of water from precipitation to subsurface strata where it is stored
in aquifers.
Landmark tree: Any tree listed in the definitions section of Article 12 of the Scio Township
Zoning Ordinance. Size varies according to species and is the diameter in inches as measured at
breast height (DBH).
Public water: Groundwaters, lakes, rivers and streams and all other watercourses and waters,
including the Great Lakes, within the jurisdiction of this state [definition of "Waters of the
State," from a section of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL
324.3101].
Open water: A lake or pond of one acre in size or greater.
B-95
-------
Perennial stream: A water body that flows continuously throughout the year.
Natural feature complex: A cluster of natural features in a relatively undisturbed stateincluding
but not limited to unforested wetlands, forested wetlands, forested uplands, old fields, grasslands
and steep slopesthat relate together ecologically as a natural system. (Source: Scio Township
Land Preservation Program, 2005)
The Open Space criteria are still being finalized. (Source: Knol)
Water resources are an important factor in the evaluation process but have not been
relevant thus far during the evaluation of the first set of agricultural land applications. However,
Scio Township is located on the Huron River, so water resources could be an important aspect in
future applications. There already are some protections in place as regards Huron River - it is
protected by the Natural Rivers Act. (Source: Knol)
In the first round of agricultural land applications, six applications were received but only
three qualified because the criteria require that there be active agricultural use on the lands.
(Source: Knol)
In the development of the criteria, neither climate change nor pollution or "stressors"
specifically were addressed; the focus was on creating basic evaluation criteria. Many of the
people on the Commission have a science background (or PhDs) and would certainly consider
stressors if it was relevant to a specific parcel of land. There has been specific discussion of the
importance of protecting land that is critical for endangered or threatened species. The program
has the ability to add discretionary points to the score of a parcel should it be clear that a land
was important for another reason, which could be related to stressors. (Source: Knol)
Decision-making process:
Landowners are invited to submit applications and the applications are submitted to the
Land Preservation Commission. The Commission reviews the applications and uses additional
information about the properties to evaluate the applications and land parcels based on the
criteria listed above. Next, the Commission selects the applications that meet their criteria and
obtains the signature of approval from the landowner to show their interest in selling the
development rights. The Commission then presents their findings to the Township Board for
final approval. (Source: Knol)
The Commission may submit a request to the state for matching funds to help purchase
development rights on the lands selected before submitting their final recommendation to the
Township Board. (Source: Knol)
-------
The recommendation of the Land Preservation Commission is presented at a public
meeting of the Township Board. (Source: Knol)
Ultimate decision maker:
Township Board.
Theoretically, the Township Board could veto a recommendation or require changes, but
it is expected that the Board will rely heavily on the recommendation of the Land Preservation
Commission. (Source: Knol)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
The Land Preservation Commission uses the following sources to make decisions about
which applications/land parcels to recommend for purchase of development rights: application,
GIS, independent appraisal, landowner interviews, land use consultant expertise, and the
Commission walks the properties. (Source: Knol)
Township planning documentssuch as the Scio Township Master Land Use Plan
(adopted on 10/8/96, as amended), the Scio Township Zoning Ordinance (adopted 11/26/03, as
amended), Wetland and Watercourse Protection and Restoration Ordinance (2005-01) and Open
Space and Greenway Plan (adopted 10/19/04)serve as reference documents for the Land
Preservation Commission. (Source: Scio Township Land Preservation Program, 2005)
No one source of information is more important than another across the board; it is likely
to be situation specific. (Source: Knol)
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
$5 million is expected over 10 years. Estimated revenue for year 1 is $575,000. (Source:
Scio Info Newsletter, Fall 2004)
The program completed their first round of applications for agricultural land. No money
has been expended yet as they are waiting to hear if they will get matching funds from the state
for the purchase of development rights on two agricultural land parcels. (Source: Knol)
B-97
-------
Acres protected:
The measure is expected to protect approximately 1,000 acres. No information on acres
protected to date, if any. (Source: Olsson and Rubin)
The program completed their first round of applications for agricultural land. No land has
been protected yet as they are waiting to hear if they will get matching funds from the state for
the purchase of development rights on two agricultural land parcels. In addition, they expect to
usually purchase development rights rather than purchase the land outright. (Source: Knol)
Sources:
Knol, Kathleen. 2005. Telephone conversation between Kathleen Knol, Clerk of Scio Township and
Amanda Vemuri of ICF Consulting. October 24, 2005. A second interview with Ms. Knol and another
member of the Land Preservation Commission was planned but never completed because of difficulty in
scheduling and the additional Commission member was unreachable at the second scheduled interview
time.
Scio Township Land Preservation Program. 2005. Scoring System for Review of Potential Acquisitions,
Received via email from Kathleen Knol on October 24, 2005.
Scio Township. Scio Info, Fall 2004. Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.twp.scio.mi.us/newsletters/10-
04scio_info.pdf. accessed on lune 29, 2005.
Olsson, K. and Rubin, L. "Investing in Greenspace." Huron River Report, Spring 2005.
http://www.hrwc.org/pdf/HRR 2005 lSpring.pdf accessed on lune 29, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Kathleen Knol, Clerk of Scio Township. Phone: (734) 665-2123. Email: kknol(g),twp.scio.mi.us.
A second interview with Ms. Knol and another member of the Land Preservation Commission was
planned but never completed because of difficulty in scheduling.
B-98
-------
2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space*
2009 Update
In 2007 voters approved an additional
$50 million bond measure to fund the
program, though the program has since
been suspended due to current
economic conditions.
No significant changes have been made
in the parcel selection process, though
it is likely that the entire program will
be re-evaluated once it is resumed.
While selection criteria and program
goals were followed in land
acquisition, the parcel selection has
largely been driven by opportunity.
Programs officials have noted that
earlier acquisitions focused on water
qualities, and later acquisitions have
trended more towards recreational
amenities. (Source: Smith, 2009)
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
"Wake County has crafted a strong
Environmental Stewardship Agenda to protect our
drinking water and ensure that citizens tomorrow enjoy
the same quality of life we enjoy today. The Agenda
focuses on water and air quality, open space
preservation, solid waste disposal and recycling, and
environmental health and education...
... open space is a protected living system of
natural and cultural resources provided and maintained
for the benefit of residents, businesses, and visitors.
This "green infrastructure" is essential in protecting our
water supply, keeping people and property out of high
risk flood hazard areas, providing places where
residents can recreate for health and fitness, and
protecting the biological diversity of irreplaceable
landscapes. In November 2000, Wake County voters authorized $15 million...with an emphasis
on purchasing land that protects sensitive stream and drinking water sources." (Source: Wake
County Open Space Plan)
The 2004 bond for open space, recreation, and protection of water quality and wildlife
habitats was intended to provide additional funding on top of the 2000 authorization of $15
million in funds. All of the $15 million from the 2000 bond has been spent (on giving grants to
communities to develop community-level open space plans and then consolidating those plans
into one big plan). (Source: Smith)
Program goals:
The Wake County Open Space Program is focused on preserving land within four critical
watersheds (Falls and Jordan Lakes, Swift Creek, and Little River), 40 miles of stream corridors
within these watersheds, and the Mark's Creek area in eastern Wake County. Open space was
prioritized to fulfill multiple objectives, including: (1) floodplain management, (2) wildlife
B-99
-------
habitat, (3) water quality, (4) recreation access, (5) environmental and cultural education, (6)
personal fitness, (7) alternative transportation, and (8) recreational resources.
The primary engine/driving objective is water quality, which appeals to multiple
stakeholders (general public, environmentalists, development interests, etc.). When the program
partners with other towns, they sometimes achieve some secondary objectives as well. Protecting
stream corridors (300 foot strips) often also allows for the protection of species and some of the
other program goals. (Source: Smith)
Parcel selection process:
Citizens worked together on a countywide Comprehensive Open Space Plan. This
"greenprint for the future" knits together the County's open space plan with those of all 12 Wake
County municipalities. This unique plan provides for open space protection in ways that are
close to home, such as greenway linkages and neighborhood parks. Watershed and Growth
Management Plans address growth issues, including watershed protection and prioritization of
purchases under the County's open space plan.
The public is welcome to "suggest a property." The public does not need to provide any
justification for suggesting a property; they can call and inquire generally. This option is not
widely exercised, and usually is undertaken by people with funding already in line (for a
partnership; see more information about partnerships below). If someone calls with a suggestion,
the County will see if it matches any of the corridor goals or if there are any partners interested
in purchasing the parcel. One parcel was donated, and although it is not on the County's list, but
will be accepted.
There are two avenues for acquiring parcels (and K. Smith estimates they each consume
about 50% of the funds):
(1) Partnership Program, which provides 50 cents on the dollar for any partner
interested in acquiring a parcel. Partners (e.g., non-profit organizations, agencies,
or community groups) take the lead on what is important to them and the criteria
(below) need to be met, but very loosely.
(2) Preservation Program, which involved analysis of 81 sub-watersheds using GIS
data to identify eight stream corridors. The County is looking to buy parcels of
300 feet on either side of a stream. (Source: Smith)
Prioritization criteria:
The Open Space Partnership Program has established 15 qualitative criteria for
prioritization: (1) location, (2) proximity, (3) linkage, (4) water quality/water supply protection,
(5) accessibility, (6) aesthetic quality, (7) use/utility, (8) number of open space categories, (9)
B-100
-------
threat of loss, (10) rarity, (11) parcel size, (12) cost, (13) manageability, (14) partnerships, and
(15) parcel configuration.
Criteria (8) refers to how many of the following five priority open space categories the
parcel falls into: (1) environmental, (2) recreational, (3) wildlife habitat, (4) cultural resources, or
(5) historic resources.
The criteria are weighted, but subjectively. The process is data driven, but subjectivity
enters into the process later. The County Open Space Plan was laid on top of the watershed data
to help determine the best opportunities. These criteria need to be only loosely met for
partnership purchases, which is not data driven and tied to the priorities of the partners. (Source:
Smith)
Decision-making process:
"The Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) is an eight-member citizen group
appointed by the Board of Commissioners to advise it on open space preservation issues." The
OSAC is responsible for identifying types of open spaces to be included in the program,
developing prioritization criteria, and identifying options for acquisition and conservation of
parcels, among other roles. (Source: Wake County Open Space Program)
For all 81 watersheds, parcels over 50 acres or within 30 feet of a priority area were
evaluated (a.k.a. Matrix Prioritization Analysis) against the following factors to determine
existing water quality conditions and potential for preservation and restoration: (1) soil moisture
(e.g., hydric soils), (2) FEMA 100-year flood zone, (3) wetlands (data not specified), and (4)
water recharge area; variables weighted according to planning objectives (e.g., Wake County
Open Space Plan gives higher significance to upland hardwoods, bottomland forests, floodplain
forests and wetlands, because they are critical to water quality). CH2M HILL (a consultant)
completed the initial watershed analysis, using Division of Water Quality data and field
sampling. A watershed committee reviewed the findings as well as various stakeholders.
Development pressures drove the development of an open space plan. Data from the
planning department was used to identify these pressures after the watershed analysis. In general,
the County tries to buy land in areas that are less than 20 percent developed. The final step of the
evaluation process is to identify available acquisition opportunities and potential partners and
prioritize among the highest ranked projects using the criteria above.
Barriers have included the limits on the price of the property and approval by multiple
entities. The County cannot purchase above the appraised value of the land, so developers or
others can easily outbid them in a purchase of a parcel. Potential parcels undergo several
rigorous reviews by internal staff, the Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC), and the Land
B-101
-------
Acquisition Review Commission (LARC), then the elected Board of Commissioners approves
the purchase (which can be highly political).
The public is not that involved (and if so, it is rarely to express negative opinions), the
public can attend OSAC meetings and watch the Board of Commissioners on TV. The LARC is
closed to the public. (Source: Smith)
Ultimate decision maker:
The Board of Commissioners makes the final decision. They can vote on an acquisition
in a public session (if they know everyone is already on board), or they can have a closed session
meeting that usually involves a presentation of technical information by County staff. It used to
be more common to assess acquisitions in closed sessions, but the Board has been doing
everything in open sessions and approving acquisitions with little discussion or analysis.
(Source: Smith)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Data used is typical GIS data including Natural Heritage GIS data and SSURGO soil
data. See Appendix F of the Open Space Plan (Open Space Prioritization Process). The County
has an in-house GIS department that works with consultants to gather and analyze data. (Source:
Smith).
Priority map:
Yes; it includes watersheds (coarse scale) and parcels (micro scale).
Partnerships:
"The Open Space Partnership Grant Program is an initiative created by OSAC and Wake
County staff to collaborate with local organizations in preserving our significant natural
resources. The grant program will provide funding to organizations in Wake County to acquire
and plan for acquiringland...." (Source: Wake County Open Space Program)
More than half the protected lands were acquired in partnership with other cities and
towns, state agencies, nonprofits and individuals.
Partnership strategies have included: (1) determining long-range jurisdictional
responsibility; (2) identifying local land-trust priorities; (3) facilitating county-wide planning
effort to support the Governor's Million Acre Initiative; (4) supporting county-wide planning
efforts through financial and technical support; and (5) prioritizing and protecting significant
lands outside municipal long-range planning boundaries.
B-102
-------
Available and expended funding:
$26 million.
$16-17 million has been spent (of the 2000 and 2004 bond money, which totals $41
million). It is estimated that the appraised value of the land acquisitions is around $35 million.
An estimated 2,300-2,400 acres have been set aside as open space. (Source: Smith)
Acres protected:
From the late 1990s, when the program began, through 2005, a total of 1,800 acres worth
$23.1 million have been acquired.
There has not been an analysis of the benefits resulting from the 1,800 acres of open
space that have been acquired, but there may be more down the road. No noticeable changes
other than noting that nothing is built on the set aside land. (Source: Smith)
Sources:
Wake County Open Space Program, http://www.wakegov.com/parks/openspace/default.htm. accessed on
July 2005.
Smith, Kurt, Wake County Open Space Planner (Program Coordinator), Personal communication with
Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, on October 25, 2005.
Smith, Kurt, Wake County Open Space Planner (Program Coordinator), Personal communication with
Philip Groth, ICF International, on April 24, 2009.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Kurt Smith, Wake County Open Space Planner (Program Coordinator). Phone: (919) 856-6555. Email:
kwsmith@co.wake.nc.us.
B-103
-------
2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
"The mission of the Guilford County Open Space Program is to identify suitable lands for
acquisition and preservation and to provide public education about land conservation." (Source:
Readling)
Program goals:
The goals of the programs are to (1) protect 100 acres of open space per 1000 residents,
(2) educate the public about the benefits of land conservation, (3) develop a land management
and stewardship plan that balances the needs of natural resource protection with appropriate
public access, and (4) enhance regional open space initiatives through partnerships. Of The $20
million 2004 bond measure, $10 million was set aside for protection of natural areas through the
County's open space program. (Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space Report)
This funding for the open space program represented a major win (and the first sum of
money) for a program that started in the late 1990s through a grass-roots effort to address
preservation of natural areas as open space. The grassroots group went before the County
Commissioners to request funding for a formal program, and followed the advice of the
Commissioners to go through the planning department to draft a plan and conduct a survey of
how much open space existed in the County. The County decided it was not going to fund a
formal program, but would provide the salary for one person. It also established a committee
under the Parks and Recreation Commission, which consisted of people involved in the initial
grassroots efforts. (Source: Readling)
The following principles govern the open space program:
1. Acquisition and preservation of open space will be based on working with willing
property owners. There will be no takings of private land.
2. Establishing priority areas for the acquisition of open space and updating them
periodically, while being flexible enough to take advantage of special acquisition
opportunities and respond effectively to threats on high priority tracts.
3. A focus on the multiple uses, functions and benefits of open space.
4. Adherence to the concept of corridors and bubbles, such that, in thirty years, there
will be strategically located open space bubbles or core areas throughout the
B-104
-------
county. Those core areas will be linked together by corridors, such as streams,
greenways, bike trails, walking paths, or other linear connections to facilitate
wildlife migration and recreation in core areas. Core areas will have uses
appropriate for each site.
5. Optimal use of bond funds to maximize their impact by seeking matching grants,
by accepting donations of land, and by seeking partners to help acquire and
manage open space.
(Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space Report)
Parcel selection process:
The Open Space Subcommittee was charged initially with compiling an inventory of
existing park land and open spaces. "The inventory was compiled through the use of tax records,
the watershed acquisition database, park and recreation records, and with the assistance of staff
members from the City of Greensboro, the City of High Point, The Town of Jamestown, and the
Town of Gibsonville."
Parcels included in the inventory met one of three criteria: (1) owned by a government
entity or local land conservancy; (2) consisted of undeveloped open space or recreationally
developed park land; or (3) recorded conservation easement on property (including a Water
Quality Conservation Easements or private easements).
Parcels can be selected through two routes: (1) a nomination process whereby citizens
refer properties for review by the Open Space Committee or (2) a proactive selection process that
pursues acquisition in targeted areas.
The Open Space Committee selected nine target areas using several information sources
(described in more detail below). The Committee originally sought large areas of undeveloped
hardwoods and stream corridors of importance. These target areas have changed over time as the
Committee finds that the community is not interested in these areas or some other factors arise.
The Committee intentionally did not select the target areas prior to the bond measure
because they wanted to avoid speculation. There had seen speculation in the Haw River area
after the State announced plans to preserve the area. (Source: Readling)
Prioritization criteria:
The following types of land [shall] be considered for acquisition and preservation under
this program:
Lands identified in the Natural Areas Inventory... and Riparian Corridor
Conservation Design for the Upper Haw River, Mears Fork and Benaja Creek,
suitable properties adjacent to existing parks and open space lands
B-105
-------
Wetlands, meadows and mature forests
Creek, stream, and river corridors, particularly along planned trail routes
Groundwater recharge areas
Buffers for drinking water supply lakes and streams
Buffers for agricultural land
Corridors connecting parks, open spaces, schools, and neighborhoods
Sites of geologic or historic importance
Sites providing recreational or educational potential
Sites providing significant plant or wildlife habitat
Sites providing significant water quality protection
Additional sites as indicated on the open space target areas map
(Source: Guilford County Open Space Program)
The criteria used to analyze nominated parcels are listed in greater detail in the Guilford
County Open Space Report in Appendix 4. (Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space Report)
Decision-making process:
The open space program is supported by the equivalent of one full-time staff person
[within the Property Management Department].
A citizen advisory board (the Guilford County Open Space committee) provides
leadership and oversight for the program as a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The committee "consists of nine voting members, one of whom also serves on the
Guilford County Parks & Recreation Commission. Members serve a three-year term and are
appointed by the Parks & Recreation Commission." The members represent a diversity of
backgrounds.
The Open Space committee works with the County staff to evaluate and recommend
potential land acquisitions based on established criteria and priorities. The committee acts as a
screening body, but does not have the power to approve the purchase of land or development
rights. The Subcommittee looks at whether or not there are willing sellers and whether or not the
project meets the established environmental and biological criteria, and to make sure that the
parcel fits in with the existing plans. The Subcommittee and Staff use maps, surveys and
appraisals to analyze the property, and provide recommendations to the Parks & Recreation
Commission. The Parks & Recreation Commission looks at the cost and other criteria of interest
to them and then provides recommendations to the County Commissioners (elected officials).
Acquisition or preservation of a land parcel can be carried out through fee-simple
purchase, full donations, or bargain sales. The bond money cannot be used for long-term
B-106
-------
maintenance of a property since interest is paid on bond money. Long-term maintenance or
stewardship is on the table as an issue to start thinking about, but there is no operating budget to
pay for it. The program plans to start acquiring land and then move forward with determining
how to fund and maintain the land. (Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space Report)
Ultimate decision maker:
The ultimate decision makers are the County Commissioners. Through 2008, the Board
of County Commissioners has been supportive of open space projects except for one farmland
preservation project seeking funds for a conservation easement. The Board has specified fee
simple purchases to be made with open space bond funds.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
The following information was consulted to come up with nine target areas: (1) the
original open space plan; (2) regional and statewide program information such as the NC One
Naturally Program, which asked regions to identify (through public input at public meetings)
areas where they have interest in preservation; (3) 15-year old Natural Heritage Inventory; and
(4) color aerials.
Priority map:
Several maps are consulted during the decision-making process:
Guilford County Master Parks and Recreation Plan, July 1991
Natural Area Inventory of Guilford County (1991)
Open Space Program Target Areas Map
Partnerships:
The open space plan will be implemented in cooperation between Guilford County and
its municipalities, adjoining counties, the Soil and Water Conservation District, the Piedmont
Land Conservancy, the Guilford County School District, and other interested groups such as the
Haw River Assembly to identify, plan, fund, and carry out open space acquisition and
preservation projects.
Additional funding will be sought from the following sources, though values are subject
to change:
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund ($100 million/year statewide)
NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund ($6 million/year statewide)
NC Farmland Preservation Program ($500,000 in initial funding)
NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ($18 million/year statewide)
B-107
-------
NC Water Resource Development Grants ($750,000/year statewide)
NC Wetland Restoration Grants ($9 million in initial funding)
Conservation Tax Credits (equal to up to 25 percent of the fair market value of
donated interests, up to a maximum allowable credit of $250,000 for individuals
and $500,000 for corporations)
Available and expended funding:
$10 million is available.
Acres protected:
Through 2008, the County has purchased 196 acres of land through the Open Space
Program, and has 530 acres of pending projects. (Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space
Report)
Sources:
Guilford County Open Space Program,
http://gcms0004.co.guilford.nc.us/webapps/parks/default.asp?Go=Showapage&Pagename=OpenSpace.
Guilford County Open Space Report, May
2009.http://www.co.guilford.nc.us/government/openspace/FinalMay09.pdf.
Readling, Anna, Guilford County Open Space Program, Personal communication with Susan Asam, ICF
Consulting, November 17, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Alex Ashton, Guilford County Open Space Program. Phone: (336) 641-3762. Email:
rashton@co.guilford.nc.us.
B-108
-------
2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
The Long Island Regional Planning Board has called for the preservation of 45,000 of
Long Island's remaining 90,000 acres of unprotected open space. Nassau County established a
dedicated fund for open space preservation, water quality protection, and parks improvement.
The Trust Fund represents the first time Nassau County will have a program with dedicated
funding for preserving open space and protecting the environment. (Source: Nassau County
Environmental Bond Act Program)
Program goals:
The "... $50 million Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program to protect Nassau
County's drinking water, preserve open space and remaining farmland, protect bays and harbors,
and enhance, as well as add new parks and recreational facilities.. .in four areas: open space and
parkland acquisition, parkland improvement, storm water quality improvement and brownfield
remediation."
The four areas covered by the bond referendum sought to achieve wider voter support for
the referendum by impacting more sections of the county. Open space largely exists in the
northeast quadrant of the County only, so most acquisitions will take place there. Brownfield
remediation, however, will occur largely in the central part of the County.
The initial legislation crafted by environmentalists and citizen groups called for an
explicit subdivision of funds, with 60-70 percent set aside for open space acquisition. The
County legislature struck down those provisions, however, preferring to leave the funding
portions flexible. (Source: Nassau County Environmental Bond Act Program, Maher)
Parcel selection process:
Anyone can nominate a property or project for funding, including private citizens, land
preservation, environmental and civic organizations, and public officials. The nomination form
includes a description of the property or project, reason for recommendation, and whether or not
supplemental funding is available. Three public meetings were held in town at the end of
February 2005 to explain the nomination process and solicit nominations. Two hundred and sixty
B-109
-------
nominations were submitted in April 2005 with 216 of these nominations evaluated (once the
overlapping nominees had been eliminated). (Source: Maher)
Prioritization criteria:
The criteria for each of the four major project areas appear below and are more fully
explained on the project web site.
Open Space Acquisition Evaluation Criteria:
Significant physical or natural features (including buffer for freshwater or tidal
wetlands, deep flow aquifer recharge area, fish and wildlife habitat, area with
threatened or special species of concern)
Environmental impairment (including erosion or sedimentation, habitat
degradation, water supply contamination, surface or groundwater quality
degradation, flooding, species loss or threat)
Natural resource value
Public resource value (if project is implemented)
Area of benefit (neighborhood, village, city, region...)
Supplemental funding sources
Status of proposed acquisition
Consistency with plans and policies
Level of maintenance required
Maintenance responsibility
Urgency
Parkland Improvement/Restoration Evaluation Criteria:
Significant physical or natural features
Environmental or community value
Natural areas or scenic resources
Public resources value
Urgency
Area of benefit
Level of maintenance
Maintenance responsibility
Population density in vicinity
Number of parks in proximity
Current use of the park
Supplemental funding source
B-110
-------
Stormwater Project Evaluation Criteria:
Impairment to be addressed
Improvement anticipated by project
Owner of proj ect property
Maintenance responsibility
Level of maintenance required
Area of benefit
Supplemental funding source
Consistency with plans and policies
Waterfront revitalization etc.
Brownfield Project Evaluation Criteria:
Significant physical features of property
Financial aspects of property
Impairment to be addressed by project
Resource value of proj ect
Supplemental funding sources
Current property ownership
Environmental information pertaining to property
Consistency with plans and policies
"Note: In the evaluation process, consideration will also be given to other factors, among
which are: geographic location, urgency, timing of property acquisition, and timing of project
implementation. A list of properties/projects will be prepared for each program category after
consideration of the evaluation criteria described above, consistency with County policies and
the requirements of the law which created the Environmental Program, and assessment of what
combination of projects best meets the goals of the program." (Source: Nassau County
Environmental Bond Act Program)
Information and criteria are considered qualitatively. The criteria were originally
intended to form the basis of a quantitative scoring system (and had points assigned to them), but
this approach was abandoned when the Committee members began to evaluate projects and felt it
was restrictive instead of helpful. Members of the Committee have a lot of experience and local
knowledge that they bring to the table, so they do not feel the need for extensive data analysis.
Projects are considered much more favorably if they have secured an additional funding
source (from a municipality, a foundation, etc.) and if they have been well thought out. Other
important criteria include the ability of the project to get results quickly, the cost effectiveness of
the project, and its general feasibility. The County prefers to purchase development rights, which
B-lll
-------
are worth about 90 percent of the purchase price in Nassau County (as opposed to about 50
percent in other parts of the country). Owning the property becomes a long-term burden on the
County. If the County is planning to purchase the property, it wants to know that there is a long-
term maintenance plan in place.
The criteria help to assign projects to three groups: A (highly ranked); B (need more
information); and C (lower priority). The property owners of projects that fell into Groups A and
B were contacted to see if they were interested in selling the property or development rights. If
the owners were not interested, the projects were set aside. (Source: Maher)
Decision-making process:
The Open Space Advisory Committee recommends a list of properties and/or projects for
each program category after reviewing all nominations and considering what projects and/or
combinations of projects best meet the goals of the Nassau County Environmental Program. The
Open Space Advisory Committee was established by the County legislature and includes civic
and environmental leaders, a representative from the planning commission, a representative from
the Open Space and Parks Advisory Committee, and the minority and majority leaders from the
County legislature (who dropped out early in the process out of concern about being involved in
controversial decisions down the line). The Open Space Advisory Committee reaches decisions
through consensus and has not yet had a problem with conflicting priorities.
The Open Space Advisory Committee applies the evaluation criteria listed herein and
considers other factors, such as geographic location, urgency, and technical and financial
feasibility, when developing the lists. The list of recommendations is a $50 million package that
goes to the County Executive, who then submits recommendations to the planning commission
and the Open Space and Parks Advisory Committee (a citizen committee with some overlapping
members from the Open Space Advisory Committee), who then provides recommendations to
the County legislature (19 members). The $50 million package intentionally includes too many
projects for the available funding, based on a hope that costs will be shared and a concern that
not all projects may be supported by the legislature.
Climate change has not been explicitly considered, but it is in the back of peoples' minds
that land protection is one part of a response to climate change. (Source: Maher)
Ultimate decision maker:
The 19-member County legislature makes the final decisions on what projects to fund.
B-112
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Information is generally provided by the applicant. The County used Google Earth to
identify large plots of open space and the advisory committee visited all of the plots they
recommended. The New York Open Space plan was updated in the winter of 2004. The County
mapped out open space projects with merit for this update, and consulted that map when
evaluating nominations. A great deal of local knowledge on the part of the advisory committee
members also went into the evaluation process. Additionally, County staff met with nominators,
provided their input, and developed cost estimates for many of the projects. (Source: Maher)
Priority map:
The New York Open Space plan was updated in the winter of 2004. The County mapped
out open space projects with merit, and consulted that map when evaluating nominations.
Partnerships:
Funding partnerships are encouraged by the selection criteria. The County hopes to be
able to leverage its funds with funding from other municipalities, state funding, foundation
money, and through deals with landowners. The County will partner with landowners who are
willing to set aside conservation easements for some portion of their property. They have
intentionally been very inclusive when mapping out open space plots to ensure that landowners
can get federal tax credits (which require properties receiving the credit to be listed in an open
space plan). The County also encourages local municipalities to set up arrangements with
developers to preserve half of a plot of land and confine development to the remaining half of the
plot. The County has worked with Westbury Gardens, The Nature Conservancy, and other
organizations in the past. (Source: Maher)
Available and expended funding:
$50 million became available in 2004, of which $38 million was used to acquire property
for protection of open space. The County ran another bond referendum in 2006 for an additional
$100 million, which was overwhelmingly approved by voters. The bond money can only be
spent on capital improvements or purchase of land or development rights; it cannot be spent on
long-term maintenance.
Acres protected:
No acres have been protected yet, since none of the funding decisions have been made.
B-113
-------
Sources:
Maher, Tom, Nassau County, Personal communication with Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, November 21,
2005.
Nassau County Environmental Bond Act Program, http://www.co.nassau.ny.us/EBA/index.html. accessed
on September 7, 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
Tom Maher, Nassau County. Phone: (516) 571-1250. Email: tmaher@nassaucountvny.gov.
B-114
-------
2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program*
RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
Mission statement:
The Orange County Open Space Fund is available to help protect water resources,
agriculture, recreation, landforms and landmarks, and biological diversity.
All municipalities within Orange County may apply for matching funds from the Orange
County Open Space Program. Three municipalities have funding set aside for open space
protection. (Source: Dobbins).
Program goals:
Program goals are laid out in detail in the Orange County Open Space Plan. Essentially,
the goal is to protect five major resource areas (listed in rank order of importance): (1) water
resources (e.g., existing reservoirs and watersheds, wellhead areas); (2) agriculture; (3)
recreation (as it relates to water resources or trails; not for general parks or ballfields); (4)
significant land forms and landscapes; and (5) biodiversity (important habitats). The goals were
set at the outset of the program. (Source: Jones)
Parcel selection process:
Complete applications will be submitted to the Orange County Planning Board and the
Majority and Minority Leaders of the County Legislature with a report recommending actions to
be taken on the Application.
The Orange County Open Space Fund will provide matching support for fee simple or
development rights purchase price, up to fifty percent (50%) of the total appraised value.
Applicants may include governmental entities, non-governmental organizations, or individual
property owners. (Source: Orange County Department of Planning)
"The County Planning Board with the Majority and Minority Leaders of the County
Legislature will review the applications and submit a report with funding recommendations for
all eligible and complete applications. This report will be submitted to the Commissioner of
Planning for technical review."
"The County Executive will review applications that contain positive funding
recommendations and will submit a legislative request to approve funding for the recommended
projects. All funding will require the approval of the Orange County Executive and Legislature."
B-115
-------
Applications were considered in two cycles each year (with spring and fall deadlines).
If appropriate, the Orange County Legislature will serve as Lead Agency under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
A stewardship/monitoring plan is required for consideration of a property. The County
does not want to own or manage a property directly but is required to have a real estate interest
in each property due to the nature of the funds, which were bonded, that are used. This has
resulted in the County either co-holding conservation easements or having a third-party-right to
enforce the easement. For fee simple transactions, the County has placed a restrictive covenant
on the property. (Source: Dobbins)
Applicants are required to include maps, but the County provides suggestions about
where they can acquire appropriate maps (including the County in-house GIS staff).
The County may solicit technical information after an application is submitted if there is
a need for more information, however there has not been a need to do that yet. Municipalities
have been doing a great job of putting together their applications, perhaps due to their experience
in preparing these types of applications for state and federal funding.
The members of the Orange County Planning Board are appointed by the County
Executive (who tries to maintain a level of diversity on the Board). Currently, there is a former
regional director of EPA, 2 lawyers, an environmental consultant, a representative from the
business community, a contractor who does restoration work, a member of the local agricultural
preservation board, etc.
The voting body that makes decisions on applications includes: the nine members of the
appointed Board; three alternates who can sit in if a Board member is absent; the head of the
Republicans in the County legislature; and the head of the Democrats in the County legislature.
Board members and two County legislators review the applications separately and then
discuss them together. Two to three weeks before they meet, each member of the Board receives
a full set of applications to review and rank. They then discuss priorities at the meeting. The
Department of Planning adds up the rankings and gives Board members a tally sheet showing
which projects were ranked highest most frequently, etc. The scoring sheets based on the
prioritization criteria listed below are used as a guide, but are not relied upon heavily. There is
typical agreement on the top three and then it is broken down into what people think are the
highest priorities.
There is not a lot of additional analysis when funding is approved by the Orange County
Executive and Legislature. The Executive generally takes the recommendations of the Board. For
example, in one particular round the Board recommended four projects, which slightly exceeded
B-116
-------
the amount of available funding. The County Executive decided to fully fund three of the
programs and drop the fourth .
There are two application deadlines yearly (generally, spring and fall), and the review
schedule is set around these deadlines. (Source: Jones, Dobbins)
Prioritization criteria:
"Applications for open space funding must fall within one or more of the five resource
categories outlined in the Orange County Open Space Plan and the goals of the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan."
Water resources (25 points total); eligible areas to consider include:
Water supply watershed properties
Wellhead protection lands 500-1,500 ft radius
New water supply properties
Properties adjacent to DEC priority water body list
Participates in water quality stewardship program
Agriculture (25 points total); eligible areas to consider include:
Prime agricultural soils
Other agricultural soils
Active agriculture
Well-maintained buildings and accessories
Recreation (20 points total); eligible areas to consider include:
Trail corridors and linkages
Municipal parks
Buffers to existing parks
Nature Preserves
Management includes public access
Public access to stream/lake shoreline
Landforms and landmarks (20 points total); eligible areas to consider include:
Scenic byway corridors
Lands supporting National/State Historic sites or National/State Historic Districts
Scenic area of County significance
Other official historic or cultural recognition
Biological diversity (20 points); eligible areas to consider include:
Presence of rare species
Presence of valuable habitats
B-117
-------
Participates in forest management or biological stewardship program
Bordering priority aquatic systems
Supplemental criteria; eligible areas to consider include:
Includes municipal financial support (10 points)
Property is adjacent to presently protected open space land (10 points)
TDR banking in support of municipalities with TDR laws (10 points)
High development potential or imminent land use conversion (20 points)
Fund request is less than 50% by county (10 points)
Economic value to community and region (10 points)
Located in a Priority Growth Area (10 points)
Total Possible Points: 405.(Source: Attachment B: Orange County Open Space Plan:
Project Evaluation Criteria, a non-binding aid to assist applicants)
The Planning Board assigns the rankings for the projects (see above). The Department of
Planning does the initial check for completeness of applications. They can notify applicants if
something is missing and give them a week to complete their application. Three of the
Department of Planning staff rank the application individually and compare their rankings
internally. They provide that information to the Planning Board. There is sometimes consensus
all around (staff and Board members) about the top projects, but not always.
Projects get scored over a range, but the sub-criteria are not clearly defined. Board
members apply their own scale as they think appropriate. The Department of Planning is
working on making the rankings more precise. The hope is that the evaluation process will rely
more heavily on the rankings in the future, which will make it easier for the Board to defend
their decisions if questioned. The intent of the rankings was to get applicants to think more
globally when considering property protection (i.e., an agriculture set aside might be good for
water protection as well). Some applicants are more savvy then others about including multiple
resource benefits in their applications.
Climate change has not been a point of discussion.
The public was involved in the development of the open space plan and decisions about
how funds were to be raised (through selling bonds). Planning Board deliberations are closed to
the public, but Board members are appointed representatives of the public. The general public
can participate in public hearings that are held before a project is funded and can submit written
comments. (Source: Jones)
B-118
-------
Decision-making process:
Applications are reviewed by the Orange County Department of Planning for eligibility,
completeness, and consistency with the Orange County Open Space Plan.
The County requires each non-municipality application to get resolution from the
municipality to move forward on a property acquisition to ensure that nothing else has been
proposed for the parcel. The County also checks to make sure that the application is compatible
with both local (municipal) and County comprehensive plans for open space protection and
economic development plans. (Source: Jones)
Ultimate decision maker:
The County Executive will review applications that contain positive funding
recommendations and will submit a legislative request to approve funding for the recommended
projects. The Legislature has the final say (through a vote) on whether to fund the projects, but
their vote has always been unanimously in favor. (Source: Dobbins)
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Information is reported by the applicant.
Information sources include: (1) protected open space maps, including private open
space, municipal parks, water supply lands, county parkland, state lands, state-funded TDR
(Transfer of Development Rights) farms, and Federally-owned lands, including a category of
temporary protection (West Point Military Academy, County-owned Reservoir Lands, New York
State Department Environment Conservation Term Easements 480[a]); and (2) existing land use
maps, including public watershed and wellhead protection areas, open space, agricultural lands,
developed lands, and priority growth areas.
Identifying priorities within the water resources area involved consulting existing data
from the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC), Orange County
Water Authority, and local water studies. Identifying particular goals within the last resource
area involved the expertise of local scientists, information from the NY DEC, and input from
environmental and scientific groups such as the Wildlife Conservation Group and Scenic
Hudson. (Source: Jones)
Priority map:
Yes; Map 16: Open Space Resources indicates "Open Space Resource Value" (moderate,
high, highest).
B-119
-------
Partnerships:
The County will match open space investments "dollar-for-dollar" by municipalities.
Partnerships are worth extra points on the Attachment B worksheet.
The County is more focused on working to get municipalities to partner with each other
than partnering with other entities. If two municipalities work together, they can protect
resources that go beyond political boundaries. (Source: Jones)
Available and expended funding:
$3.5 million was spent in the first year of the program. The County Executive has
allocated $3.5 million for next year. Funding was at $l-$2 million for the next two rounds Fall
2007 was the last competitive round. The program is currently on hold due to economic
conditions, but funding is anticipated in the future.
There were no upper limits to funding in the first round of applications. An upper bound
was discussed initially, but no one wanted to jeopardize the sale of an important property. The
County might limit how much they are willing to spend on a project, but there is no set limit.
There is an unwritten policy that the County wants to award money to as many applicants as
possible rather than funding one big project. (Source: Jones, Dobbins)
Acres protected:
2,285 acres have been protected through the Orange County Open Space Program, which
included several large farms and some small parcels (e.g., well sites with only a few acres of
land). An additional 710 acres will be protected once the real estate closings have occurred for
those parcels. (Source: Dobbins)
There have not been any assessments of the public benefit associated with setting aside
open space in Orange County. Most of the applications coming in concern the protection of
agricultural land, which provides a benefit to the farm as well as open space benefits. (Source:
Jones)
Sources:
Dobbins, Kelly, Orange County Open Space Program, Personal Communication with Emily Rowan, ICF
Consulting, June 25, 2009.
Jones, Rich, Orange County Open Space Program, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF
Consulting, November 9, 2005.
Orange County Department of Planning, www.orangecountygov.com/planning. accessed on July 2005.
POINT OF CONTACT:
B-120
-------
Kelly Dobbins, Orange County Open Space Program. Phone: (845)615-3847. Email:
KDobbins(S!co .orange .ny.us.
B-121
-------
APPENDIX C: WRITE UPS OF TIER 3 PROGRMS
Background information on the 34 programs researched with published sources. Note that
these case studies follow an initial write-up format, which was changed after we began
conducting telephone interviews with program staff.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1996CA-01 Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act C-3
1996CA-02 Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree-Planting, Senior and Youth Recreation,
Beaches and Wildlife Protection C-7
1996CA-03 Open Space, Recreational Playfields, and Creek Restoration Assessment District C-10
1996CT-02 Farmington Reservoir C-12
1996FL-01 Safe Neighborhood Parks Act C-14
1996MA-01-15 Cape Cod Open Space Land Acquisition Program C-17
1996OH-01 Bath Nature Preserve Program C-20
1999CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program C-22
2000CA-01 Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water, and Coastal Protection Act C-25
2000CA-02 Safe Drinking Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Control Bond C-27
2000FL-03 Blueprint 2000 & Beyond Program C-29
2000FL-05 Seminole County Trails and Greenways C-32
2000IL-01 Lake County Forest Preserve District C-34
2000ME-01 Freeport Conservation Commission C-37
2000NJ-01 Open Space Trust Fund C-40
2000OH-01 Clean Ohio Green Space Conservation Program C-43
2000RI-01 Open Space and Recreation and Clean Water Bonds C-46
2004AZ-02 McMillan Mesa Open Space Land Acquisition C-48
2004AZ-03 Regional Open Space - Observatory Mesa Land Acquisition C-51
CM
-------
2004AZ-04 Neighborhood Open Space and Flagstaff Urban Trail System (PUTS) C-53
2004CO-02 Tax for Open Space C-55
2004CT-01 Purchase of the Southington Drive-In C-57
2004FL-02 Pasco County Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management Program C-5 9
2004FL-03 Waterfront Access and Waterfront Preservation Bonds C-62
2004MA-01 Program to Purchase Hillcrest Country Club C-65
2004MI-03 Recreational Authority of Traverse City and Garfield Township C-67
2004MO-01 Rolla, Missouri - Stormwater and Park Land Program C-70
2004NJ-02 Open Space Trust Fund C-72
2004NY-03 Webster Open Space C-75
2004PA-01 Nockamixon Township Open Space Program C-78
2004RI-01 Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection Bond C-80
2004UT-01 Corner Canyon Program C-82
2004WA-01 Parks and Recreational Sidewalks Utility Tax Fund C-84
2004WA-02 Acquisition of Gig Harbor Waterfront Open Space and Land to Restore Eddon Boatyard .
C-86
C-2
-------
1996CA-01 Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act
Jurisdiction Name, State: California
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Percent of Vote Obtained: 63%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Proposition 204 authorizes the state to sell $995 million of
general obligation bonds for the purposes of restoration and improvement to the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (hereafter, referred to as "the Bay-Delta"),
wastewater treatment and water supply and conservation, and local flood control and prevention.
(Source: California Secretary of State)
Prioritization Type: Top-down; the California Department of Water Resources and the
State Water Resources Control Board set priorities.
Mission statement:
"In enacting this measure, the people of California declare all of the following to be the
objectives of this act:
(a) To provide a safe, clean, affordable, and sufficient water supply to meet the
needs of California residents, farms, and businesses.
(b) To develop lasting water solutions that balance the needs of the state's economy
and its environment.
(c) To restore ecological health for native fish and wildlife, and their natural
habitats, including wetlands.
(d) To protect the integrity of the state's water supply system from catastrophic
failure due to earthquakes and flooding.
(e) To protect drinking water quality.
(f) To protect the quality of life in our communities by ensuring recreational
opportunities and maintaining parks, trees, and plants."
(Source: Proposition 204 text)
Program goals:
"This act provides for a bond issue of $995,000,000 to provide funds to ensure safe
drinking water, increase water supplies, clean up pollution in rivers, streams, lakes, bays, and
coastal areas, protect life and property from flooding, and protect fish and wildlife and makes
changes in the Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986 and the Clean Water
and Water Reclamation Bond Law of 1988 to further these goals." (Source: California Secretary
of State)
-------
Parcel selection process:
The California Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control
Board (hereafter, referred to as "the Board") will have the job of setting priorities on many of the
projects. Some of the funds have specific destinations; the rest will come in the form of grants,
many to local water suppliers.
Funding was divided as follows at the outset:
$390 million for the Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program as defined
by CALFED, the joint state and federal coalition that is carrying out the
historic 1994 Accord to "fix" the Bay-Delta,
$193 million for the Delta Improvement Program in the Bay-Delta
watershed,
$235 million for the Clean Water and Recycling Program to improve
water quality and promote water recycling and reuse,
$117 million for projects statewide that enhance water supplies and
improve water management and demand management, including $10
million for Lake Tahoe, and
$60 million for flood control and prevention. (Sources: California
Biodiversity News, Graebner)
Prioritization criteria:
The measure does not outline prioritization criteria for most of the programs, but does
specify what programs the State can fund with this money and some program-specific details
such as what percentage can be spent on program administration. In some instances, expenditure
of bond funds is contingent on actions by the state or federal government (e.g., completion of
environmental review of projects, entry into a cost-sharing agreement for funding projects, etc.).
The measure does identify prioritization criteria for some of the sub-programs falling
under the larger Clean Water and Water Recycling Program. For example, the measure identifies
the following four eligibility criteria for Clean Water Loans and Grants:
(1) Necessary to prevent water pollution or to reclaim water.
(2) Eligible for funds from the State Revolving Fund Loan Account or federal
assistance.
(3) Certified by the board as entitled to priority over other eligible projects.
(4) Complies with applicable water quality standards, policies, and plans. (Source:
Proposition 204 text: Chapter 5, Article 2, §78610)
C-4
-------
The measure identifies similar eligibility criteria for the Water Recycling Program.
Projects in this program must meet "applicable reclamation criteria and water reclamation
requirements" and comply "with applicable water quality standards, policies, and plans." In
making loans available to public agencies, the Board should consider "whether the project is
cost-effective or necessary to protect water quality." (Source: Proposition 204 text: Chapter 5,
Article 3, §78620 and §78622)
Under the Drainage Management program, the measure states that, "Priority shall be
given to funding source reduction projects and programs." (Source: Proposition 204 text:
Chapter 5, Article 4, §78644)
The Seawater Intrusion Control program outlines the following criteria for funding:
(A)Necessary to protect groundwater that is (i) within a basin that is subject to a local
groundwater management plan for which a review is completed pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section
21000) of the Public Resources Code) and (ii) is threatened by seawater intrusion
in an area where restrictions on groundwater pumping, a physical solution, or
both, are necessary to prevent the destruction of, or irreparable injury to,
groundwater quality.
(B) Is cost-effective. In the case of a project to provide a substitute water supply, the
project shall be cost-effective as compared to the development of other new
sources of water and shall include requirements or measures adequate to ensure
that the substitute supply will be used in lieu of previously established extractions
or diversions of groundwater.
(C) Complies with applicable water quality standards, policies, and plans. (Source:
Proposition 204 text: Chapter 5, Article 6, §78648)
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
California Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
-------
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Some of the funding will go to the CAL-FED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program,
which is a state and federal coalition.
Available and expended funding:
$995 million. About half of the funds were spent by 2000, and the funds were virtually
gone by 2003.
Acres protected:
No estimate of the total number of acres protected is available. It is estimated, however,
that water flowing through the Bay-Delta provides drinking water for about 22 million people in
California and irrigates 45 percent of the fruits and vegetables produced in the United States.
(Source: California Secretary of State)
Sources:
California Biodiversity News, Prop. 204: Water Bond Will Improve Biodiversity,
http://ceres.ca.gov/biodiv/newsletter/v4n2/prop204.html. accessed on June 28, 2005.
California Secretary of State, Vote 96, Proposition 204, http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/204.htm.
accessed on June 28, 2005.
Graebner, Lynn. "A cure for the Delta blues?" Business Journal-Sacramento, Sacramento, CA. December
12, 1996.
Legislative Analyst's Office, http://www.lao.ca.gov/analvsis 2000/resources/res 2 cc anlOO.htm.
accessed on June 28, 2005.
Proposition 204 text, http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/204text.htm. accessed on June 28, 2005.
C-6
-------
1996CA-02 Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree-Planting,
Senior and Youth Recreation, Beaches and Wildlife Protection
Jurisdiction Name, State: Los Angeles County, California
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Percent of Vote Obtained: 65%
Funding Mechanism: Other - Benefit Assessment
Ballot Measure Description: Proposition A, Safe Neighborhood Parks Act, 20-year
assessment for parks, beaches, water quality, open space, and recreation
Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the measure set aside funds for specific uses, but
also included a provision allowing cities in Los Angeles County and community-based
organizations to apply for grant money.
Mission statement:
Proposition A was passed to provide funding for neighborhood parks, gang prevention,
tree planting, recreation, and beach and wildlife protection. (Source: Jimenez and Aidem)
Program goals:
The program seeks to provide funding to support parks, beaches, water quality, open
space, at risk youth centers, and recreation.
Parcel selection process:
"At the county level, 80 percent of the money received each year goes to specified
projects (those projects that had been hammered out during the process of negotiation over the
ballot initiative language); the rest is split between administration for the district and a per parcel
allocation to cities to fund maintenance of projects, and a small pot for a competitive grants
program." (Source: Pincetl)
Of the money set aside for parkland acquisitions, the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy, a State agency, is responsible for selecting specific parcels for protection. (Source:
Noxon)
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
About 80 percent of the funding was allocated to specific projects during negotiations
over the ballot initiative language. The remaining 20 percent of funds was dedicated to
CX7
-------
administration costs, allocated to cities for maintenance, and set aside for a small competitive
grants program. Community-based organizations can submit grant applications for the
competitive grants program. Decisions appear to be made at the county level.
In terms of land acquisition, "the measure made $17.7 million available for purchases in
the Santa Monica Mountains and an additional $5 million for open space in the Santa Susana
range." The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a State agency, is responsible for selecting
specific parcels for protection. (Source: Noxon)
Ultimate decision maker:
Los Angeles County
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a State agency, is working to select parcels
for protection.
Available and expended funding:
$150 million in funds were initially allocated.
Acres protected:
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy hoped to acquire 9,000 acres at the outset of
the funding allocation for parkland acquisition. (Source: Noxon)
-------
Sources:
Jimenez, Teresa and Patricia Farrell Aidem. "City Asks for Park Funding," Daily News of Los Angeles,
November 12, 1998.
Noxon, Christopher. "Conservancy Eyes 8,000 SCV Acres," Daily News of Los Angeles, January 10,
1997.
Pincetl, Stephanie. (2003). Nonprofits and park provision in Los Angeles: An exploration of the rise of
governance approaches to the provision of local services, Social Science Quarterly, 84(4).
C-9
-------
1996CA-03 Open Space, Recreational Playfields, and Creek Restoration
Assessment District
Jurisdiction Name, State: Albany, California
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Percent of Vote Obtained: 64%
Funding Mechanism: Other - Benefit Assessment
Ballot Measure Description: Measure R, establishment of an assessment district for open
space
Prioritization Type: Top-down; parcel selection decisions are made by the City
of Albany.
Mission statement:
The measure taxes property owners to raise funds for building ball fields, restoring
creeks, and purchasing and maintaining undeveloped land on Albany Hill as open space.
(Source: Lochner)
Program goals:
The program aims to provide funding for open space, playfields, and creek restoration.
Parcel selection process:
The parcels of open space targeted at the passing of the measure included: "11 acres on
the southwest slope owned by Golden Gate Development Co., four acres between Taft and
Jackson streets owned by Landvest Co., about two acres at the end of Madison Street owned by
Ralph Willis, and several smaller lots." (Source: Lochner (b))
Prioritization criteria:
The use of these funds is restricted to the original allocation: 50 percent for open space on
Albany Hill, 25 percent for the acquisition, development and maintenance of playfields and 25
percent for creek restoration. (Source: City of Albany)
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
City of Albany.
CMC
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
Anticipated revenue totals $3.5 million. The bonds will be paid off in 2019, and at that
time the assessment will expire. (Source: City of Albany)
Acres protected:
The measure initially envisioned protecting around 20 acres.
Sources:
City of Albany, http://www.albanyca.org. accessed on August 4, 2005.
Lochner, Tom (a). "Albany Open Space Plan Under Fire: Hill Project Would Cost $69 a Year." West
County Times, October 9, 1996.
Lochner, Tom (b), "Tax Bid to Unify Albany Hill As Parkland Proponents See Saving a Regional Jewel,
Foes an Elitist Land Grab Lacking Specifics." West County Times, August 13, 1996.
C-ll
-------
1996CT-02 Farmington Reservoir
Jurisdiction Name, State: Farmington, Connecticut
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Percent of Vote Obtained: 71%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond to protect land for hiking and passive recreation
Prioritization Type: Top-down; the town voted for the purchase of the
Farmington Reservoir property.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
"To purchase 52 acres of open space, including the former Farmington Reservoir and
surrounding land. The parcel has been set aside for passive recreation such as walking and bird
watching." (Source: Greenwood)
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Referendum.
Ultimate decision maker:
Voters in Farmington, Connecticut.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
C-12
-------
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
"In partnership with the Farmington Land Trust, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) helped
the town of Farmington acquire 53 wooded acres, including a 15-acre spring-fed reservoir that
had once supplied drinking water to town residents. This project is part of TPL's Connecticut
Watershed Initiative, a statewide effort to protect land surrounding active drinking water supplies
as well as former and potential sources of clean drinking water." (Source: TPL Web site)
Available and expended funding:
$875,000.
Acres protected:
52 acres.
Sources:
Greenwood, Michael. "Town Council Boosts Land Budget Proposal," The Hartford Courant, February
12, 1998.
Trust for Public Land, http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1144&folder_id=261. accessed
on August 5, 2005.
C-13
-------
1996FL-01 Safe Neighborhood Parks Act
Jurisdiction Name, State: Miami-Bade County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Percent of Vote Obtained: 67%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond to improve neighborhood and regional parks and
acquire recreational areas, beaches, and natural lands
Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the ordinance includes a list of projects to be
completed with the funds, but a smaller portion of funds is allocated on the basis of competitive
grants.
Mission statement:
"OSNP [Office of Safe Neighborhood Parks] is a department of Miami-Bade County created to serve as
staff support to the Safe Neighborhood Parks Citizens' Oversight Committee and administer the bond
program consistent with the Ordinance and the Administrative Rules." (Source: Office of Safe
Neighborhood Parks)
Program goals:
"The purpose of the SNP Bond Program is to:
Restore and improve neighborhood and regional parks throughout the County,
thus improving the overall quality of life for its citizenry
Provide safe places for children to play and alternatives to gangs and gang
activities
Increase recreational opportunities for senior citizens
Provide pleasant places for all residents to enjoy relief from congestion and urban
stress
Improve, restore, expand and enhance safety of parks, open spaces and recreation
lands and facilities, therefore reducing crime and increasing the attractiveness of
the County as a place to live and locate businesses
Maintain sound economic conditions and a high standard of livability in the
County by increasing property values, economic activity, employment
opportunities and tourism throughout the County
Ensure the protection of beach, park, recreation and natural areas vital to the
quality of life in the County"
(Source: Office of Safe Neighborhood Parks)
C-14
-------
Parcel selection process:
"There are 136 projects specified in the SNP Bond Ordinance (96-115) that must be
completed unless the Ordinance is changed. To date there have been only two projects, specified
in the SNP Bond Ordinance, that have been changed." (Source: Office of Safe Neighborhood
Parks, Frequently Asked Questions)1
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
The ordinance established the "Safe Neighborhood Parks Citizens' Oversight Committee
(SNPCOC) to oversee the administration of the bond program. The SNPCOC is comprised of
thirteen volunteer members one residing in each of the County's Commission District, appointed
by their respective Commissioner." (Source: Office of Safe Neighborhood Parks) The ordinance
requires that the Oversight Committee reflect the geographic, ethnic, racial, and gender make-up
of the county.
Only $15 million of the $200 million bond is awarded competitively to municipalities,
with the rest going to projects on the list or to municipalities on the basis of population. The
Oversight Committee determines which grants will be approved. However, the original process
of establishing the project list is not described in the ordinance.
Ultimate decision maker:
It is unclear whether project list was available to voters. Only the Board of County
Commissioners can change the project list.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
1 A list of the 136 projects was not available in the bond ordinance text.
C-15
-------
National Wetlands Inventory
Priority map:
Unknown.
Partnerships:
"The guiding force behind this [ballot measure] campaign was the Trust for Public Land,
which designed the ballot measure, created a Citizens' Advisory Committee, coordinated the
grassroots support, and sponsored a direct mail campaign." (Source: Trust for Public Land) The
measure was sponsored locally by the Trust for Safe Neighborhood Parks, Inc. (Source: Parks
and Recreation Department)
Available and expended funding:
$200 million general obligation bond. During the first five years of the program, $21.6
million was spent on park land acquisition. (Source: Florida's County Land Preservation
Programs)
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
Trust for Public Land, Conservation Finance Case Studies,
http://www.tpl.org/tier3 cdl.cfm?content item id=943&folderid=707. accessed on July 21, 2005.
Miami-Bade County, Department of Environmental Resources Management,
http://www.miamidade.gov/derm/land/eel_program.asp. accessed on July 26, 2005.
Miami-Bade County Office of Safe Neighborhood Parks,
http://www.miamidade.gov/SNPTrust/about us .asp, accessed on July 28, 2005.
Miami-Bade County, Parks and Recreation Bepartment, http://www.miamidade.gov/parks/Safel996.asp,
accessed on July 21, 2005.
Florida's County Land Preservation Programs,
http://www.tpl.org/content documents/fl county survey report.pdf. accessed on July 21, 2005.
C-16
-------
1996MA-01-15 Cape Cod Open Space Land Acquisition Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Barnstable, Bourne, Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Eastham,
Falmouth, Harwich, Mashpee, Orleans, Provincetown, Sandwich, Truro, Wellfleet, Yarmouth
(Barnstable County, Cape Cod, Massachusetts)
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996: Question 2, Advisory Measure: 1 Percent Real Estate
Transfer Tax Increase for Open Space, Trails, Recreation, Watershed Protection, Creation of
Regional Land Bank 1998: Referendum to enact the Cape Cod
Open Space Land Acquisition Program for the purposes of acquiring land and interests in land to
protect public drinking water supplies and open space and conservation land, and to create
walking and bicycle trails and recreational areas
Percent of Vote Obtained: varied by jurisdiction
Funding Mechanism: 3% surcharge on real estate property tax bills, per 1998
referendum
Ballot Measure Description: 1996: Question 2, 1% real estate transfer tax for open
space, Advisory (advisory vote)
1998: Creates regional land bank by 3% surcharge on
property tax bills for open space, watershed protection, trails, recreation
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; the town's open space committee makes
recommendations to the town council.
Mission statement:
No formal mission statement.
Program goals:
The Cape Cod Open Space Land Acquisition Program was created "for the purpose of
acquiring land and interests in land for the protection of public drinking water supplies, open
space, and conservation land, the creation of walking and bicycling trails, and the creation of
recreational areas." (Source: Cape Cod Land Bank)
Parcel selection process:
Each town's board of selectmen or town council is required to create or designate a town
open space committee to carry out the provisions of the Act. The committee can be an existing
board, special committee, or nonprofit land trust/conservation organization. Committee members
may not be paid for their service. Town committees are responsible for recommending to town
meeting (town council in Barnstable) what lands or interests in lands should be acquired with
town land bank funds. The Act delegates the responsibility of making recommendations to town
meeting to the town's open space committee.
C-17
-------
A Board of Selectmen may disagree with the town open space committee
recommendation, but the Act does not provide for the Selectmen to make different
recommendations to town meeting. Town meeting, has the final say and may accept or reject the
recommendations of an open space committee. (Source: Cape Code Land Bank)
Prioritization criteria:
Town open space committees are required to "use as a guideline" local and regional open
space plans, master plans, and local comprehensive plans, if any in considering any specific
acquisition. (Source: Cape Code Land Bank)
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
The Board of Selectmen or town council.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
No direct partnerships are listed; however, the Cape Cod Land Bank website does list the
following organizations as "Providing Assistance with Land Protection on Cape Cod":
The Nature Conservancy (Massachusetts Chapter)
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Trust for Public Land
C-18
-------
The Trustees of Reservations
Orenda Wildlife Land Trust
The HSUS Wildlife Land Trust
The Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts.
Available and expended funding:
Available funding varies by town. In total, between January 1999 and December 2002,
the Land Bank purchases have totaled $93,998,051.
Acres protected:
These Land Bank purchases have resulted in 3,273 acres protected.
Sources:
Cape Cod Land Bank, http://www.capecodcommission.org/landbank/home.htm. accessed on August 2,
2005.
C-19
-------
1996OH-01 Bath Nature Preserve Program
Jurisdiction Name, State:
Year Ballot Measure Passed:
Percent of Vote Obtained:
Funding Mechanism:
Ballot Measure Description:
protection
Prioritization Type:
Bath Township, Ohio
1996
75%
Bond
Bond to purchase land for open space and watershed
Top-down; the land area to be purchased was decided in
advance (and it appears that the Township Trustees decided on the land to purchase).
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
Not available.
Parcel selection process:
The land area to be purchased was decided in advance of the vote.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Not available.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
C-20
-------
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
The 404 acres for the Nature Preserve were purchased in October 1997 for $2,894,958 at
four percent interest. The Township expects to finish payment in 2017. No funding for
purchasing additional lands remains. (Source: Bath Township, Summit County, Single Audit;
Bath Parks)
An earlier newspaper article noted an agreement between Bath Trustees and John
Chlebina, who purchased the entire Firestone Estate, for Bath to purchase 370 acres of the estate
for $3.3 million. (Source: Beacon Journal)
Acres protected:
Approximately 400 acres for the Bath Nature Preserve. (Source: City History of Bath)
Sources:
City History of Bath, http ://www.drelocation.com/ohio/summitco/bath.htm, accessed July 19, 2005.
Bath Parks, Bath Nature Preserve and Trailhead,
http://www.bathtownship.org/parks/BNP%20map/bnplit.pdf. accessed July 19, 2005.
Bath Township, Summit County. Single Audit.
http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/Reports/2004/Bath Township 03-Summit.pdf. accessed July
19, 2005.
"Parcels for Parks." Beacon Journal, September 17, 1997.
C-21
-------
1999CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Adams County, Colorado
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1999
Percent of Vote Obtained: 62%
Funding Mechanism: Sales tax
Ballot Measure Description: 7-year, .20% countywide sales tax to preserve open space
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations
on grant applications submitted for consideration.
Mission statement:
No formal mission statement.
Program goals:
"To preserve open space in order to limit sprawl, to preserve farmland, to protect wildlife
areas, wetlands, rivers, and streams, and for creating, improving and maintaining parks and
recreation facilities." (Source: Resolution 99-1)
Parcel selection process:
The Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) consist of seven members, four of whom are
residents of unincorporated Adams County and three of whom are residents of cities or towns
located in Adams County.
The OSAB meets quarterly to review grant applications and recommend projects for
funding to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). (Source: Resolution 99-1)
Prioritization criteria:
The OSAB makes funding recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners
based on a set of criteria. The criteria are:
Project funding and quality of leverage summary,
Partnerships,
Community support information,
Project budget,
Estimated project timeline,
Proposed grant fund use(s),
Long-term maintenance,
Connectivity,
-------
Fulfilling the needs of the community and meets the open space tax goals,
Project management and performance,
Urgency, and
Opposition.
It is not clear from available information how these criteria are applied by OSAB.
(Source: Open Space Grant Guidelines)
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Board of County Commissioners.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Adams County and Trust for Public Lands are working together to purchase a 70-acre
farm along with 10 shares of the Lower Clear Creek Ditch Company. The land is currently being
farmed producing irrigated grass/ alfalfa mix hay. Adams County would like to purchase the land
and water to place conservation easements on the land, and then trade the land for conservation
easements on other nearby farms (Riverdale Road Farmland Purchase, $800,000).
C-23
-------
The Conservation Fund, in partnership with Colorado State Parks and Adams County
Open Space, purposes to purchase the 153-acre Maul Property as an addition to Barr Lake State
Park buffer (Maul Property Acquisition, $400,000). (Source: Funded Open Space Projects)
Available and expended funding:
$38.5 million is expected over the seven-year program, assuming $5.5 million per year.
68 percent of revenues are earmarked for Open Space grants. 30 percent is returned to the local
jurisdiction in which it was collected. Two percent is for administrative costs. (Source:
Resolution 99-1)
Approximately $17.9 million has been spent over four years. (Source: Open Space
Report)1
Acres protected:
2,983 acres protected since 2000.
Sources:
Open Space Sales Tax Program, http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/index.htmL
accessed on June 28, 2005.
Resolution 99-1, http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open_space/resolution.html. accessed
on June 28, 2005.
Open Space Grant Guidelines,
http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open_space/grant_info.html. accessed on June 28, 2005.
Funded Open Space Projects,
http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open_space/funded_projects.html. accessed on June 28,
2005.
Open Space Report,
http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open_space/2004_Open_Space_Report.pdf. accessed on
June 28, 2005.
1 Although this program was not subject to a vote in one of the three years selected to focus on for this portion of the
research, it is included because it is the predecessor to CO2004-01.
C-24
-------
2000CA-01 Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water, and Coastal Protection Act
Jurisdiction Name, State: California
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 63%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Proposition 12, Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water, and
Coastal Protection Act
Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the State determines what projects will be funded
in most cases and how much grant money will be given to local governments. Local
governments can decide which projects to fund with available grant money.
Mission statement:
Proposition 12 "provides for a bond issue of two billion one hundred million dollars
($2,100,000,000) to provide funds to protect land around lakes, rivers, and streams and the coast
to improve water quality and ensure clean drinking water; to protect forests and plant trees to
improve air quality; to preserve open space and farmland threatened by unplanned development;
to protect wildlife habitats; and to repair and improve the safety of state and neighborhood
parks." (Source: Voter Guide)
Program goals:
Program goals include protection of land around lakes, rivers, and streams and the coast
to improve water quality and ensure clean drinking water; protection of forests and plant trees to
improve air quality; preservation of open space and farmland threatened by unplanned
development; protection of wildlife habitats; and repair and improved safety of state and
neighborhood parks. (Source: Voter Guide)
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
At the time of its passing, the state planned to spend about $940 million of the bond
money on grants to local agencies for local recreational, cultural, and natural areas. The state
would then use the remaining $1.16 billion for recreational, cultural, and natural areas of
statewide significance. (Source: League of Women Voters)
C-25
-------
Decision-making process:
All funds must be appropriated by the legislature through the budget process. (Source:
Trust for Public Land)
Ultimate decision maker:
State of California.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Trust for Public Land participated in the budget process to allocate bond funds. (Source:
Trust for Public Land)
Available and expended funding:
Expected funding totals $2.1 billion.
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
League of Women Voters, http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc.files/marOO/pc/propl2.html. accessed on August 5,
2005.
Trust for Public Land, http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=4523&folder_id=1365.
accessed on August 5, 2005.
Voter Guide, http://primarv2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/12.pdf. accessed on August 5, 2005.
C-26
-------
2000CA-02 Safe Drinking Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Control
Bond
Jurisdiction Name, State: California
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 65%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Proposition 13, Safe Drinking Water, Watershed
Protection, and Flood Control Bond
Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the State determined from the outset how most of
the bond money would be allocated, but there is also a grant component to the measure.
Mission statement:
"This act provides.. .funds for a safe drinking water, water quality, flood protection, and
water reliability program." (Source: Voter Guide)
Program goals:
The program aims to improve the safety, quality, and reliability of water supplies, as well
as to improve flood protection. (Source: Voter Guide)
Parcel selection process:
The funding was split out as follows from the outset:
$292 million for flood protection;
$70 million for safe drinking water facilities;
$468 million for watershed protection;
$355 million for clean water and water recycling;
$155 million for water conservation; and
$630 million for water supply reliability.
The bond measure further identifies specific parcels of land and habitat to be protected
within these broad funding categories. (Source: Voter Guide)
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
C-27
-------
Decision-making process:
The bond money will be available for expenditure by various state agencies and for loans
and grants to local agencies and nonprofit associations. Much of the money was allocated to
specific projects at the time the bond measure was passed. (Source: Voter Guide)
Ultimate decision maker:
State of California Department of Water Resources.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Some of the funding will go to the CAL-FED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program,
which is a state and federal coalition.
Available and expended funding:
The bond provides a total of $1.97 billion.
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
League of Women Voters of California, http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0003/propl3.html. accessed on
Augusts, 2005.
Voter Guide, http://primarv2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/13.pdf. accessed on August 5, 2005.
C-28
-------
2000FL-03 Blueprint 2000 & Beyond Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Leon County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 60%
Funding Mechanism: One cent sales tax
Ballot Measure Description: 20-year, one-cent, sales tax renewal for traffic relief, clean
lakes, and to protect and expand parks.
Prioritization Type: Unknown, but believed to be Top-Down
Mission statement:
"To implement the Blueprint 2000 program in a timely and cost effective manner,
utilizing sound but innovative business practices, while keeping the citizenry informed and
involved." (Source: Blueprint 2000 Website)
Program goals:
"Preserve, protect, and enhance the community's quality of life through the
implementation of holistic and coordinated planning, transportation, water quality,
environmental and green space projects consistent with the Blueprint 2000 philosophy." (Source:
Blueprint 2000 Website)
Parcel selection process:
Details on the selection process are not available; however, below is a description of the
organizations that are potentially involved.
The Intergovernmental Agency (IA) is a separate governing body, comprised of the
combined City and County Commissioners. The City and County created the IA to govern the
project management structure for the project planning and construction of the Blueprint projects.
The IA is to convene every other month to consider major program changes, contracts, and
change orders that exceed the authority of the Intergovernmental Management Committee
(IMC).
Reporting to the IA is the IMC, composed of the City Manager and County
Administrator. The IMC is charged with monitoring the operations of the Blueprint program;
implementing the annual financial and performance audit; recommending an annual operating
budget; recommending approval of long-term and short-term work plans; recommending the
issuance of requests for proposals; and considering for approval all purchasing, contracts, and
change orders up to 20 percent of project costs.
-------
The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was established to serve in an advisory capacity
to the Blueprint 2000 Intergovernmental Agency and ensure that the original vision presented to
the voters and described in the Interlocal Agreement would be implemented. The CAC convened
in November 2001; representatives consist of:
Economic and Environmental Consensus Committee member;
Planner;
Financial Expert with Bonding experience;
Natural Scientist/Biologist;
Chairman of the Economic Development Council (or designee);
Chairman of the Planning Commission (or designee);
Representative from the Capital City Chamber of Commerce;
Representative from the Council of Neighborhood Associations;
Representative from the Big Bend Environmental Forum;
Representative of the Civil Rights Community; and
Representative of the Disabled Community.
The role of the CAC is to review work plans and financial performance audits, and to
make recommendations to the IA.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
The CAC (established to serve in an advisory capacity to the Blueprint 2000
Intergovernmental Agency and ensure that the original vision presented to the voters and
described in the Interlocal Agreement would be implemented) makes recommendations to the
IA, who has ultimate decision-making authority.
Ultimate decision maker:
The IA, a separate governing body comprised of the combined City and County
Commissioners.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
It is not clear from available information how any criteria are applied.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
-------
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
There is an interactive GIS map on the Blueprint 2000 and Beyond website, however it
makes no indication of priorities. Rather, it maps the current projects and other prominent
features of the landscape.
Partnerships:
Blueprint 2000 was developed by a group of citizens representing a broad spectrum of the
community including business, environmental and neighborhood interests, called the Economic
and Environmental Consensus Committee (EECC). Their guide to an effective and efficient
infrastructure and natural resource management is the basis of the proposed sales tax extension
with 80 percent of future sales tax proceeds being committed to Blueprint 2000 projects View a
list of all projects. The remaining 20 percent would be split 10 percent each to the County and
the City for other high priority sales tax eligible projects.
Available and expended funding:
Blueprint 2000 will receive approximately $600 million dollars over the 15-year period,
which is about 80 percent of every dollar collected by the additional one-cent sales tax at a
projected 4.5 percent growth rate.
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
Blueprint 2000, http://www.blueprint2000.org/. accessed July 26, 2005.
C-31
-------
2000FL-05 Seminole County Trails and Greenways
Jurisdiction Name, State: Seminole County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 58%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue to acquire and improve natural/environmental
lands, trails, greenways and blueways.
Prioritization Type: Top-down; lands are chosen to fit the requirements of
specific trail projects.
Mission statement:
The bond is intended to fund the development of a network of urban and wilderness trails
throughout the County and provide additional funds for the acquisition of Natural Lands.
Program goals:
Create an interconnected system of urban trails that will be over 50 miles long as well as
connections to schools, parks, shopping and neighborhoods.
Parcel selection process:
Lands are chosen based on the following projects:
Advance the construction of the Cross Seminole Trail, a 14-mile urban trail, and
complete the four-mile connection from this trail to the Seminole Wekiva Trail, another 14-mile
urban trail located west of 1-4.
The goal of the program is to create a 20-mile network of wilderness trails, including a
section of the Florida National Scenic Trail, a 1,300-mile wilderness path, which runs from the
panhandle to the Everglades.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
County Staff/Board of County Commissioners.
C-32
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
Not available.
Partnerships:
None mentioned.
Available and expended funding:
$25 million.
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
Seminole County Public Works, Trails and Greenways Program website,
http://www.visitseminole.com/pw/trails/referendum.asp. accessed August 2005.
1000 Friends of Florida Organization, article on Florida Land Acquisition covering many counties,
http://www.lOOOfriendsofflorida.org/Natural_Resources/Land_Acquisition.asp. accessed August 2005
C-33
-------
2000IL-01 Lake County Forest Preserve District
Jurisdiction Name, State: Lake County Forest Preserve District, Illinois (component of Lake
County)
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 67%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue for land acquisition, habitat restoration, trail
improvement
Prioritization Type: Unknown; insufficient published information available to
make determination.
Mission statement:
Forest Preserve District mission statement: "To preserve a dynamic and unique system of
diverse natural and cultural resources, and to develop innovative education, recreation, and
cultural opportunities of regional value, while exercising environmental and fiscal
responsibility." (Source: Lake County Forest Preserve District)
Program goals:
"... requirements include protecting natural areas for wildlife habitat, preserving
wetlands, prairies and forests, providing trails, greenways, river and lake access, protecting
against flooding, expanding existing Preserves and creating new sites." (Source: Lake County
Forest Preserve District)
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Not available.
C-34
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
Unknown.
Partnerships:
The District has worked with CorLands, a nonprofit organization affiliated with the
Openlands Project, to purchase land. (Source: CorLands)
Available and expended funding:
The bond measure passed in 2000 is for $85 million. The fund balance in the Land
Acquisition Fund was $15.7 million on June 30, 2004, after spending $20.7 million in the
preceding year on land acquisition. The District took in approximately $48 million in property
taxes; however, it was not clear what portion of this funded land acquisition as opposed to other
District activities. (Source: Annual Report, FY 2003-04)
For the FY 2005-06 budget, land acquisition is budgeted at $5.4 million. One article
reported that the balance remaining for land acquisition was $9.1 million in February 2005.
(Source: Zawislak) In an interview in April 2005, Executive Director Tom Hahn said that most
of the proceeds from the 2000 bond measure have been spent. (Source: Lissau)
Acres protected:
In 2001, at least two major parcels were acquired, for a total of 858 acres. (Source:
Chicago Wilderness Magazine) In FY 2003-04, 583 acres were protected, which included both a
new preserved and additional parcels in existing reserves. (Source: Annual Report, FY 2003-04)
The District controls a total of approximately 25,000 acres.
C-35
-------
Sources:
"Lake County Acquires Two New Forest Preserves." Chicago Wilderness Magazine, Summer 2001.
http://chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/summer2001/news/lakecounty.html. accessed on July 20, 2005.
Lake County Forest Preserve District, http://www.lcrpd.org. accessed on July 20, 2005.
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 2003-04, Lake County, Illinois.
Annual Budget, Executive Summary, FY 2005-06, Lake County, Illinois.
CorLands, http://www.corlands.org/index.html. accessed July 20, 2005.
Lissau, Russell. "Forest preserve to lower expenses." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL), April 26,
2005.
Zawislak, Mick. "Forest preserve district assessing future land needs." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights,
IL), February 12,2005.
C-36
-------
2000ME-01 Freeport Conservation Commission
Jurisdiction Name, State: Freeport, Maine
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 63%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue to fund town land bank for acquisition of open
space, wildlife habitat, and farmland preservation
Prioritization Type: Top-down; the process is not clear but potential land to be
purchased appears to be identified by the Commission/Town Council.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
Not available.
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Land to be acquired must be within the municipality, and may be any of the following
types of land: ocean, harbor, river, stream, lake or pond frontage and adjoining backlands; fresh
or saltwater marshes, estuaries, flood plains and adjoining uplands; islands; land for future active
or passive public outdoor recreational use, including hiking trails, bicycle paths, green belts and
high elevations with a view; aquifers, aquifer recharge areas and other ecologically fragile or
significant property; properties with unique historical or geological characteristics or otherwise
important to the community's cultural welfare; woods or forestland suitable for a town forest or
usable by deer as a wintering yard; farmland or wildlife habitat; open spaces which help to shape
the settlement pattern of the community by promoting the village concept and discouraging
sprawl; or vacant parcels of land, vacant buildings and properties or buildings and properties in
significant disrepair which may be reclaimed for the purpose of establishing natural areas for
open space or park land. (Source: Town of Freeport)1
1 Unable to confirm from source whether the language was specifically for this bond measure.
C-37
-------
Decision-making process:
All expenditures authorized by the Commission must be approved by the Town Council
through the budgetary process. (Source: Town of Freeport)
Ultimate decision maker:
Freeport Town Council.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
X
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
For Florida Lake (from Management Plan):
ME State Planning Office ranked it as one
of most significant in "Casco Bay
Watershed Wetlands Characterization"
GIS analysis by USFWS verified Florida
Lake as important habitat for at least 14
rare, threatened, endangered or declining
species of national significance.
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife labeled Florida Lake as "High
Value Wading Bird and Waterfowl
Habitat."
For Hedgehog Mountain (from
Management Plan):
Back's Sedge (Carex backii) was identified
and is listed as critically imperiled by the
Maine Natural Areas Program
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
conducted initial surveys and found no
Significant or Essential Wildlife Habitats
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
C-38
-------
Partnerships:
Acquisition of two adjacent properties (99 acres), including the former Florida Lake
Campground, was funded through a State Land for Maine's Future grant, a Casco Bay Important
Habitats grant, and through the expenditure of funds from the Freeport Open Space Bond.
(Source: Florida Lake Management Plan)
Freeport's Conservation Commission partnered with Hedgehog Mountain Fund, L.L.
Bean, Inc., and the Davis Conservation Foundation to acquire the 96 acres surrounding
Hedgehog Mountain. (Source: Hedgehog Mountain Management Plan)
Available and expended funding:
One source suggests that approximately $220,000 was spent to purchase the 96 acres near
Hedgehog Mountain. Money for this acquisition was also provided by the Hedgehog Mountain
Fund, L.L. Bean, Inc., and the Davis Conservation Foundation. It is unclear of the exact amount
spent by the Freeport Conservation Commission Open Space Bond. (Source: Bell; Hedgehog
Mountain Management Plan)
Acres protected:
195 total acres. This bond measure helped protect 99 acres surrounding Florida Lake.
Additional property in this area was protected through land donations and the use of other funds.
(Source: Florida Lake Management Plan) Ninety-six acres were purchased to protect a large
forested tract of land near Hedgehog Mountain, between the recycling center and 42 acres of
land designated for athletic fields. (Source: Bell)
Sources:
Town of Freeport. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 35: Conservation Commission,
http: //www .freeportmaine. com/code s/allordinances .html, accessed on July 19, 2005.: Town of Freeport
Conservation Commission. 2004. Florida Lake Management Plan,
www.freeportmaine.com/boardcommittee.docs/Florida%20Lake%20Management%20Plan.doc. accessed
on July 19, 2005.
Town of Freeport Conservation Commission. 2004. Hedgehog Mountain Management Plan.
http://www.freeportmaine.com/boardcommittee.docs/boardcommitteedocsindex.html. accessed on July
19, and August 24, 2005.
Bell, Tom. "Land Deal Would Expand Freeport Park: On Tuesday, the Town Council Will Discuss a
Proposal to Buy 92-acre Lot." Portland Press Herald, November 11, 2000.
1 No date available to confirm this was developed in response to the bond measure passed in 2000.
C-39
-------
2000NJ-01 Open Space Trust Fund
Jurisdiction Name, State: Brick Township, New Jersey
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 76%
Funding Mechanism: Property tax
Ballot Measure Description: Property tax increase to create a dedicated fund to purchase
property and easements for recreation and water quality protection
Prioritization Type: Unknown; insufficient published information available to
make determination.
Mission statement:
None identified.
Program goals:
Although not directly tied to this program, the township noted the following regarding
open space preservation in general:
"By purchasing open space the Township has prevented the construction of over eight
hundred (800) housing units, including approximately six hundred (600) single family homes.
Based on the national average of 2.1 children per household, we estimate that over one thousand
two hundred (1,200) children will not be attending Brick Township's schools as a result of our
Open Space Preservation Program. Those additional thousand students would have increased
enrollment, increased class size, and most important to the taxpayers of Brick, increased the
school tax by approximately $6.43 million dollars annually, or 14.38 cents a year on the school's
tax rate each year, every year, forever." (Source: Brick Township)
In an interview before the vote took place, the mayor was quoted as saying:
"By placing this issue on the ballot, we are asking Brick Township's taxpayers whether
they think it's in their best interest to continue to fund open space preservation to slow down
development and avoid the inevitable larger tax increases that come with the building of new
residential developments, due to additional children in our schools and additional municipal
services being needed." (Source: Natoli)
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
C-40
-------
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Not available.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
New Jersey counties and municipalities with open space trust funds or other dedicated
sources of funding for open space preservation can apply for state Green Acres grants under
more favorable terms than local governments without such funding (matching funds of 50
percent, rather than the usual 25 percent, and a streamlined application process).
Available and expended funding:
Estimated that property tax (1 cent on every $100 of assessed value) would raise
approximately $440,000 annually. If used to finance a 20-year bond, it would finance $7 million
in open space purchases.
Acres protected:
1,000 acres since 1994 (further breakdown not available). In August 2000: "The
township's most recent purchase was a 17.5-acre parcel of undeveloped land off Drum Point
C-41
-------
Road on a bend between Cherry Quay and Church roads." (Source: Natoli) The land was
originally slated for 320 units of housing. (Source: Mikle) In May 2001, a 140-acre tract
(consisting of 11 parcels) initially slated for residential and commercial development was under
consideration for preservation; two of the parcels border creeks. (Source: Rizzo) The New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection's web site of land acquired lists playgrounds, farms,
conservation areas, woods, parking, an airport, parks, and beaches. (Source: New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Open Space Database.)
Sources:
Brick Township web site,
http://www.twp .brick.nj.us/Land%20Use/Open%20Space/index.asp?openspace.htm&topmenu.htm&side
menu_map.htm, accessed July 15, 2005.
Mikle, Jean. "Land meant for housing purchased as open space." Asbury Park Press, August 9, 2000.
Natoli, Cori Anne. "Brick considers tax increase to save open space." Asbury Park Press, August 30,
2000.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Open Space Database,
http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/openspace.htm, accessed July 15, 2005.
Rizzo, Nina. "Brick moves to preserve more land." Asbury Park Press, May 10, 2001.
C-42
-------
2000OH-01 Clean Ohio Green Space Conservation Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Ohio
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 57%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: $400 million, constitutional amendment to authorize the
State to issue bonds for environmental conservation including land acquisition
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; applications for projects are submitted (by local
political subdivisions or nonprofits) and then reviewed and approved or disapproved by the
district Natural Resources Assistance Councils and then submitted to the Ohio Public Works
Commission for final approval. (Source: Ohio General Assembly)
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
"To preserve green space and farmland, improve outdoor recreation, and revitalize
blighted neighborhoods by cleaning up and redeveloping polluted properties." (Source: Clean
Ohio)
Parcel selection process:
Local political subdivisions or nonprofits submit parcels for selection. (Source: Ohio
General Assembly)
Prioritization criteria:
Prioritization is handled by the district Natural Resources Assistance Councils and each
can develop their own methodology for prioritization. Methodologies on file can be found online
athttp://www.pwc.state.oh.us/NRAC.METHODOLOGYS.2.htm.
A sample methodology available on the Greenspace Conservation Program website
(http://www.pwc.state.oh.us/clean_ohio.htm) is summarized here to provide a general
understanding of the criteria used for prioritization.
The sample methodology has four parts. The first part is a preliminary screening (yes/no),
which makes sure the applicant is eligible, the application was received on time, the project has a
relevant open space or riparian corridors or watersheds purpose, and that the project would not
fund hydromodification, facilities or legal obligations.
-------
Part two lists twenty-five topic areas that a project might emphasize. A project receives
two points for each topic area emphasized in the application, up to a 50 point maximum.
(Examples include: protects habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species; preserves
headwater streams, etc.).
Part three rates the requirements of the project including percent of Clean Ohio matching
funds needed; level of coordination (meets goals of multiple agencies); level of conservation
coordination (with other open space, etc. programs in other districts); community benefits; extent
of public access; operation and maintenance; project management experience; and cost-
effectiveness of Clean Ohio funding necessary to complete project. A project can receive up to
40 points for part three.
Part four is worth 10 points and addresses any additional criteria such as community
planning; regional significance; natural resource viability; level of funding from other sources;
readiness to proceed; open space related facilities construction readiness; and others. (Source:
Green Space Conservation Program)
Decision-making process:
Applications for projects are submitted (by local political subdivisions or nonprofits) and
then reviewed and approved or disapproved by the district Natural Resources Assistance
Councils and then forwarded to the Ohio Public Works Commission for final approval. (Source:
Ohio General Assembly)
Ultimate decision maker:
Ohio Public Works Commission.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Information on selection criteria are obtained from applications. (Source: Green Space
Conservation Program)
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list):
All information is included on application
forms but can include whether the project
would protect rare or endangered species,
preserves headwater streams, preserves or
restores water quality, or wetlands, or
C-44
-------
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
Natural Heritage, etc.
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Specific information not available but partnerships are encouraged. (Source: Green Space
Conservation Program)
Available and expended funding:
Annual funds available for the Clean Ohio Conservation Program are $37.5 million. The
funding must be approved each year by the Ohio legislature. Over 300 projects have been
approved, although funding has not been disbursed or completely disbursed for all projects.
(Source: Green Space Conservation Program)
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
Clean Ohio, http://clean.ohio.gov/. accessed on July 19, 2005.
Ohio General Assembly. House Bill 385. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=124 HB 385.
accessed on July 19, 2005.
Green Space Conservation Program. "Funded Projects," "Sample Methodology," and "Round 2
Funding." http: //www .pwc. state. oh .us/clean ohio .htm, accessed on July 19, 2005.
C-45
-------
2000RI-01 Open Space and Recreation and Clean Water Bonds
Jurisdiction Name, State: Rhode Island
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained: 73%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue for acquisition of open space, groundwater
protection, and public recreation facilities
Prioritization Type: Top-down; the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) manages the program and spending.
Mission statement:
No formal mission statement.
Program goals:
"Rhode Island is rapidly losing land for parks, farmland, wildlife habitat and land that
supports our drinking water. Open spaces that are important to our heritage and environment can
be saved if we act today. Governor Almond has proposed for the November 2000 ballot a $34
million bond issue to acquire and protect important land over the next ten years.
Under Open Space 2000 the Governor has called for accelerating the state's land
protection program by proposing a $34 million bond issue for November, and with the funds
acquire an additional 35,000 acres by 2010." (Rhode Island DEM(a))
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Rhode Island DEM.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
-------
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Municipal and private land trusts and The Nature Conservancy (Rhode Island DEM (c)).
Available and expended funding:
$34 million (Rhode Island DEM (b)).
Acres protected:
Within the Statewide Open Space Protection program, 87 properties and over 6,462 acres
have been protected throughout the State in the four years since the 2000 Open Space and
Recreation Bond was passed. An additional 1,100 acres of farmland have been protected (Rhode
Island DEM (b)).
Other open space projects have been funded, but acreage is not available. For example, in
2002, 19 proposals for OEM's Local Open Space Grants were funded with $5.7 million. In 2004,
DEM received 46 applications for Open Space Grants for the $3.5 million in funds that remain
from the 2000 Bond (Rhode Island DEM (b)).
Sources:
Rhode Island DEM(a), http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/landacq/rios2000.htm.
accessed on August 3, 2005.
Rhode Island DEM (b), http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/pdf/bondques.pdf. accessed
on August 3, 2005.
Rhode Island DEM (c), http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/pdf/land2003.pdf. accessed on
August3, 2005.
C-47
-------
2004AZ-02 McMillan Mesa Open Space Land Acquisition
Jurisdiction Name, State: Flagstaff, Arizona
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 53%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for wildlife, meadows, and greenways
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; priority land was identified by the City Council
based on a public process including focus groups, public meetings, surveys, etc. Ultimately, the
City Council makes decisions about project implementation and prioritization of projects is
based on specific criteria as listed below.
Mission statement:
The purpose of the bond is "to provide for the preservation and public use of portions of
land in the City as open space." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
Program goals:
The bond measure would enable, "the acquisition of up to approximately 110 acres on
McMillan Mesa consisting of open meadows, wildlife habitat, buffers, and viewsheds, located
south of Forest/Cedar Avenue and Buffalo Park, generally extending west from Gemini to
Turquoise and Ponderosa Parkway." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
Parcel selection process:
This land parcel was selected based on citizen input through city boards and
commissions, a bond advisory task force, public meetings, community surveys and focus groups,
and public comments during city council meetings. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Prioritization criteria:
Criteria for project implementation include: land availability and acquisition negotiations;
environmental permitting processes; utility relocations; weather; and design and construction
lead time. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Decision-making process:
Project implementation will be determined by the City Council with public input.
(Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
C-48
-------
Ultimate decision maker:
Flagstaff City Council.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
Yes. Maps showing priority protection areas were created as part of the McMillan Mesa
Master plan project (carried out over from October 2001 to April 2002). This bond measure is
one of many sources of potential funds identified in the McMillan Mesa Master Plan. It will,
thus, allow the City to protect only a portion of the priority areas. (Source: McMillan Mesa
Workshop Series)
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
Total anticipated revenue: $10.1 million to be spent from the years 2005 to 2014.
Acres protected:
The measure is anticipated to protect up to 110 acres.
Sources:
City of Flagstaff (a), Information Pamphlet for City of Flagstaff, Arizona, General Election and Bond
Authorization Special Election, May 18, 2004,
http://www.flagstaff.az.gOv/documents/Bond%20Program/Publicitv%20Pamphlet%20for%20Mav2004.p
d_f, accessed on July 19, 2005.
C-49
-------
City of Flagstaff (b), Our Town, Our Future: May 18, 2004 City Bond Election presentation,
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/documents/Bond%20Program/Bond Election4.ppt accessed on July 19,
2005.
McMillan Mesa Workshop Series, http://www.mcmillanmesa.net/. accessed on August 4, 2005.
C-50
-------
2004AZ-03 Regional Open Space - Observatory Mesa Land Acquisition
Jurisdiction Name, State: Flagstaff, Arizona
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 56%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for wildlife
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; the land parcel was selected based on citizen
input through city boards and commissions, a bond advisory task force, public meetings,
community surveys and focus groups, and public comments during city council meetings.
Mission statement:
The purpose of the measure is "to provide permanent natural open spaces for the public
use." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
Program goals:
The bond measure would enable, "the acquisition of up to approximately 480 acres of
Arizona State Trust lands for wildlife habitat protection and conservation of observatory viewing
quality, which is located within the city limits along the urban/wildland interface on the western
edge of the City on Observatory Mesa." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
Parcel selection process:
This land parcel was selected based on citizen input through city boards and
commissions, a bond advisory task force, public meetings, community surveys and focus groups,
and public comments during city council meetings. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Prioritization criteria:
Criteria for project implementation include: land availability and acquisition negotiations;
environmental permitting processes; utility relocations; weather; and design and construction
lead time. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Decision-making process:
Project implementation will be determined by the City Council with public input.
(Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Ultimate decision maker:
Flagstaff City Council.
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
The City plans to coordinate with the Arizona Preserve Initiative or State Trust land
reform matching grants. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Available and expended funding:
Total anticipated revenue is $5.5 million to be spent by 2013 or sooner. (Source: City of
Flagstaff (b))
Acres protected:
The measure is anticipated to protect up to 480 acres.
Sources:
City of Flagstaff (a), Information Pamphlet for City of Flagstaff, Arizona, General Election and Bond
Authorization Special Election, May 18, 2004,
http://www.flagstaff.az.gOv/documents/Bond%20Program/Publicitv%20Pamphlet%20for%20Mav2004.p
d_f, accessed on July 19, 2005.
City of Flagstaff (b), Our Town, Our Future: May 18, 2004 City Bond Election presentation,
http://www.flagstaffaz.gov/documents/Bond%20Program/Bond_Election4.ppt, accessed on July 19,
2005.
C-52
-------
2004AZ-04 Neighborhood Open Space and Flagstaff Urban Trail System
(FUTS)
Jurisdiction Name, State: Flagstaff, Arizona
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 59%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for neighborhood open space, trails, greenways,
wildlife, scenic areas, and geologic features
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; the land parcel was selected based on citizen
input through city boards and commissions, a bond advisory task force, public meetings,
community surveys and focus groups, and public comments during city council meetings.
Mission statement:
The purpose of the bond is "to provide neighborhood open spaces and land for the
Flagstaff Urban Trail System." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
Program goals:
The bond measure would enable, "the acquisition of up to approximately 550 acres of
open space lands in and around the City's neighborhoods consisting of wildlife habitat,
geological features, riparian and scenic areas, and buffers spread throughout the City and for the
connection of neighborhoods, parks, schools, employment, shopping and other areas with
approximately 50 miles of the Flagstaff Urban Trails System." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
Parcel selection process:
This land parcel was selected based on citizen input through city boards and
commissions, a bond advisory task force, public meetings, community surveys and focus groups,
and public comments during city council meetings. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Prioritization criteria:
Criteria for project implementation include: land availability and acquisition negotiations;
environmental permitting processes; utility relocations; weather; and design and construction
lead time. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Decision-making process:
Project implementation will be determined by the City Council with public input.
(Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
-------
Ultimate decision maker:
Flagstaff City Council.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
Total anticipated revenue is $7.6 million to be spent over the years 2005 to 2014.
(Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
Acres protected:
The measure is anticipated to protect 550 acres.
Sources:
City of Flagstaff (a), Information Pamphlet for City of Flagstaff, Arizona, General Election and Bond
Authorization Special Election, May 18, 2004,
http://www.flagstaffaz.gOv/documents/Bond%20Program/Publicitv%20Pamphlet%20for%20Mav2004.p
d_f, accessed on July 19, 2005.
City of Flagstaff (b), Our Town, Our Future: May 18, 2004 City Bond Election presentation,
http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/documents/Bond%20Program/Bond Election4.ppt accessed on July 19,
2005.
C-54
-------
2004CO-02 Tax for Open Space
Jurisdiction Name, State: Erie, Colorado
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 64%
Funding Mechanism: Property tax
Ballot Measure Description: Ballot Issue 2A, 10-year, 4 mill, property tax levy for open
space
Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; program expenditures first submitted to a
citizen advisory board for recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
Mission statement:
No formal mission statement.
Program goals:
All proceeds of the increased property tax are to be used to:
"Create hiking, biking, and walking trails throughout town to connect
neighborhoods and the regional trail network;
Purchase natural areas to separate Erie from other communities;
Preserve wildlife habitat;
Protect natural areas along Coal Creek and Boulder Creek; and
Conserve scenic landscapes and views."
(Source: Rocky Mountain News.)
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Board of Trustees.
C-55
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
$4.38 million in estimated funding.
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
Town of Erie, http://www.ci.erie.co.us/index.cfm?obiectid=lB721C2E-F200-8670-069785961A8B9196.
accessed on August 3, 2005.
Rocky Mountain News, http://election.rockymountainnews.com/issueDetail.cfm?issu_id=2051. accessed
on August 3, 2005.
C-56
-------
2004CT-01 Purchase of the Southington Drive-in
Jurisdiction Name, State: Southington, Connecticut
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 68%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond to acquire land for recreation and sewage treatment
purposes
Prioritization Type: Top-down; the public knew at the time of the vote which
property was going to be acquired by the town.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
To acquire the 40-acre plot of land, including about 23 acres of wetlands, known as "the
Southington drive-in property." To be used "for recreational, sewage treatment plant property
access and other municipal purposes." (Sources: New Britain Herald; Southington Election
Department)
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Property owner Peter G. Perakos closed the drive-in in 2003 and offered the land for sale.
In July, 2003, Arthur B. Estrada & Associates of North Haven appraised the land for the town at
$975,000.
Developer Anthony Denorfia then entered into an agreement with Perakos in January
2004 to buy the property for $1.5 million. However, Denorfia decided to step aside if the
referendum passed. (Source: Pukalo)
Ultimate decision maker:
Voters in the Town of Southington.
C-57
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
No.
Available and expended funding:
$1.61 million.
Acres protected:
40 acres.
Sources:
Southington Elections Department, http://registrars.southington.org/elections/referendum4-27-
20Q4.shtml. accessed on August 4, 2005.
Cornell, Scott. "Town to buy drive-in site." New Britain Herald, April 28, 2004.
http://www.newbritainherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11398523&BRD=1641&PAG=461&dept id=l
0110&rfi=6. accessed on August 4, 2005.
Pukalo, Mark. "Residents OK Purchase Of Drive-In Property." The Hartford Courant, April 28, 2004.
http://www.geocities.com/rochfordpaul/southington.htmL accessed on August 4, 2005.
C-58
-------
2004FL-02 Pasco County Environmental Lands Acquisition and
Management Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Pasco County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 52%
Funding Mechanism: Sales tax
Ballot Measure Description: Penny Sales Tax: 10-year, 1 cent sales tax increase for
environmentally significant lands, recreation, public safety, schools, city projects
Prioritization Type: Bottom up; individuals can nominate parcels for
consideration.
Mission statement:
The purpose of the Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management Program
(ELAMP) is to acquire lands and conservation easements in order to: protect natural
communities including uplands and wetlands, connect natural linkages, conserve viable
populations of native plants and animals, protect habitat for listed species, protect water
resources and wetland systems, protect unique natural resources, enhance resource-based
recreational opportunities, and expand environmental education opportunities with Pasco
County.
Program goals:
Pasco County has earmarked a quarter of its allocation from the Penny for Pasco an
estimated $36.3 million over 10 years to protecting environmentally sensitive lands. The
County Commission has already adopted the Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management
Program or ELAMP to help coordinate this challenging task.
Parcel selection process:
Under this program individuals can nominate a piece of property for consideration.
Nominations will be evaluated by the Environmental Lands Acquisition Selection Committee
(ELASC). The Environmental Lands Acquisition Selection Committee was appointed by the
Pasco County Board of County Commissioners to help in the land selection process. This eleven-
member committee consists of individuals with the following affiliations:
Vice president and senior ecologist with Biological Research Associates;
Owner of Little Everglades Ranch;
-------
Senior environmental scientist and professional associate with HDR Engineering;
Senior environmental analyst at Tampa Bay Water;
Environmental program director at Southwest Florida Water Management
District;
Professional nature photographer;
Environmental science professor at Saint Leo University;
Senior environmental scientist with Scheda Ecological Associates, Inc.;
Vice president of environmental services with Florida Design Consultants;
Executive director of Pascowildlife, Inc.;
There is one vacancy in the Real Estate/Business/Finance category.
The ELASC is meets monthly, and is currently accepting nominations of lands to be
considered for possible purchase of fee title or conservation easements by Pasco County.
Anyone, other than members of the ELASC and the Board of County Commissioners, may
nominate a parcel for consideration in the ELAMP. Nominated parcels will be reviewed in the
order they are received. All information submitted will become the property of Pasco County and
will be public record. The County is not responsible for any costs or expenses relating to the
filing of an application.
Applicants are encouraged to submit applications for projects that meet the objectives of
the ELAMP (i.e., protect natural communities including uplands and wetlands, connect natural
linkages, conserve viable populations of native plants and animals, protect habitat for listed
species, protect water resources and wetland systems, protect unique natural resources, enhance
resource-based recreational opportunities, and expand environmental education opportunities
with Pasco County).
Prioritization criteria:
Prioritization criteria are not readily available. Other than the aforementioned objectives
of the ELAMP, no criteria are specifically identified on the ELAMP website or related sources.
Decision-making process:
The 11-member ELASC panel will meet every quarter to rank properties that have been
nominated for conservation. The ranking process is not described in program documentation on
the Internet; however, a job posting for an Environmental Lands Program Coordinator in Pasco
County indicates that ranking may involve GIS mapping insofar as the job announcement
requires familiarity with GIS. The makeup of the ELASC was very closely watched and
carefully crafted to ensure that the committee would consist of at least five members with strong
science backgrounds.
-------
Ultimate decision maker:
The ELASC panel will advise the County Commission, which will make all final
purchasing decisions.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available (see notes in decision-making process above).
Data sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
Not clear whether mapping is used to assist in ranking and prioritizing parcels.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
The Program will use 25 percent of the County's 45 percent of the Penny for Pasco
proceeds and matching funds, if available, from federal, state, municipal, private non-profit, and
Water Management District land acquisition funding sources. An estimated $36.3 million over
10 years is expected to be allocated for this program from Penny for Pasco funds.
Acres protected:
None yet.
Sources:
ELAMP, www.pascocountyfl.net/elamp/elamp.html; accessed on August 3 and 23, 2005.
County job postings, http://pascocountyfl.net/personnel/pos/0405025.htm. accessed on August 23, 2005.
2004 Pasco County annual report, http://www.pascocountyfl.net/2004PCAR.pdf. accessed on August 3,
2005.
C-61
-------
2004FL-03 Waterfront Access and Waterfront Preservation Bonds
Jurisdiction Name, State: Palm Beach County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 68%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond to acquire property to protect, preserve, and expand
public access to bodies of water and working waterfronts
Prioritization Type: Not yet determined; program is still being developed.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
".. .protect, preserve, and expand public access to freshwater and saltwater bodies of
water and preserve working waterfronts thereon by financing the cost of acquisition of real
property and interests therein and of certain capital improvements..." (Source: Ballot measure
text)
Parcel selection process:
As the bond measure passed less than a year before this writing, it seems the details have
not yet been worked out. According to the minutes summary from a March 1, 2005 County
Board of Commissioners meeting:
"Staff has identified 3 categories of projects that are the focus of this program: 1) Boat
ramps and public waterfront recreational areas; 2) Marinas and boat yards which are in danger of
being converted to other uses such as condominiums resulting in the loss of marine industry jobs
and a negative financial impact to the local economy; and 3) Waterfront redevelopment projects
within municipalities. Since passage of the bond issue, Staff has been meeting with numerous
property owners interested in participating in this program. In addition, Staff has met with and
received information from numerous community redevelopment agencies seeking funding
assistance for their waterfront oriented redevelopment projects. The number of potential projects
and the projected costs associated therewith, far exceeds available funding and Staff resources
available to implement these projects. Therefore, Board direction regarding allocation of funds to
the 3 categories of projects and prioritization of projects within and amongst the categories is
requested. Staff has developed lists of potential projects within each of these categories, as well
-------
as suggested criteria for establishing priorities for acquisition." (Source: Board of County
Commissioners minutes summary and discussion)1
Prioritization criteria:
Not available, however, according to several articles, the main reason for passage of the
bond measure was the public's fear of marinas being developed into high-end waterfront
housing, thus making it difficult for boaters to use the waterfront. It is likely that preserving such
access will be high on the county's list of priorities. (Source: Becker; Poole)
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Seems to be the Board of County Commissioners, but process still under development.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
Unknown.
Partnerships:
According to one report just after the bond measure passed, "A nonprofit agency, such as
the Tallahassee-based Trust for Public Land, then would negotiate purchases on the county's
behalf and bring proposals to the county commission." However, details of the program had not
yet been worked out at the time. (Source: Poole)
1 The project lists and criteria were not included in the board minutes.
C-63
-------
Available and expended funding:
$50 million bond issue, of which the Board of County Commissioners approved spending
$35 million on land acquisition in March 2005. (Source: Board of County Commissioners
minutes summary) With land values as high as they are in southern Florida, the $35 million may
not purchase much land. (Source: Becker)
Acres protected:
None to date.
Sources:
Board of County Commissioners minutes summary and discussion, March 1, 2005.
http://www.pbcountyclerk.com/minutes/pdf/030105.pdf (summary) and http://minutes.co.palm-
beach.fl.us/minutes/viewframes.isp?pid=64+2+DL4+libp29+Clerk+Research%3Blibp%3BPBC Title 19+
16+P2WZNNM60UOTC551 (discussion), accessed on July 29, 2005.
Becker, Lori. "No room at the ramp." Palm Beach Post, July 3, 2005.
Text of bond measure, http://pbcelections.org/Sample%20Ballots/2004 GEN ENG.pdf. accessed on July
29, 2005.
Poole, Deana. "Higher Taxes Backed To Keep Marinas In Public's Reach." Palm Beach Post, November
3, 2004.
C-64
-------
2004MA-01 Program to Purchase Hillcrest Country Club
Jurisdiction Name, State: Leicester, Massachusetts
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 81 %
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Question 1, Bond for open space, watershed protection,
golf course.
Prioritization Type: Top-down; location was chosen by town officials prior to
public vote.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
Protection of the property is intended to safeguard the municipal water supply and enable
the town to develop new wells for an additional town-wide water supply.
Parcel selection process:
The Hillcrest Country Club Property was selected prior to the public vote. Selection
information is not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Town of Leicester.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Any EPA water quality information
C-65
-------
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Leicester had some significant assistance from the Trust for Public Lands in negotiating
and acquiring the Hillcrest Country Club.
Available and expended funding:
$3.8 million to acquire the entire Hillcrest Country Club Property (over 310 acres), only
part of which is being protected for watershed/water supply purposes.
Acres protected:
Over 200 acres have been protected for watershed/water supply land and will provide
opportunities for passive recreation compatible with watershed protection. The remaining portion
of the property has been protected for recreational uses.
Sources:
Leicester Town Annual Report, 2004,
http://www.ci.leicester.ma.us/annualreport/2004AnnualTownReport.pdf. accessed on August 2005.
Massachusetts American Planning Association Newsletter, May 2004:
http://www.massapa.org/newsletters/may_2004.pdf. accessed on August 2005.
C-66
-------
2004MI-03 Recreational Authority of Traverse City and Garfield Township
Jurisdiction Name, State: Traverse City and Garfield Township, Michigan
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 80%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for the acquisition of open space and wildlife habitat
Prioritization Type: Top-down; parcels to be preserved were identified prior to
passage of the bond. Traverse City and Garfield Township created a joint Recreational Authority
to facilitate purchase of the properties.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
To preserve open space and wildlife habitat.
Parcel selection process:
Parcels were identified prior to passage of the bond. The properties identified for
purchase include a 56-acre parcel with three historic barns; a bayfront building that will be
demolished and turned into open space; and 108 acres of field, forests, and wetlands, adjacent to
a ski area. (Source: People and Land; Ganter)
The importance of the properties as described by Friends for Recreational Lands in
Garfield Township & Traverse City is included below. All three of the properties are adjacent to
existing publicly-owned "park" properties. They all have existing trails that connect to larger
trail systems on the adjacent public properties. The Smith/Barney (bayfront) property is the last
privately held parcel along 9,500-feet of West Bay frontage. The Hickory Meadows property and
the Barns property have both been used by the public for decades. Now, both are likely to be
developed in the near future, should this opportunity to purchase them for public use fail. Both
serve as habitat for wildlife, offer plenty of room for passive public recreation in quiet areas, and
yet are very close to where we live and work. (Source: Friends for Recreational Lands)
Prioritization criteria:
Not applicable.
C-67
-------
Decision-making process:
In June 2003, Garfleld Township and the City of Traverse formed a Recreational
Authority as a way of funding the public purchase of three prime properties in the area. The
Recreational Authority determined that prudent planning must include both an acquisition bond
(to buy the properties) and an operating millage (to cover maintenance, insurance, legal fees, and
community planning). The Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy secured purchase
agreements to reserve the properties pending the outcome of the November 2, 2004 election.
(Source: Ganter)
Ultimate decision maker:
Land to be acquired was decided in advance.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not applicable.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
This bond measure was on the ballot with an associated property tax measure and both
had to be passed in order for Traverse City and Garfield Township to be able to purchase and
maintain the specified properties. Both measures passed and the City and Township are working
together through the joint Recreational Authority.
Available and expended funding:
The bond measure passed for $6.65 million.
C-68
-------
The associated property tax measure (20-year, .1 mill, property tax increase) passed for
an expected total of $2.5 million, which will be used to cover maintenance, insurance, legal fees,
and community planning.
Acres protected:
Approximately 165 acres.
Sources:
People and Land. "Land Use Issues Gain Higher Profile in Election 2004." PAL Update, Oct/Nov 2004.
http://www.peopleandland.org/Newsletters/PALUpdateOctNov04.pdf. accessed on July 20, 2005.
Ganter, E. "The Open Space & Natural Area Proposals." Northern Express: Northern Michigan's Largest
Newsweekly. http://www.northernexpress.com/editorial/features.asp?id=733. accessed on July 20, 2005.
Friends for Recreational Lands in Garfield Township & Traverse City. "Frequently Asked Questions:
What is so important about these properties." http://www.yesopenspace.org/answers.html#purchase2.
accessed on July 20, 2005.
C-69
-------
2004MO-01Rolla, Missouri - Stormwater and Park Land Program
Jurisdiction Name, State:
Year Ballot Measure Passed:
Percent of Vote Obtained:
Funding Mechanism:
Ballot Measure Description:
Rolla, Missouri
2004
66%
Bond
$3 million total, $0.8 million for open space, Bond for
Stormwater control and land acquisition
Unknown; insufficient published information available to
Prioritization Type:
make determination.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
Not available.
Parcel selection process:
Number of acres (120) was decided in advance. Information on whether the location of
the 120 acres was decided in advance was not available. (Source: Penprase)
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Not available.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
C-70
-------
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
$800,000 for land acquisition. (Source: LandVote)
Acres protected:
The proposition included a plan to purchase 120 acres of land for combination
stormwater retention basins and parkland. (Source: Penprase)
Sources:
Penprase, Mike. "Voters in four Ozarks towns approve sewer, water proposals." Springfield News-
Leader, April 7, 2004.
C-71
-------
2004NJ-02 Open Space Trust Fund
Jurisdiction Name, State:
Year Ballot Measure Passed:
Percent of Vote Obtained:
Funding Mechanism:
Ballot Measure Description:
Carteret Borough, New Jersey
2004
57%
Property tax
2 cents per $100 property tax for acquisition and/or
improvement for lands, parks and water.
Prioritization Type:
make determination.
Mission statement:
None identified.
Program goals:
None identified.
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Not available.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Unknown; insufficient published information available to
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
C-72
-------
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
None used
Priority map:
Unknown.
Partnerships:
New Jersey counties and municipalities with open space trust funds or other dedicated
sources of funding for open space preservation can apply for state Green Acres grants under
more favorable terms than local governments without such funding (matching funds of 50
percent, rather than the usual 25 percent, and a streamlined application process).
Available and expended funding:
Carteret's Open Space Trust Fund began in 2000. From 2002-2004, the township spent
$500,000 from the Open Space Trust fund, along with $1.5 million from Middlesex County and
$1.9 million in state grants. (Source: Maskaly (a)) The increased funding from the 2000 tax level
of one cent was expected to raise annual revenues from $100,000 to $300,000. (Source: Maskaly
(b))
Acres protected:
While expenditure details were not given, the article implied that most funds from 2002-
2004 had been spent on park improvement. (Source: Maskaly (a)) Before the measure passed,
"[Carteret Mayor] Reiman said if voters approve the measure, the extra revenue will be used to
make improvements at the Little League baseball fields and the Waterfront Park." (Source:
Maskaly (b)) Another group wanted funds to build a soccer field. (Source: Maskaly (c)) The
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's web site of land acquired showed that
most of land acquired by the Borough was either parks or athletic playing fields. (Source: New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Open Space Database.) The Borough is also
involved in an effort, funded largely by a state grant, to restore the industrial Arthur Kills
waterfront to a park. (Source: Walsh)
Sources:
LandVote Database, Trust for Public Land, www.landvote.org.
Maskaly, Michelle (a). "Carteret Presses For Open-Space-Fund Hike." The Home News Tribune, October
23, 2004.
CX73
-------
Maskaly, Michelle (b). "Carteret would hike open-space tax $24 a year." The Home News Tribune, July
24, 2004.
Maskaly, Michelle (c). "New soccer teams takes shape Carteret program is upbeat." The Home News
Tribune, November 15, 2004.
Walsh, Diane C. "Towns and Agencies Receive Open Space Money; County Gets $20M Share Of Anti-
Sprawl Funds."Newark Star-Ledger, June 29, 2003.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Open Space Database,
http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/openspace.htm, accessed July 18, 2005.
C-74
-------
2004NY-03 Webster Open Space
Jurisdiction Name, State: Webster, NY
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 52%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond for open space, wildlife, trails, farmland, easements
Prioritization Type: Bottom up; predetermined.
Mission statement:
None available.
Program goals:
Acquire specific properties to protect open space and block development.
Parcel selection process:
The 2003 plan proposes to preserve permanently from development properties of 11
different owners located in various areas throughout Webster. Collectively just more than 900
acres would be saved from development.
Many properties are grouped together in small clusters that result in saving one large
area.
"Most everyone will remember that in April 2002 a much larger open space plan was
proposed - for an amount of $22 million to preserve anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 acres. That
proposal was defeated by a margin of about 60% to 40%. Exit polls after that vote, however,
showed that support for some kind of preservation of open space - something on a more
economical scale and a plan that was specific concerning properties to be preserved.
The Town Board worked with Open Space Committee Chair Larry Peckham and the
John Behan consulting firm on the revised plan." (Source: Webster Open Space Plan)
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.l
1 Larry Peckham and John Behan could probably clarify the process.
C-75
-------
Decision-making process:
A municipal committee identified specific parcels and submitted a request for bond
funding to voters.
Ultimate decision maker:
Webster voters authorized debt funding; town board actually approves spending the
money.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
1996 Report on Preservation of Environmental Sensitive Areas in Monroe County
(Monroe County Environmental Management Council) identified several sites in Webster that
are environmentally sensitive and should be targeted for preservation (Comprehensive Plan).
Sites ranked highest primarily focused around the Irondequoit Bay ecosystem, including:
Irondequoit Bay's Northeastern Shoreline (the Sandbar)
Webster Village Well field
Devil's Cove on Irondequoit Bay
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
Yes, four figures from the Comprehensive Plan:
Figure 16: Core Area Existing Conditions
Figure 17: Core Area Future Land Use Concept
Figure 18: Parks, Trails and Significant Natural Resource Areas Plan
Figure 19: Future Land Use Concept
Partnerships:
The Trust for Public Lands (TPL) has been active in Webster, including an $800,000
acquisition of a 130-acre property using funds from the $5.9 million bond referendum approved
April 27, 2004. This action was made possible through partnerships with the Henry Philip Kraft
C-76
-------
Memorial Fund and Sarah K. de Coizart Article TENTH Perpetual Charitable Trust. Planning
involved the TPL Great Lakes Greenprint project and TPL Great Lakes Program.
Available and expended funding:
Open space preservation program cost is not to exceed $5.9 million. The Town has
secured more than $1.75 million in Federal, State and County grant funding to help with
preserving properties.
Acres protected:
1,020 (planned).
Sources:
Town of Webster Comprehensive Plan, www.ci.webster.ny.us/properties/comp_plan.htm. accessed
August 19, 2005.
C-77
-------
2004PA-01 Nockamixon Township Open Space Program
Jurisdiction Name, State:
Year Ballot Measure Passed:
Percent of Vote Obtained:
Funding Mechanism:
Ballot Measure Description:
Nockamixon Township, Pennsylvania
2004
60%
Income tax
$3.8 million, 0.25 % income tax increase to be used to
acquire property to protect and preserve open space, farmland, watersheds, parks and
conservation sites
Prioritization Type: Unknown; insufficient published information available to
make determination.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
Not available.
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Not available.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
C-78
-------
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
Estimated annual revenue is $180,000 (Source: Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission)
Another estimate of annual revenue due to the tax increase is $190,000. (Source:
Moultrie)
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Local Funding Programs, May 2005.
http://www.dvrpc.org/planning/environmental/openspace/local.htm. accessed on July 19, 2005.
Moultrie, Dalondo. "Voters in Bucks County, Pa., township back higher income tax for land." The
Morning Call, November 3, 2004.
C-79
-------
2004RI-01 Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection Bond
Jurisdiction Name, State: Rhode Island
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 70.8%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Question 8, Statewide environmental bond for open space
preservation and acquisition, wetlands protection, greenway expansion, and anti-pollution
projects
Prioritization Type: Top-down; the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) manages the program and spending.
Mission statement:
No formal mission statement.
Program goals:
"The Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection Bond, will fund strategic
investments in land, water and recreation:
Preserve thousands of acres per year to expand and link our parks and other
recreation facilities, and preserve farmland and habitat
Restore eelgrass, salt marshes and other important natural habitats
Clean up Narragansett Bay and RF s waterways
Reduce stormwater pollution in cities and towns
Reduce nutrient pollutants from wastewater treatment plants."
(Source: Rhode Island DEM Fact Sheet on Question 8)
Parcel selection process:
Not available.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Rhode Island DEM.
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Municipal and private land trusts and The Nature Conservancy.
Available and expended funding:
$70 million projected to be available.
Acres protected:
Not available.
Sources:
Rhode Island DEM, http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/landacq/index.htm. accessed on
Augusts, 2005.
Rhode Island DEM, http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/pdf/bondques.pdf. accessed on
Augusts, 2005.
Rhode Island DEM, Fact Sheet on Question 8: Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection
Bond. No date.
C-81
-------
2004UT-01 Corner Canyon Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Draper, Utah
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 59%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: $7 million bond for watershed protection
Prioritization Type: Top-down; the land to be purchased was determined in
advance of development of the bond measure.
Mission statement:
Not available.
Program goals:
To protect Corner Canyon, a 1,035-acre property nestled in the foothills below the Lone
Peak Wilderness Area. The Canyon is a source of the City's drinking water. (Source: Lampe
2005)
Parcel selection process:
The parcel was identified before the development of the bond measure.
Using passage of the $7 million bond issue to leverage other funds, the Trusty for Public
Lands (TPL) and the City of Draper are currently negotiating to purchase the entire 1,035-acre
property for public protection. (Source: Lampe)
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Not available.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not applicable.
C-82
-------
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
The City of Draper is working with the Trust for Public Land.
Available and expended funding:
Not available.
Acres protected:
None yet; Corner Canyon is 1,035 acres.
Sources:
Lampe, Nicole. "Draper Voters Act to Protect Corner Canyon." Trust for Public Land, Utah Newsletter,
Spring 2005. http://www.tpl.org/tier3 cd.cfm?content item id=19697&folderid=675. accessed on July
19, 2005.
C-83
-------
2004WA-01 Parks and Recreational Sidewalks Utility Tax Fund
Jurisdiction Name, State: Olympia, Washington
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 57%
Funding Mechanism: Other - utility tax
Ballot Measure Description: 3% utility tax increase for parks, open space, and sidewalks
Prioritization Type: Top down; the City will determine how to spend tax
revenues.
Mission statement:
The tax was passed for "the purpose of acquiring and making improvements to parks,
wildlife habitat, natural areas, open space, hiking and biking trails, walking paths, and recreation
sidewalks." (Source: City of Olympia)
Program goals:
"Initially, most of the money would be used for land acquisition for future parks and
trails; once the property has been secured, [park] development would begin." (Source: Walk
Olympia)
Parcel selection process:
Two-thirds of the money will be used for park acquisition and development. It will fund
three new community parks, 10 new neighborhood parks, more than 500 acres of open space
acquisition, and construction often new hiking trails through that open space. The other third of
the money will be spent on sidewalk construction and maintenance. The money will primarily be
spent on sidewalks within a half-mile of parks, school playgrounds, trails, and other recreational
destinations to meet the goal of enhancing recreational walking. (Source: Walk Olympia; Active
Living Leadership)
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
City of Olympia.
C-84
-------
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Not available.
Available and expended funding:
Anticipated yearly revenue totals roughly $2.25 million. (Source: Walk Olympia)
Acres protected:
The tax fund is expected to enable about 500 acres of open space acquisition.
Sources:
Active Living Leadership, http://www.activelivingleadership.org/news49.htm, accessed on July 19, 2005.
City of Olympia, http://www.ci.olympia.wa.us/. accessed on July 20, 2005.
Walk Olympia, http://www.walkolympia.org/wst_page5.php. accessed on July 19, 2005.
C-85
-------
2004WA-02 Acquisition of Gig Harbor Waterfront Open Space and Land to
Restore Eddon Boatyard
Jurisdiction Name, State: Gig Harbor, Washington
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 62%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond to acquire waterfront open space and land to initiate
restoration of boatyard for historical, cultural, and recreational purposes
Prioritization Type: Top down; parcel was identified before the vote.
Mission statement:
"This proposition authorizes the City to acquire waterfront space and land and initiate
restoration of the Eddon boatyard for historical, cultural, educational and recreational purposes."
(Source: City of Gig Harbor)
Program goals:
The primary program goal is to acquire of waterfront open space and land, commonly
known as Eddon boatworks. (Source: City of Gig Harbor)
Parcel selection process:
Parcel selected based on its historical value.
Prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Decision-making process:
Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
Gig Harbor City Council.
Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
Not available.
Data Sources:
"X" if used:
-------
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Friends of Eddon Boatworks are working in partnership with the City of Gig Harbor.
Available and expended funding:
$3.5 million.
Acres protected:
1.3 acres are slated to be protected.
Sources:
City of Gig Harbor,
http://www.piercecountywa.org/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/archives/gen2004/vp/gig.pdf. accessed on
August 4, 2005.
C-87
-------
APPENDIX D: REGIONAL MAPS
This section includes eight regional mapsfour that break down the information from
Figure 1 by region, and another four for Figure 2.
D-l
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals (Northeast)
°
CP
N
A
o 80 160
320
480
I Miles
Vr Slaw Profltams
Lcyul Program idty. County. Spatial Ana I
fktlint mtUtrVOtm Piegrarnt
with E*pteit Evaluation Cntefa
IMalertlwd t, WWIlfe
:'.il.-!Ni.
a»r
Figure D-l. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals (Northeast).
D-2
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals (Southeast)
11
A
E
.'
ft
c
a
O-B
S-iiH'.% F ii>5i -in^
Lacal Programs (Ctty C surrtv Special Area*
K..JIIE-
-I ««
Figure D-2. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals (Southeast).
D-3
-------
N
A
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals (Central)
"
0 150 300
!
-
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals (West)
*
'-
u
0
e
O <*
°*
a
I-T ViMtarrt »nd«r WiMMfe
D
0 .
A
0 130 260 520 780
^^^j ^^^^^^^j I Mile:
UVMIih
i ,
Figure D-4. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Program goals (West).
D-5
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria (Northeast)
ra
A
100 2t>0
BOO
.
*:
Local Program* iCiry. County Sp*oal Ar«a>
WeiUnd and « tfJIdltfa Pioflf ami
v.tfh ExpHcri Euaiuatkin CiiUiu
(0.2,000,000
$2.000 001 - 10.000.0DD
5tO.DOO.D01 . t 200,000,000
Note. Piopramfi n Land Vote nfdwut KwwrvaDon turning
e*a]rt
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria (Southeast)
.
A
0 B5 170
510
=3 Miles
-'.- State Programs
Local Programs (City. County Spedil tutu,
WATIand and of VJMdlitt Proflrattn
rtith Ei-plicit EvatuaKin Crilena
~^_ SO-20COOOO
^H S20M.CWT -10.000.000
HI stoooo.ooi - raooooo.ooo
Nol? Projpams m Land Vote rtrttwut cons**valion tow
eslimaies are nor shown on Bus map
Figure D-6. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Funding levels and explicit evaluation criteria
(Southeast).
D-7
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria (Central)
N
A
.
0 150 300
900
i Miles
Local Pro-grams (City, County Special Area)
Vtelland amJ-oj VWdlife Programs
.,,>h E.pi :r Evalual :-n Criteria
_| W-2.000000
I «OW> DO 1.1 DODO OOP
^B MOOM.OOI- I 200.000.000
Hoc? Programs in Land Vale wichaul oonseivalion funding
estimates are nci shown on Ine map
Figure D-7. 1996, 2000, and 2004 land protection programs: Funding levels and explicit evaluation criteria
(Central).
D-8
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria (West)
N
A
0 130 260
760
t Miles
fr Slat* Program*
LOOSI Piejram*
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |