1 DRAFT EPA/600/R-09/142A
2 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE November 2009
6 An Assessment of Decision-Making Processes:
? The Feasibility of Incorporating Climate Change
8 Information into Land Protection Planning
9
10 NOTICE
11
12 THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT. THIS INFORMA TION IS DISTRIBUTED
13 SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRE-DISSEMINATION PEER REVIEW UNDER
14 APPLICABLE INFORMA TION QUALITY GUIDELINES. IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY
15 DISSEMINATED BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. IT DOES NOT
16 REPRESENT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT ANY AGENCY
17 DETERMINA TION OR POLICY.
18
19
20
21 Global Change Research Program
22 National Center for Environmental Assessment
23 Office of Research and Development
24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
25 Washington, DC 20460
26
-------
1 DISCLAIMER
2
3
4 This document is an external review draft for public and external peer review purposes
5 only. This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review
6 under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by the
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It does not represent and should not be construed to
8 represent any agency determination or policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products
9 does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
10
11
12 ABSTRACT
13 Land protection decisions are long-term, hard to reverse, and resource intensive.
14 Therefore these decisions are important to consider in the context of climate change, because
15 climate change may directly affect the services intended for protection and because parcel
16 selection can exacerbate or ameliorate certain impacts. This research examined the decision-
17 making processes of selected programs that protect land to assess the feasibility of incorporating
18 climate-change impacts into the evaluation of land protection programs. The research focused on
19 a sample of the LandVote database, which documents land protection ballot initiatives that
20 sought to protect wildlife and watersheds. Of this sample, we reviewed the decision-making
21 frameworks of 19 programs. Most programs use quantitative evaluation criteria and a bottom-up
22 process for selecting parcels. Almost all programs have one or more advisory committees. The
23 analysis revealed that strategies that might be useful for incorporating climate change into
24 decision making include new decision-support tools for advisory committees, promulgation of
25 different land protection models, and educational outreach for elected officials. As jurisdictions
26 learn more about possible climate change impacts, certain land protection strategies may become
27 more desirable and feasible as part of a portfolio of adaptation strategies that ameliorate impacts
28 on watersheds and wildlife.
29
30
31 Preferred Citation:
32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009) An Assessment of Decision-Making Processes:
33 The Feasibility of Incorporating Climate Change Information into Land Protection Planning. Global
34 Change Research Program, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC;
35 EPA/600/R-09/142a. Available from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, and
36 online at http://www.epa.gov/ncea.
37
38
-------
1 Table of Contents
2
3 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
4 II. INTRODUCTION 4
5 III. ANALYSIS APPROACH 5
6 IV. ANALYSIS FINDINGS 9
7 Program Goals 10
8 Prioritization and Analysis 11
9 Implementation 18
10 V. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 22
11 VI. REFERENCES 24
12 VII. APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY ABSTRACTS 25
13 1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program* 26
14 1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act 27
15 2000FL-01 Safe Parks and Land Preservation Bond Program 28
16 2000FL-02 Volusia Forever* 29
17 2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever* 30
18 2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program* 31
19 2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program* 32
20 2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program 33
21 2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program 34
22 2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection* 35
23 2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup Measure 36
24 2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program 37
25 2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure 38
26 2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater Management* .... 39
27 2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission 40
28 2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space* 41
29 2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space* 42
30 2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program 43
31 2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program* 44
32 VIII. APPENDIX B: WRITE-UPS OF TIER 4 PROGRAMS 45
33 1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program* 46
34 1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act 51
35 2000FL-01 Safe Parks & Land Preservation Bond Program 57
36 2000FL-02 Volusia Forever* 60
37 2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever* 64
38 2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program* 69
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program* 77
2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program 84
2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program 89
2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection* 94
2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup Measure 99
2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program 103
2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure 107
2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater Management* ..112
2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission 117
2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space* 125
2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space* 129
2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program 133
2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program* 138
IX. APPENDIX C: WRITE-UPS OF TIER 3 PROGRAMS 143
1996CA-01 Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act 144
1996CA-02 Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree-Planting, Senior and Youth
Recreation, Beaches and Wildlife Protection 148
1996CA-03
1996CT-02
1996FL-01
1996MA-01-15
1996OH-01
1999CO-01
2000CA-01
2000CA-02
2000FL-03
2000FL-05
2000IL-01
2000ME-01
2000NJ-01
2000OH-01
2000RI-01
2004AZ-02
2004AZ-03
2004AZ-04
2004CO-02
2004CT-01
2004 FL-02
2004FL-03
2004MA-01
2004MI-03
Open Space, Recreational Playfields, and Creek Restoration Assessment District. 150
Farmington Reservoir 152
Safe Neighborhood Parks Act 154
Cape Cod Open Space Land Acquisition Program 157
Bath Nature Preserve Program 160
Open Space Sales Tax Program 162
Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water and Coastal Protection Act 165
Safe Drinking Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Control Bond 167
Blueprint 2000 & Beyond Program 169
Seminole County Trails and Greenways 172
Lake County Forest Preserve District 174
Freeport Conservation Commission 176
Open Space Trust Fund 179
Clean Ohio Green Space Conservation Program 182
Open Space and Recreation and Clean Water Bonds 185
McMillan Mesa Open Space Land Acquisition 187
Regional Open Space - Observatory Mesa Land Acquisition 189
Neighborhood Open Space and Flagstaff Urban Trail System (PUTS) 191
Tax for Open Space 193
Purchase of the Southington Drive-In 195
Pasco County Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management Program 197
Waterfront Access and Waterfront Preservation Bonds 200
Program to Purchase Hillcrest Country Club 203
Recreational Authority of Traverse City and Garfield Township 205
-------
1
9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2004MO-01
2004NJ-02
2004NY-03
2004PA-01
2004RI-01
2004UT-01
2004WA-01
2004WA-02
Boatyard
X. APPENDIX
Rolla Missouri - Stormwater and Park Land Program
Open Space Trust Fund
Webster Open Space
Nockamixon Township Open Space Program
Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection Bond
Corner Canyon Program
Parks and Recreational Sidewalks Utility Tax Fund
Acquisition of Gig Harbor Waterfront Open Space and Land to Restore Eddon
D: REGIONAL MAPS
708
910
..212
9]5
917
?19
...221
993
??s
-------
1 List of Tables and Figures
2 Tables
3 Table 1: Division of 19 Programs by Process and Selection Criteria 10
4 Table 2: Criteria Used in 19 Land Protection Programs, in Order of Frequency 14
5 Table 3: Data Sources Cited 17
6 Figures
7 Figure 1 7
8 Figure! 8
9 Figure3 226
10 Figure 4 226
11 Figures 227
12 Figure 6 227
13 Figure? 228
14 Figures 228
15 Figure 9 229
16 Figure 10 229
17
-------
1 PREFACE
2
3 This report was prepared by ICF International and the Global Change Research Program (GCRP)
4 in the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) of the Office of Research and
5 Development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The focus of this project was on
6 the decision-making processes of programs across the United States that protect land with the goals of
7 water quality protection and wildlife preservation. These goals may be directly affected by climate
8 change. In order to continue to effectively protect water and wildlife, institutions will need to incorporate
9 climate change information into their decision-making processes. By incorporating climate change
10 information into this process, decision makers are reducing potential climate change impacts. The
11 approach taken in this project is similar to several other assessments and modeling efforts. The NCEA's
12 GCRP also examined decision-making processes in the Chesapeake Bay. In another project, NCEA
13 GCRP reviewed aquatic invasive species management plans to assess the capacity of states to address
14 climate change effects through these plans. The study summarized in this report served as a proof-of-
15 concept for the two aforementioned projects that the decision-making process can be analyzed to
16 determine at which point climate change information could be used. This study also provides a
17 fundamental understanding of the process of land protection in order to construct future scenarios of land-
18 use change that allow a more complete assessment of the effectiveness of land protection strategies.
19
20
-------
1 AUTHORS AND REVIEWERS
2
3 The Global Change Research Program, within the National Center for Environmental
4 Assessment, Office of Research and Development, is responsible for publishing this report. This
5 document was prepared by ICF International under Contract No. GS-10F-0234J, U.S. EPA Order
6 No. 076. Dr. Chris Pyke served as the Technical Project Officer who conceived of the project.
7 Dr. Britta Bierwagen has contributed in the review and editing of the document. The review of
8 land protection programs was completed in December 2005 and updated in July 2009.
9
10 AUTHORS
11 ICF International Washington, DC
12 Anne Choate, Susan Asam, Liisa Ecola+, Toby Krasney, Philip Groth
13
14 U.S. EPA
15 Chris Pyke*, Britta Bierwagen
16
17
18 REVIEWERS
19 U.S. EPA
20 Stephanie Bertaina, Laura Gabanski, Kathy Hernandez
21
22 External
23
24
25 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
26 We would like to thank the staff of numerous city, county, and state programs who
27 reviewed our summaries of their programs to ensure accuracy. Review comments from many
28 individuals greatly improved this document.
^Present affiliation: RAND Corporation, Washington, DC
*Present affiliation: U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, DC
-------
i I. Executive Summary
2 Climate and land-use changes interact; these interactions have the ability to amplify or dampen climate
3 change effects. Research shows that strategic land management, including land protection, can ameliorate
4 some of these effects. Given the rapid rate of land development, understanding the process of land
5 protection becomes more urgent, especially if this strategy is part of a portfolio of climate adaptation
6 options. Such recommendations are becoming more prevalent (e.g., Maryland's Climate Action Plan;
7 Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2008), especially as states and municipalities draft plans to
8 address climate change.
9 This review examines the decision-making processes of local, county, and state programs that protect
10 land. The study evaluates the feasibility of incorporating information about climate change impacts into
11 the assessment of land protection programs. To that end, this study analyzed how local, county, and state
12 governments make decisions regarding which parcels of land to protect. This report analyses three main
13 aspects of land protection programs: program goals, prioritization and analysis, and implementation.
14 This research focused on a selected sample of the LandVote database maintained by the Trust for Public
15 Land. This database collects information on all ballot measures (both advisory and funded measures) in
16 the United States pertaining to land preservation. We reviewed all ballot measures in 1996, 2000, and
17 2004, and eliminated all measures that did not pass from further consideration. Next, we reviewed the
18 successful measures based on their stated goals in the LandVote database. Programs focusing on wildlife
19 and watershed protection were retained; these programs, as compared to those citing recreation and open
20 space, seemed more likely to have a systemized decision-making process and be concerned with broader
21 environmental impacts. Of the 75 programs focusing on wildlife and watershed protection, we conducted
22 literature searches and online research into 53 (several were eliminated due to duplication, lack of
23 information, or other reasons). Of those, 19 programs had definite evaluation criteria and a quantitative or
24 qualitative method for applying them. Summaries of all 53 programs are available in Appendices B and
25 C. In the case of the 19 programs with definitive evaluation criteria, we engaged program staff as
26 reviewers of our program summaries to ensure that we were properly characterizing their respective
27 decision-making frameworks.1
28 We classified the 19 programs along two broad criteria: (1) whether they had quantitative or qualitative
29 methods for applying evaluation criteria; and (2) whether
30 land was selected for preservation by a top-down (identified Table ES'L p™gram evaluation criteria.
31 by program staff based on an objective standard), bottom-up
32 (nominated by landowners or public or private agencies), or
33 hybrid (combining aspects of top-down and bottom-up)
34 process. Table ES-1 shows the breakdown of how many
35 programs fell into each category. Eleven programs are
36 bottom-up, while only two are top-down; the remaining six
37 are hybrids.
38 Regarding program goals, we found that they ranged from the very specific (e.g., preserve land around a
39 particular aquifer) to the fairly broad (e.g., preserve land for wildlife, wetlands, ecological, recreational,
40 and open space needs). The two top-down programs had narrow program goals, while the bottom-up
41 programs were generally broader in nature. In 2005, only one program had considered climate change
Top-down
Hybrid
Bottom-up
Qualitative
0
1
Quantitative
JThe 19 programs were contacted again in 2009; 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.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 1
-------
1 among their goals, and no additional programs indicated in the 2009 update that they have added climate
2 change adaptation as a goal. Many programs were initiated because of the threat of development.
3 In terms of prioritization, the most common arrangement (eight programs) was bottom-up, in which
4 individual landowners or other entities (such as local governments and non-profit organizations) request
5 the consideration of specific parcels for preservation. The other three bottom-up programs were
6 conventional grant programs, in which the jurisdiction gives money to another entity on a competitive
7 basis. There were two types of hybrid programs: three with separate funding tracks for bottom-up and
8 top-down selection processes and three that accept nominations for parcels on a priority list. The two top-
9 down programs select and prioritize parcels through scientific study of environmental characteristics.
10 Because they were selected based on wildlife and watershed protection, all of the programs included those
11 two aspects among their evaluation criteria. The other most common criteria used were contiguity to other
12 open space, management issues (such as maintenance and schedule), financial issues (cost and matching
13 funds), recreation, and threat of loss. Most programs contain both objective (e.g., contiguity, presence of
14 endangered species) as well as subjective (aesthetic value) criteria.
15 There were more programs using quantitative than qualitative criteria. The qualitative programs rely on
16 expert judgment to apply the criteria, while the quantitative programs use some type of numeric system.
17 The range of these systems include weighting and point systems subjectively assigned, systems with
18 points assigned to measurable indicators, and GIS systems that tie a variety of data together to create a
19 ranking. Some jurisdictions were moving from qualitative to quantitative on the basis that their decisions
20 would be more defensible and successful if quantified, and others were moving in the opposite direction
21 on the basis that experts should have free rein and that a point system is too confining.
22 Most programs incorporated a fair amount of locally generated data to assist with decision making, such
23 as local open space plans, aerial photos, maps, and development projections. Six programs used some
24 type of state data as well, including data on groundwater and endangered species. Five programs
25 incorporated some federal data, such as U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps and Census projections.
26 Finally, 11 programs used geographic information systems (GIS) analysis, although the source and type
27 of the data layers was not always clear.
28 In terms of program implementation, 11 of 19 programs were county-run, a higher proportion than in the
29 earlier sample of all programs with watershed and wildlife criteria. Almost all of the programs have one
30 or more advisory committees composed in part or in total of citizens, many of whom have particular
31 experience in land use or environmental fields. The role of this advisory committee is to make
32 recommendations on specific land parcels to the decision-making authority, which in most cases is the
33 legislative body of the jurisdiction (the city council or county commissioners). In some cases, the
34 legislative body usually accepts the recommendations; in other cases, political or financial concerns have
35 prompted denials of recommended parcels.
36 There also were several other implementation issues. There are different partnership types, ranging from
37 informal, ad hoc collaborations to acquire specific parcels to formal relationships, particularly with land
38 trusts. There are also differing opinions on the value of purchasing land outright as opposed to purchasing
39 development rights, with some programs favoring the latter to avoid the burden of public landownership.
40 Financial issues were a major concern to some programs, especially to programs in areas of high land
41 prices with restrictions on spending more than the appraised value. Additionally, only a few programs
42 have provisions for funding of maintenance once the land is acquired.
43 This review demonstrates that there are opportunities to include climate change information in the
44 decision-making processes of land protection programs. Mechanisms for incorporating such information
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 2
-------
1 include: (1) developing decision-support tools for advisory committees; (2) providing a variety of
2 methods to preserve lands; (3) educating elected officials who approve land protection decisions about the
3 climate change benefits; (4) engaging in strategic parcel selection; (5) coordinating with land-use
4 planning processes; and (6) developing tools for evaluating and prioritizing land parcels for protection.
5 Incorporating climate change information in these decision-making processes can assist with maintaining
6 land protection goals over time, such as wildlife, habitat and high water quality, as well as contribute to
7 climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 3
-------
i II. Introduction
2 Interactions between climate and land use have the potential to exacerbate or ameliorate environmental
3 impacts (Pyke, 2004). Therefore, in developing adaptive strategies, land protection programs should be
4 considered as part of the solution (Pyke and Andelman, 2007; Hannah, 2008). Today, land protection
5 decisions are generally made without respect to their implications for future climate change, though
6 decisions often address other program goals that play a role in climate change adaptation, including
7 habitat preservation, wetlands protection, and water quality. As states and municipalities engage in
8 planning their responses to climate change, they are identifying land protection as an adaptive strategy
9 (Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2008).
10 The land protection process is important to understand because land development has been increasing at
11 an average of 1.7 million acres per year with an estimated 6.8 million acres of development have been
12 added since 20052. The U.S. population is expected to increase to between approximately 380 million and
13 over 420 million by 2050 depending on scenario (USEPA, 2009), during which time demand for open
14 space and other protected areas is likely to increase (Kline, 2006).
15 Realizing the value of land protection for adaptation requires a realistic assessment of existing practices,
16 particularly decision-making processes. Understanding the decision-making process is an important
17 component in the success of protected areas, particularly those areas increasingly embedded in human-
18 dominated landscapes (Heller and Zavaleta, 2009; Steelman and Hess, 2009). The potential use of land
19 protection as an adaptation strategy is limited if the decision-making process does not facilitate this use
20 (CCSP, 2008).
21 Land protection decisions, like many other decisions made by voters and local, county, and state officials
22 are particularly important in the context of climate change and projected climate change impacts. From an
23 operational standpoint, land protection decisions are long-term, hard to reverse, and resource-intensive.
24 Decisions meeting these criteria are more sensitive to climate change than others and are therefore good
25 candidates for decision support and climate change information (Sussman and Freed, 2008). For these
26 reasons, it is important that protected lands are chosen in light of projected climate change impacts so that
27 these long-term, irreversible investments meet their intended goals and continue to serve their
28 communities. From an environmental standpoint, land-use decisions are integrally connected to climate
29 and changes in climate will have significant impacts on the lands that are protected and the services those
30 protected lands provide. To the extent that parcel selection can be done in a way that ameliorates climate
31 impacts, rather than exacerbating them, the benefits of protecting these lands will go far beyond many of
32 their imminent objectives.
33 Protected lands can be used strategically to ameliorate climate change effects through a variety of
34 management approaches (Pyke and Andelman, 2007). Under some proposed carbon credit trading
35 scheme, such protected lands even have the potential to generate revenue for landowners and state and
36 local governments, though this report does not specifically address this topic3. However, this study
37 emphasized decisions that are likely to identify land parcels that can lessen the effects of climate change
38 impacts in a given area with respect to water quality and other environmental features.
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.
3 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.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 4
-------
1 This study reviews decision-making processes for a sample of land protection programs in the US. The
2 purpose of this study is to understand who makes decisions regarding land for preservation and how those
3 decisions are made. Three main questions guide this review: what are the range of program goals, how are
4 parcels selected and prioritized, and what are the characteristics of implementation that affect the
5 programs' overall outcome. Less attention was paid to the results of the programs in terms of funding
6 made available and the number of acres protected. This review describes existing selection processes and
7 considers how climate change information may be incorporated in order to ensure that land protection
8 goals are met in the future; this review is also an initial step in understanding the spatial distribution of
9 protected areas across the landscape. Understanding the process of land protection through an analysis of
10 the decisions is fundamental to developing future scenarios of land-use change that assess consequences
11 on wildlife and water quality.
12 The review was completed and described in a draft report in 2005. Nearly 4 years later, the findings
13 remain relevant and timely. Currently more than $15 billion of U.S. government funding is available to
14 federal natural resource agencies under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, some of
15 which is available to state and local land protection agencies. For this reason, leveraging existing funds
16 and public support for strategic land protection efforts that will increase resilience to climate change
17 impacts has never been more critical.
18
19 III. Analysis Approach
20 The scope of land protection efforts in the United States is expanding rapidly with dozens of new
21 programs initiated each year. The sheer number of programs made a complete survey impossible and
22 motivated the development of a stratified sampling approach to compile information about different types
23 of programs.
24 This study used a four-step framework, described below.
25 Step 1: Define the Universe of Land Protection Programs
26 We began by defining the universe of land protection programs for this analysis to include those programs
27 recorded in the Trust for Public Land's LandVote database. LandVote collects information on all local,
28 county, special district, and state elections in which voters choose whether to pass measures (advisory or
29 including funding) that are related to land preservation. LandVote covers a period of nine years—1994 to
30 2005.
31 To provide a stratified random sample of programs from the 1,632 measures in the LandVote database,
32 we selected three years of interest: 1996, 2000, and 2004. These coincided with presidential election years
33 and presumably higher voter turnout; also each of these years had substantially more measures up for vote
34 than the previous year (in 1996 and 2000 there were more than double the number from the previous
35 year). Within each of these years, we selected only those programs approved by voters for further
36 consideration. Of the initial list of 1,632 measures, voters approved only 406 measures.
37 Step 2: Screen Programs to Reflect Stated Goals
38 We evaluated the 406 land protection programs identified above based on the publicly stated goals as
39 reported by LandVote. We assigned each program a score to reflect the relevance of land protection goals
40 to the specific interests of EPA's Global Change Research Program (GCRP), namely water quality and
41 wildlife protection. At this stage, we selected only those programs claiming to protect water or watershed
42 resources (e.g., water quantity or quality) or biodiversity (e.g., wildlife or habitat). This excluded
43 programs whose main goal was preserving more broadly defined open space (for recreation or scenic
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 5
-------
1 value), and resulted in a list of 75 programs for further research. We used a convention of year passed,
2 state abbreviation, and program identification number to assign a unique name to each program; for
3 example, 2000FL-01 signifies a program that passed in Florida in 2000; if a second program from Florida
4 in 2000 was evaluated, it would be 2000FL-02.
5 Step 3: Evaluate Programs Aimed at Protecting Water Quality and/or
6 Wildlife
7 For each of the 75 programs citing water quality and/or wildlife protection as primary goals, we
8 conducted preliminary analyses using published sources (generally literature searches for articles and
9 online research) on program goals, parcel selection, prioritization criteria, decision making, mapping, and
10 program outcomes. During this research, we placed a particular emphasis on identifying the criteria used
11 to guide parcel selection. This effort resulted in 53 write-ups,4 34 of which are included in Appendix C.
12 Of the 53 programs included in this research, 20 programs mentioned explicit evaluation criteria; 10
13 described quantitative means of applying criteria while the other 10 used cited qualitative means. We used
14 these 20 programs in the next step of the framework.
15 Step 4: Screen Water and Wildlife Programs to Reflect Selection Criteria
16 For these 20 programs, we conducted a more detailed assessment to understand the evaluation criteria
17 used to select parcels, the appointment of selection committee members, and the information used to
18 implement the evaluation criteria more thoroughly. To accomplish this, we identified specific data gaps
19 for various programs and discussed these data gaps with program managers.
20 This process yielded a set of 19 case studies with relatively in-depth information for a well-specified
21 subset of programs. (Of these, two programs were essentially the same program authorized in different
22 years and therefore combined into one write-up.) Appendix A has short one-page summaries of each of
23 the 19 programs, while Appendix B consists of the in-depth write-ups. The 19 programs are the basis of
24 the findings discussed in Section IV.
25 Figures 1 and 2 depict the geographic distribution of the 406 programs identified in Step 2. Figure 1
26 shows the distribution of programs as well as the program focus—wetlands, wildlife, both, or neither.
27 Figure 1 also shows that many of the programs focus on open space, but not explicitly on wetlands or
28 wildlife; these programs were eliminated from further analysis. The final subset of programs from Step 4
29 is indicated in the figures with a black box around the symbol. Figure 2 shows the same programs but
30 stratified by funding level, with darker shading indicating higher funding levels. Regional maps with
31 these same indicators are available in Appendix D.
32
4 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.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 6
-------
1 Figure 1
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
• Watershed & Wildlife
• Watershed
I—I Wildlife
Other
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page?
-------
1 Figure 2
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria
* State Programs
O Local Programs (City, County, Special Area)
Wetland and/or Wildlife Programs
with Explicit Evaluation Criteria
| | SO-2,000,000
^B 32.000,001 - 10.000.000
^H $10,000,001 - 1,200,000,000
Note: Programs in Land Vote without conservation funding
estimates are not shown on this map.
(CF20S102SJAHOQ2
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
PageS
-------
i IV. Analysis Findings
2 The analysis findings are organized around the three fundamental parts of the land protection decision-
3 making process. These address why programs are protecting land, how they are selecting specific parcels,
4 and how they implement their selection. Specifically, we examined the following questions:
5 Program Goals
6 What is the range of program goals?
7 What prompted the creation of the program?
8 Prioritization and Analysis
9 How are land parcels selected?
10 What criteria are used?
11 How are criteria applied?
12 Where do the data come from?
13 Implementation
14 Who implements the program?
15 Who conducts the analysis?
16 Who is the ultimate decision maker?
17 How does it partner with other governmental agencies or institutions?
18 What problems have the programs encountered?
19 Where do program staff obtain information?
20 Under each theme, the emphasis is on the range of experiences across the 19 programs in our sample, as
21 well as any patterns noted within program types, location, size, and level of government. General patterns
22 are discussed, with specific examples highlighted and exceptions noted.
23 To think about patterns broadly within the 19 programs, we classified them according to two criteria,
24 which broadly captured the processes of all of the sampled programs:
25 1) Is the decision-making process top-down, hybrid, or bottom-up? Top-down refers to programs where
26 specific parcels of land were selected specifically for preservation, while bottom-up means that while the
27 program has general criteria, parcels are suggested for preservation by landowners, public agencies, or
28 non-profits and then evaluated under the program. Hybrid programs combine both these elements.
29 2) Are decision criteria qualitative or quantitative? This refers to how the criteria are applied. If programs
30 apply criteria objectively using some type of point system or weighting, we consider the program
31 quantitative, whereas if programs apply criteria more subjectively, the program is qualitative. Note that a
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 9
-------
program could apply a general set of criteria either way; the distinction lies in the way they are applied,
not the criteria themselves.
Table 1 shows how the programs break down along these two dimensions.
Table 1: Division of 19 Programs by Process and Selection Criteria
Qualitative Quantitative
Top-down
Hybrid
Bottom-up
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 County
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 County
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
5 Program Goals
6 We selected these 19 programs for further analysis because of their stated commitments to watershed and
7 wildlife protection. In addition to watershed and wildlife protection, commonly mentioned goals included
8 protection of open space for public recreational use, scenic value, ecological diversity, and encroachment
9 from development. Only one program, 1996NY-01, has a goal related to climate change, increasing
10 carbon sequestration in forests.
11 What is the range of program goals? Goals ranged from the very specific to the very broad. The two
12 top-down programs, 2000TX-01 and 2004KS-01, both had very specific water quality goals. Program
13 2000TX-01 was set up to preserve land around the Edwards Aquifer, the primary source of drinking water
14 for the City of San Antonio, which administers the program. Program 2004KS-01 focuses exclusively on
15 stream protection. Given that these two programs were also the only two top-down models, we infer that a
16 program focused on a tangible goal is more likely to use a quantitative, data-driven approach to selecting
17 land than a program with many and/or broader goals. Program 2004CA-02 also focused almost
18 exclusively on water quality protection, with an eye to achieving total maximum daily load (TMDL)
19 goals, but the program did not pre-identify parcels for preservation.
20 The majority of programs incorporate a wider range of goals. Some do so explicitly by preserving land in
21 distinct categories. For example, program 2004AZ-01, the county-wide Sonoran Desert Open Space
22 program, lists four categories in which land can be preserved, each linked to a different goal: community
23 open space (scenic and recreation value), urban open space (local jurisdiction priorities), habitat
24 protection (biological indicators), and Davis-Monthan open space (prevention of encroachment at a
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 10
-------
1 military base). Others have a long list. For example, program 2000FL-02 states its goals as "Conserve,
2 maintain and restore the natural environment and provide access for the enjoyment and education of the
3 public; provide resources to ensure that sufficient quantities of water are available to meet current and
4 future needs; meet the need for high-quality resource based outdoor opportunities, greenways, trails, and
5 open space; preserve the habitat and water recharge; ensure that the natural resource values of such lands
6 are protected and that the public has the opportunity to enjoy the lands to their fullest potential."
7 The programs with multiple goals tend to give them equal weight formally. However, in some cases there
8 is an informal understanding that some goals are more important than others. For example, while the
9 2004CO-01 program goals are "To preserve land that protects water quality; protect wildlife areas,
10 wetlands, rivers, and streams; preserve farmland; protect open space to limit sprawl; and for creating,
11 improving, and maintaining parks, trails, and recreation facilities," according to program staff preserving
12 lands from development was a higher priority than creating recreational facilities. In addition, programs
13 with multiple goals tend to give greater weight to parcels that achieve more than one goal, even if the
14 individual goals have a similar ranking (program 1996NY-01 is one example).
15 What prompted the creation of the program? In more than half the case studies, the impetus for the
16 program came from development proposals on or near those land parcels ultimately selected for
17 protection, and many programs were created in response to concerns from citizens' groups. As an
18 example, the three programs in Michigan (2000MI-01, 2000MI-02, 2004MI-01) were grassroots efforts to
19 protect natural areas in traditionally rural or semi-rural areas from development. Program 2000WI-01 also
20 mentioned development pressures and the rising cost of land, but with less of an emphasis on grassroots
21 or citizens' involvement. In the 2004NC-02 case study, a grassroots group advocated for an open space
22 program, to which the County Commissioners ultimately agreed; many of the group's members now
23 serve on the committee that helps implement the program.
24 Of the other programs, water quality protection was the largest motivating factor. Program 2000TX-01
25 was a grassroots effort for the protection of water quality and quantity in Edwards Aquifer, the only
26 source of drinking water in the area. Program 2004CA-02 is primarily a TMDL attainment program with
27 land protection as one of several tools to achieve that goal. Stormwater management motivated the
28 creation of program 2004KS-01, while a desire to protect habitat and water quality motivated program
29 2004AZ-01.
30 Prioritization and Analysis
31 Prioritization and analysis, the second major theme we looked at, addresses how decisions are made
32 regarding which parcels to target for acquisition. This was considered the most important component of
33 the analysis, as it includes how parcels are selected, what criteria are used to evaluated them, how the
34 criteria are applied, and what data sources are employed. There was a substantial amount of variation
35 among the 19 programs on these dimensions.
36 How are land parcels selected? We describe eleven of the 19 programs as "bottom-up," meaning that
37 once the program structure is in place, a variety of stakeholders can nominate lands for preservation. They
38 are then evaluated using the program criteria, and selected for preservation based on their performance on
39 those criteria.
40 In the most common arrangement, used in eight programs, the county or city running the program accepts
41 applications from private landowners who are interested in having the public sector purchase their land.
42 The two programs in Michigan (2000MI-01 and 2004MI-01) also include provisions whereby the agency
43 can solicit landowners to apply for the program. Of the four Florida programs (2000FL-01, 2000FL-02,
44 2004FL-01, and 2000FL-04), 2000FL-04, Volusia Forever, accepts properties for consideration in two
45 categories: within and outside of the Conservation Corridor. If properties outside the corridor are
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 11
-------
1 nominated, they undergo a selection process to determine whether they should be placed on the priority
2 acquisition list, but properties within the corridor are placed on the list immediately. Program 1996CT-01
3 has a similar priority list, but will also take applications from landowners with parcels not on the list.
4 Program 2004NY-01 also falls into this category.
5 Three programs operate as grant programs, whereby a county provides funding for others to purchase land
6 or development rights. The only substantive difference from the programs described above is that the
7 counties administering the program do not wish to purchase the land themselves. In program 2000WI-01,
8 a county program, local jurisdictions or non-profit organizations must submit parcels for consideration; if
9 successful, the submitting organization receives a grant to purchase the land. Program 2004CO-01 is
10 similar; Program 2004NY-02 allows private individuals to make grant applications, provided they have
11 the support of their jurisdiction.
12 As discussed in the Program Goals section, only two programs are top-down, meaning that the
13 jurisdiction implementing the program targeted certain parcels for preservation and is not interested in
14 considering others. Program 2000TX-01 targets only lands around the Edwards Aquifer, while 2000KS-
15 01 targets only lands identified through a stream inventory. Program 2000KS-01 does accept land
16 donations from outside these priority areas, but does not solicit or pay for them.
17 The six remaining programs are hybrids, combining characteristics of bottom-up and top-down programs.
18 Essentially, there are two types of hybrids: those with two separate funding tracks (i.e., some parcels are
19 targeted based on a predetermined list and others are nominated for preservation), and those with a
20 priority list that accept nominations (as opposed to pursuing them based on internal prioritization). In the
21 first type, program 2004AZ-01 listed all lands to be preserved within the bond measure, but identified
22 them through some top-down processes (biological review) and others through bottom-up (nominations
23 from community groups). Program 2004NC-01 identifies specific watersheds and stream corridors to
24 protect and targets those for acquisition, but also allows potential partners to suggest other parcels for
25 preservation. Similarly, program 2004NC-02 has two avenues for parcel selection: parcels located in one
26 of nine targeted areas and a nomination process that selects parcels.
27 In the second hybrid category, program 2004CA-02 began with a priority list of polluted waters and a
28 very specific goal of meeting TMDL standards, but also allows the public to propose lands for
29 preservation. Program 2000MI-02 has an open space map developed through GIS analysis and accepts
30 applications from landowners whose parcels lie within those boundaries. Under program 1996NY-01,
31 landowners' nominations receive greater weight if they fall within a priority area. While the two top-
32 down programs are both municipal, there do not seem to be any other relationships between the size or
33 level of the program and the selection process.
34 What criteria are used? Another program dimension is the type of criteria used to make decisions about
35 which parcels to target. The top-down programs use these criteria at an early stage to develop the targeted
36 list, while the bottom-up programs use them to select among nominated parcels.
37 All of the 19 programs include both criteria related to watershed and wildlife protection as well as other
38 criteria. In order to provide a snapshot of the criteria used across the programs, we compiled the criteria
39 into a single table to show the frequency with which each criterion was applied (Table 2). Since the
40 wording varied by program, we standardized the criteria across programs to make them comparable. In
41 some cases, a program used multiple variations on a single criterion, which explains why many criteria
42 have 2 or more occurrences in a single program. For example, program 2000MI-02 listed as distinct
43 criteria "ecosystems of state, regional or local importance," "wildlife or vegetation and/or overall high
44 diversity of species," "contains habitat for protected species," and "helps connect prime greenways and
45 wildlife corridors." We classified all of these under "habitat," so this program shows four criteria under
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 12
-------
1 habitat. In addition, we divided wildlife into habitat/biodiversity and geology/natural resources, while we
2 divided watersheds into wetlands and water quality. We counted each distinct subcriterion as a single
3 criterion (
4 Table 2).
5 Programs cited habitat/land 32 times, and water issues 24 times. The next most frequent criterion was
6 contiguity or buffer to protected lands, which was cited 19 times. Management issues (such as the
7 existence of a management plan or maintenance issues) and financial issues (such as the availability of
8 matching funds and appraised value) and followed with 15 and 14 mentions respectively. This would
9 seem to indicate that whatever the goals of the program, financial and managerial issues are an integral
10 part of decision making. No other criterion was mentioned more than ten times total; others with multiple
11 mentions included recreational value (ten mentions), development pressure (nine), cultural/historic value
12 (eight), conformity with existing plans (eight), size (seven), partnerships (seven), and aesthetic value
13 (seven).
14
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 13
-------
Table 2: Criteria Used in 19 Land Protection Programs
Background Information
Program ID Quant/ Explanation of Criteria
Qual
Criteria (note: wording may differ from program documents)
Habitat/ Water Other issues listed in order of frequency
land issues
E -
ro
S> o o>
Q_ d C
> I S
« S
° » c
g 15- »
o ° -£
o f 2
S |
8- 8
» o IE
II
£ <1> o O
§ I a ^
O S) ±i
2 "&
Total number of times criteria cited
19 15 14 10 9 8 8 7
75443222222221
3
4
1996CT-01
1996NY-01
Quant.
Quant.
2000FL-04 Quant.
2000MI-01
2000MI-02
Qual.
Quant.
2000TX-01 Quant.
2000WI-01 Quant.
3 criteria each scored -2 to +2
(component parts are checked)
3 very broad criteria, ranked on
point system (all component parts
are checked)
11 criteria
5 broad criteria (all component
parts are checked)
6 broad criteria scored on a point
basis (all component parts are
checked)
4 broad criteria (all component
parts are checked)
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 CIS plus 1
screening criteria; weighted and
divided into tiers (component
parts checked)
16 criteria in 3 areas, ranked on a
point scale
2004AZ-01 Qual. 3 criteria
2004CA-02 Quant. 3 weighted criteria with sub-
sections (component parts are
checked)
2004CO-01 Qual. 12 criteria
2004FL-01 Quant. Must meet 2 of 5 screening
criteria, then be scored on matrix
(matrix not developed yet;
component parts are checked)
2004KS-01 Qual. 9 criteria specified, but "ma
factors"
2004MI-01 Quant. 2 sets of 3 broad criteria
depending whether land is ag or
open space (all open space
component parts are checked)
2004NC-01 Quant. 15 criteria
2004NC-02 Qual. 11 types of land can be protected
(all component parts are
checked)
2004NY-01 Qual. 11 criteria for open space projects
2004NY-02 Quant. Must fall in at least 1 of 5
categories; 5 other supplemental
criteria; ranked on point system
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 5
5
1 2
111 1
31 1 1
1 2111
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 14
-------
1 How are criteria applied? These criteria can be applied in either qualitative or quantitative fashion.
2 Qualitative application of selection criteria tend to be subjective, while quantitative application indicates
3 that some type of numeric ranking, weighting, or scoring is applied. Although the quantitative programs
4 are by nature more objective because they tend to apply measurable criteria, it is possible to have a
5 criterion that can only be assessed subjectively (such as aesthetic value) as part of a quantitative system if
6 it were assigned a point value.
7 In fact, most programs used a mixture of objective and subjective criteria, regardless of whether they
8 apply these qualitatively or quantitatively. For example, program 2004NC-01 is a quantitative program, in
9 that it weights the criteria, but it includes such subjective criteria as aesthetic value and manageability. On
10 the other hand, 2000FL-01, a qualitative program, includes objective criteria such as habitat type,
11 presence of invasive species, and stage of ecological succession. Only one program, 1996CT-01, is
12 entirely subjective, in keeping with its goal of preserving character.
13 As noted in Table 1, we characterized six programs as qualitative. Of these, some provide guidance on
14 using the criteria while others do not. Program 2000MI-01 has a checklist of questions to be answered
15 either yes/no or medium/high/very high. Program 2000FL-02 requires that for a parcel to be considered, it
16 must meet four of 13 subcriteria, and each criterion receives a ranking from low to high. The other
17 programs rely on the knowledge of reviewers to use the criteria and do not give particular instructions; the
18 bond measure for program 2004AZ-01 already listed the parcels to be preserved, so there is no ongoing
19 evaluation process.
20 Thirteen programs were characterized as quantitative, but within this designation there was a range of
21 ways in which the prioritization was implemented. The most basic involved some type of weighting or
22 ranking, done on a somewhat subjective basis. For example, program 2004CA-01 uses a weighting
23 system, in which three broad criteria are given unequal weights (water quality improvements 40 percent,
24 and multiple objectives and project feasibility 30 percent each). Within each criterion, there are several
25 sub-criteria, ranked on scales with limited room for nuances (either yes/no or low/medium/high). Program
26 2000WI-01 uses points for each criterion, for a maximum possible score of 255; up to 10 points can also
27 be deducted for negative factors (although these are not defined). The maximum number of points
28 available for any single criterion range from 10 (economic factors, density standards) to 40 (development
29 potential, natural resources: water). Programs 1996CT-01, 2004NC-01, 1996NY-01, 2004NC-02,
30 2004NY-02, and 2000FL-04 also used similar methods.
31 Programs such as 2004MI-01, a point-based system in which points are assigned based on measurable
32 indicators, result in more objective findings. For example, for the criterion wetlands and/or floodplain,
33 points are assigned based on the percentage of the parcel with wetlands and/or floodplain features: 0
34 points for no features, 3 points if less than 10 percent of the parcel contains such features, 7 points if
35 between 10 and 20 percent of the parcels contains such features, and 11 points if over 20 percent of the
36 parcels contains such features. Program 2000MI-02 operates in a similar fashion. 2004 FL-01 will
37 eventually adopt a Site Scoring Matrix, but at the time of this writing it had not yet been developed.
38 Program 2000TX-01 layered three main criteria, each with multiple subcriteria, into a single GIS
39 program. The GIS program then weighted the criteria, with geologic at 50 percent, biologic 20 percent,
40 and watershed 30 percent. The more subcriteria a parcel met, the higher the weighting. The program
41 ultimately ranked every square meter in the study region and assigned it to one of eight categories, with
42 the top three categories deemed the most important to preserve. Program 2004KS-01 used a variety of
43 measurable indicators, such as streams' biological health and hydraulic capacity, to create a five-tiered
44 ranking system for streams.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 15
-------
1 Several jurisdictions noted that they were moving from a qualitative to a quantitative selection process, or
2 vice versa. Program 2004NY-01 contains a detailed list of criteria that was initially intended to form the
3 basis of a quantitative system, but committee members found that overly restrictive and wanted to rely on
4 their own judgment. Program 2000FL-04 previously used the weighting to assign parcels to a priority list,
5 but now all parcels that pass the screening process are considered equally important for acquisition. The
6 system was changed because program managers felt the county would have more leverage in negotiating
7 with landowners if all parcels were considered important.
8 On the other hand, program 2004FL-01 deliberately adopted a quantitative strategy because research into
9 existing programs indicated that a quantitative approach would be more successful. Program 2004NY-02
10 has a subjective weighting system, but is moving towards making it more objective, in the hopes of
11 creating defensible decisions. This may be related to an incident in which a parcel with low ratings was
12 approved because the applicant threatened to sue if the parcel was not approved for funding.
13 Where do the data come from? The programs vary in the extent to which they rely on data, but all
14 incorporate some type of data in the decision-making process. Table 3 lists all data sources mentioned
15 either in the published information or by our contacts.
16 In general, for the grant programs and other bottom-up programs, applicants supply data. Typical data
17 requested includes maps (such as existing land use maps or topographic maps), site plans, and hazard
18 assessments. These programs often rely heavily on the expertise of the committee members evaluating the
19 application, as well as on site visits and existing city or county master plans or open space plans. After
20 existing open space maps, expert knowledge was the most commonly cited data source.
21 The top-down and hybrid programs, which tend to lean more towards quantitative decision making,
22 employed a wide range of data sources, including state and federal data such as statewide data on
23 endangered species and U.S. Geological Survey maps. However, no single state or federal data source
24 was cited more than a few times. This could be because the range of data sources is truly wide, or because
25 the persons contacted were not familiar with all of the data employed. For example, program 2004AZ-01
26 conducted a five-year biological survey to identify species and habitat as indicators of ecological health;
27 we identify this as a single data source ("species and habitat survey") in Table 3 although presumably the
28 effort involved more extensive data collection.
29 Note also that in some cases programs identified specific GIS layers, while in others GIS was simply
30 cited as one of several data sources. While we recognize that GIS is an analysis tool, not a data source, in
31 some cases the staff was not familiar with the specific data layers used in the analysis. Table 3 lists any
32 GIS data layers under a separate GIS category, since in most cases it was not clear who provided the
33 original data. Likewise, in some cases programs listed "consultant reports" as data sources, although it is
34 not clear what data the consultants used to determine their findings.
35 It was not always clear who collected the data. In some cases it was the review committee; in others, an
36 outside consultant or staff.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 16
-------
1 Table 3: Data Sources Cited
Background Information
Data Types
Program ID Quant/
Qual
I £
11
5 S
ro 8
v 8
•
1 I
I
ll
E E S E £• =
GIS
I ? i
P -23 3
ro -S °J
E 3 «
.2 ts a>
5 £ 4
£ -2 •$
£3 £5 w
III
I » g,
I I »
I I g
111
D)
1 °" «
I I
s s § s
& g> i= Q)
»
.i I 8 8.
>. E 2 -S
fill
Q) ro •;= -1-
E £
£• .E
" m
7|6|5|5|5|4|4|
4 I 3 I 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
2 I 2 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1
1996CT-01
1996NY-01
2000FL-01
2000FL-02
2000FL-04
2000MI-01
2000MI-02
2000TX-01
2000WI-01
2004AZ-01
2004CA-02
2004CO-01
2004FL-01
2004KS-01
2004MI-01
2004NC-01
2004NC-02
2004NY-01
2004NY-02
XXX XX
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 17
-------
i Implementation
2 This section considers how programs implement the goals and prioritization criteria to preserve land. We
3 have already discussed some implementation issues, such as parcels identification, in the preceding
4 sections. This section addresses the interlocking roles of the implementing organization, the committee
5 that analyzes the information available, the decision-making authority, and partner organizations, whether
6 public or non-profit. Despite the wide differences in program goals and methods of parcel selection and
7 prioritization, most programs have a similar implementing structure, with an outside advisory committee
8 conducting the analysis, reporting to the public agency staff, and an elected body making the final
9 decision.
10 Who implements the program? Of the 19 programs analyzed, six are municipal, 11 are county, one is
11 joint city-county, and one is state. Compared to the initial 53 programs we reviewed, this represents a
12 larger proportion of counties and a lower one of municipalities and states. Of the initial 19 county
13 programs, 11 had quantitative or qualitative criteria, but only six of 25 municipal programs and one of
14 seven state programs reported qualitative or quantitative selection processes.
15 Although this represents an admittedly small sample size, this would seem to suggest that county
16 programs are more likely to use qualitative or quantitative selection criteria than municipal or state
17 programs. One hypothesis might be that county programs are the best level at which to undertake land
18 preservation; perhaps municipalities overall are too small to achieve effective preservation, or more prone
19 to opportunistic programs in which land is preserved due to its availability, while states are too large for
20 such analysis. Alternatively, regional cooperation among all levels of government and involved entities is
21 necessary for effective land protection programs, and county governments represent a balance of local
22 involvement and regional coordination. However, these are very tentative hypotheses; a larger sample
23 size would need to be analyzed to determine if they are valid.
24 Who conducts the analysis? With one exception, all of the programs have some type of advisory
25 committee that makes recommendations on which parcels of land should be preserved. (In the exception,
26 program 2000KS-01, the public sector is responsible for all aspects of decision making.) Twelve of the
27 programs have one advisory committee. In large part, these are composed of private citizens selected by
28 an elected body. In some cases, there are strict requirements for the composition of the committee. For
29 example, in program 2000FL-04, the Land Conservation Board is appointed by the Board of County
30 Commissioners. The ordinance creating the board specifies that it must contain five persons representing
31 "diverse community interests" and six people with expertise in natural resources. The Natural Areas
32 Technical Advisory Committee for program 2000MI-01 is required to include seven county residents with
33 expertise in real estate or development, environmental education, fisheries biology/aquatic ecology, land
34 use planning, wildlife management, botany/forestry, and land trust/conservation. 2004CO-01's Open
35 Space Advisory Board must include members from both incorporated and unincorporated areas.
36 In some cases the advisory committee includes public sector representation. The Task Force for program
37 1996CT-01 contains some representatives from other town boards (such as zoning and wetlands
38 conservation) as well as the public and one land trust representative. Program 2004NY-02 uses the
39 existing Planning Board as advisors, along with the majority and minority leaders of the county
40 legislature.
41 Six programs have two or more advisory boards. In some cases, they have clearly defined roles. Program
42 2000TX-01, a rigorous top-down program, had a Scientific Evaluation Team conduct the initial GIS
43 analysis, a Conservation Advisory Board review the analysis, and a Land Acquisition Team (composed of
44 the public sector and land trusts) to pursue identified parcels. Program 1996NY-01, a statewide initiative,
45 has nine Regional Advisory Committees reviewing projects in different regions. In the other four
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 18
-------
1 programs (2000MI-01, 2004CA-02, 2004NC-01, and 2004NY-01) the parcels are all reviewed by two
2 committees, but our contacts did not make clear the relationship or individual responsibilities of the two
3 committees.
4 The overall role of the committee(s) is to review information regarding the parcels under consideration
5 and to make a recommendation on whether it should be preserved. Generally, they analyze data provided
6 by the applicant or the staff administering the program; in some cases they may also collect data or visit
7 the site. Depending on the nature of the program, they may create a priority list ranking parcels; in other
8 cases they may simply give all parcels a yes or no recommendation. None of the advisory committees has
9 the last word on whether to preserve an individual parcel, but as the section below discusses, some
10 programs treat their recommendations more seriously than others.
11 Who is the ultimate decision maker? With five exceptions, the ultimate decision maker is the chief
12 elected body of the jurisdiction responsible for administering the program, such as the town council or
13 board of county commissioners. This body takes the recommendations from the advisory committee and
14 decides whether to accept them and proceed, or whether to turn down a recommended parcel or fund the
15 acquisition of a parcel not on the list. In two of these exceptions (2004CA-02 and 2004NY-02), the
16 executive branch is also involved in decision making along with the legislative body.
17 On paper, the relationship between the elected body and the advisory committee is clear; in practice, some
18 elected bodies always accept the committee's recommendations and others may override them. Program
19 2004NC-01 staff indicated that the Board of Commissioners tends to approve the committee's
20 recommendations with little discussion. The same was true for programs 2004AZ-01 and 2000TX-01 (in
21 the latter case, the advisory board's effective screening process was credited with giving the legislature
22 solid recommendations, which are considered fair and reliable).
23 Other programs had had cases where the advisory committee's recommendations were not always
24 accepted, generally for political or financial reasons. Program 2004NY-02 staff said that in one case, the
25 County Executive (whose approval is required along with the legislature) dropped one program and
26 approved funding for a previously denied project, an application from a municipality that had threatened
27 to sue the county if funding was not approved. The decision was controversial as the land purchase has
28 already been made, but the program is not supposed to fund purchases retroactively. In program 1996CT-
29 01, the Town Council vetoed a recommendation by the Task Force to purchase the development rights,
30 because the Council did not want to pay 90 percent of the purchase price without purchasing the land
31 outright. In program 2000MI-01, a recommendation was turned down for financial reasons. In program
32 2000FL-04, the County Commission acquired a low-ranked parcel since it was located near several
33 elementary schools, and it was felt that the educational value for the students outweighed the fact that its
34 natural value was lower than that of other parcels.
35 In three cases, it was not the jurisdiction's top legislative body that made the ultimate decision. In two
36 cases it was a committee of the full legislature; for program 2000MI-01 the Parks and Recreation
37 Commission and for program 2000WI-01 the County Resources Committee. For the one state program,
38 1996NY-01, the final authority rests with the State Department of Environmental Conservation.
39 How does the program partner with other governmental agencies or institutions? Most of the
40 programs had some type of formal or informal partnerships with other levels of government or non-profit
41 organizations, but more often on an ad hoc basis than a permanent arrangement. For example, program
42 2004NC-01 has acquired more than half of its protected land through working with the state and
43 municipalities. Some county programs tend to look to the states or federal government for additional
44 funding; program 2000FL-02 lists the statewide Florida Forever program and USDA and USFWS as
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 19
-------
1 potential funding partners, and they also look to the local water management district for maintenance
2 funding.
3 Some of the programs have well-defined partnerships with non-profit land trusts. In program 2000TX-01,
4 the Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, and the Bexar Land Trust make up the land
5 acquisition team that pursues the preservation of specific parcels. The 2004AZ-01 program relied heavily
6 on input from The Nature Conservancy and Friends of the Sonoran Desert to identify priority
7 conservation lands. 1996CT-01 has a seat on its advisory committee reserved for a local land trust
8 representative.
9 Programs differ in their attitudes towards purchasing land outright as opposed to purchasing the
10 development rights (also known as PDR, or TDR for transfer of development rights). In PDR an
11 organization purchases the right to development, or a percentage of the land's appraised value, but the
12 landowner still retains the title. Some programs are only interested in outright purchase; the Town
13 Council for program 1996CT-01 turned down a PDR offer because they felt the price was too high if the
14 town could not own the land. On the other hand, the 2004NY-01, 2004NY-02, and 2004MI-01 programs
15 are oriented towards purchasing development rights; the program 2004NY-01 contact said that placing
16 the land in county ownership is felt to be a long-term burden.
17 What problems have the programs encountered? While our research did not ask specifically about
18 problems encountered, several issues regarding funding came up that have had a negative impact on some
19 programs' ability to preserve land. The main reason was increasing land prices. Especially for Florida
20 programs, the price of land and the need to compete with private developers in a tight real estate market
21 was limiting the programs' effectiveness. Program 2000FL-01, in Broward County (southern Florida) was
22 faced with average per acre costs of $300,000. (In comparison, in some rural areas in Florida, land was
23 available for preservation at $1,600 per acre.) While recent economic conditions have caused a decline in
24 land prices in many areas, budget deficits and declining tax receipts have caused some programs to stop
25 temporarily. Meanwhile, programs with dedicated funding sources have been able to acquire land at a
26 faster pace due to lower land acquisition costs.
27 Related to this issue are the restrictions some programs place on funding. The 2000FL-01 program,
28 although faced with high costs and competition from developers, cannot exceed 110 percent of the land's
29 appraised value. Programs 2000FL-02, 2000FL-04, 2004AZ-01, and 2004NC-01 can pay only the
30 appraised value. Program 2000MI-02 offers the landowner exactly the appraised value, and if the
31 landowner objects s/he can get a second appraisal and offer that for negotiations. Program 2004AZ-01 has
32 also had problems with landowners disputing the appraised value of land and rising prices; in addition,
33 the county is unable to purchase state-owned land, although this may change in 2006 with new state
34 legislation. The 2000WI-01 program requires that all funding must all be spent in the year it is earned,
35 meaning that the county cannot save up for larger purchases.
36 Only a few programs have provisions for the long-term maintenance of the land preserved. Program
37 2000TX-01 set aside just over 10 percent of the total funds to protect the aquifer for maintenance.
38 Program 2000FL-02 allows up to 10 percent of total annual funds to go toward stewardship. 2004NY-02
39 can pay stewardship costs up to 50 percent of total project costs. Program 2000MI-02 requires a
40 Stewardship Implementation Plan as a condition of purchase, although it was not clear how much funding
41 the city provides for stewardship. Program staff from 2004CO-01, 2004NC-02 2004NY-01 2000FL-04
42 told us that they do not provide any maintenance funding; staff at other programs did not address this
43 issue.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 20
-------
1 One interesting idea came from program 2004CO-01. For their applicants without experience in
2 managing land acquisition or stewardship, they appoint a Project Mentor. This gives the jurisdiction
3 receiving funding an opportunity to learn to manage their program.
4 Where do program staff obtain information? Several programs we analyzed were explicitly modeled
5 on other programs. Program 2000WI-01 based its design on the Dane County program (also in
6 Wisconsin), while program 2000FL-02 was modeled on the statewide Florida Forever program. Program
7 2004FL-01 surveyed other programs within Florida and adopted what program administrators saw as the
8 keys to those programs' success.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 21
-------
i V. Conclusions and Next Steps
2 Land protection exhibits the three characteristics of decisions that must reflect some understanding of
3 future climate impacts: they are long term, hard to reverse, and resource-intensive. These characteristics
4 of land protection decisions, along with the rapid pace of land development, now and in the future, and
5 the variety of interactions possible between climate and land use, highlight the importance of
6 incorporating climate change information into land protection decisions. This study identifies several
7 areas within the decision-making process where climate change information could be included.
8 Although the land protection programs we analyzed did not explicitly consider climate change, existing
9 selection criteria capture some of the features and ecosystem services already threatened by climate
10 change (e.g., wildlife habitat and wetlands). When considering long-term acquisition strategies, land
11 protection programs should be considering both the mitigation potential of land through carbon
12 sequestration and the adaptation potential of the land for preserving wildlife migration routes, protecting
13 water sources, and buffering infrastructure and development from storm events.
14 The programs reviewed in this study provide an illustrative cross-section of the decision-making process
15 employed by state and local land protection programs. Currently only one of the programs we reviewed
16 mentioned climate change as a consideration, but the number of programs considering climate change
17 impacts is likely to increase due to increased awareness at all levels of government.
18 Based on our limited review, state and local land protection agencies, as well as supporting state and
19 federal agencies, interested in adding climate change to the considerations applied to parcel selection
20 processes would benefit from the following steps:
21 Develop decision-support tools for advisory committees. Advisory committees are clearly a major
22 aspect of land protection programs; they were present in 18 of 19 programs and several had multiple
23 committees. Although there are cases in which elected officials overturn the recommendations of these
24 advisory committees, their recommendations tend to be respected and ultimately implemented. Any
25 efforts to support these committees in making decisions that are backed by science will enable
26 incorporation of climate change considerations and will be easier to defend to the public and other
27 stakeholders than idiosyncratic decisions or those based on personal knowledge.
28 Promulgate different preservation models. Some programs focused only on acquiring land, while
29 others created grant programs for local jurisdictions or purchasing development rights. Jurisdictions
30 without land preservation programs might be amenable to instituting them if they were aware of the
31 myriad of effective options available. As awareness of climate change impacts grows, initiating land
32 protection programs may also become more useful for jurisdictions that are trying to use land preservation
33 for mitigation and adaptation purposes.
34 Cooperate with elected officials. In almost every case, legislatures make the final decisions regarding
35 land to be preserved. The sophistication and information available to these bodies seemed to vary quite
36 dramatically. Cooperation of land protection groups or science advisory groups with elected officials can
37 be improved through some type of outreach program to emphasize the environmental, economic, and
38 social benefits of land preservation; this type of outreach might help generate stronger support for land
39 protection programs, particularly for their use in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
40 Engage in strategic conservation. This study found that many land protection programs rely on an
41 opportunistic, fragmented approach to land preservation; this works to an extent, though a more long-
42 term, strategic approach to land protection would better address many climate change impacts. For
43 example, the Conservation Fund, a non-profit focused on land and water conservation offers a training
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 22
-------
1 course titled "Strategic Conservation Planning Using a Green Infrastructure Approach."5 Other sources
2 also provide information related to green infrastructure and land protection.6 By adopting a strategic
3 approach to conservation, a system of prioritization will necessarily take precedent over existing
4 opportunistic practices.
5 Coordinate with land-use planning processes. Land protection programs that are linked to local and
6 regional planning processes will be more successful in meeting program goals. In the absence of strong
7 land-use planning, land protection programs and land development occur opportunistically. When
8 implemented in a coordinated fashion, communities can achieve both strategic land protection and
9 strategic development. Several programs discussed here mentioned such a link in program goals,
10 including programs 2000WI-01, 2004KS-01, and others.
11 Develop prototype for evaluating and prioritizing land parcels for protection. In conducting this
12 study, we found that many programs in Step 3 listed quantitative or qualitative selection criteria with no
13 specific means of using them to make decisions. Over half of the programs were initiated in response to
14 citizen groups desiring land protection, often due to development on or near the parcel; this means that
15 many of the programs are based primarily on opportunism. Providing a simple screening approach based
16 on a few criteria may go a long way to prioritizing more valuable lands, particularly as part of a portfolio
17 of strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Alternatively, if the programs have advisory
18 committees that are not making a good effort towards evaluating parcels, they might be receptive to some
19 type of outreach about available data sources and criteria.
20 As jurisdictions learn more about possible climate change impacts and create mitigation and adaptation
21 plans, it becomes more important to understand decision-making processes in order to provide effective
22 climate change information. This review focuses on decision-making processes of land protection
23 programs and identifies several areas in the process where decision makers can use climate change
24 information. Incorporating such information will enable land protection to be part of a portfolio of
25 adaptation strategies that ameliorate impacts on watersheds and wildlife. States and other jurisdictions are
26 already taking steps to use land protection as part of their adaptation strategies (e.g., Maryland
27 Commission on Climate Change, 2008), but require tools and more targeted information to incorporate
28 into their decision-making processes.
29
30
5 The website for The Conservation Fund is http://www.greeninfrastructure.net.
6 Additional information is available at LandScope America's website: http://www.landscope.org.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 23
-------
i VI. References
2
3 CCSP, 2008: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A
4 Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research.
5 [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H.
6 Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, 873
7 pp.
8 Hannah, L. (2008) Protected areas and climate change. In: eds. Year in Ecology and Conservation
9 Biology 2008. pp. 201-212.
10 Heller, NE; Zavaleta, ES. (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22
11 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142(1): 14-32.
12 Kline, J. (2006) Public demand for preserving local open space. Society & Natural Resources 19(7):645-
13 659.
14 Maryland Commission on Climate Change. (2008) Climate Action Plan: Interim Report to the Governor
15 and the Maryland General Assembly. Maryland Department of the Environment. 110 pp.
16 Pyke, CR. (2004) Habitat loss confounds climate change impacts. Frontiers in Ecology and the
17 Environment 2(4): 178-182.
18 Pyke, CR; Andelman, SJ. (2007) Land use and land cover tools for climate adaptation. Climatic Change
19 80(3-4):239-251.
20 Steelman, TA ; Hess, GR. (2009) Effective Protection of Open Space: Does Planning Matter?
21 Environmental Management 44(1):93-104.
22 Sussman, F ; Freed, R. (2008) Adapting to Climate Change: A Business Approach. Pew Center on Global
23 Climate Change.
24 USEPA. (2009) Land-use scenarios: National-scale housing-density scenarios consistent with climate
25 change storylines (Final Report). Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-08/076F.
26
27
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 24
-------
i VII. Appendix A: Case Study Abstracts
2 One-page abstracts of each of the 19 programs in Tier 4 are presented on the following pages. In 2009, all
3 19 programs were contacted for updates. Those write-ups that were updated in 2009 are marked with an
4 asterisk (*).
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 25
-------
i 1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program*
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Town of South Windsor, Connecticut
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
5 Program Focus: Watershed protection
6 Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for acquisition of open space land
8 Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; the Open Space Task Force provides the Town Council with
9 recommendations on the purchase of open space.
10 ABSTRACT
11 Program Goals. South Windsor hopes to maintain its character and charm as the town transitions into a
12 fully suburban community. It plans to achieve this goal through the acquisition or preservation of open
13 spaces that provide visual 'resting places' for passing motorists, preserve natural resources (including
14 agricultural land), and provide opportunities for the public to enjoy outdoor activities.
15 Selection Process. Land protection in South Windsor involves either coordination with developers at the
16 time of new development or acquisition of specific pieces of land. Priority properties were initially
17 identified using criteria such as location, proximity (to other protected lands, trails, or wildlife corridors),
18 natural or environmental features, archaeological value, and environmental sensitivity. The Town sends
19 out letters each year to the owners of these priority properties asking if they are interested in selling.
20 Willing sellers of non-priority properties can also contact the Town. The Open Space Task Force,
21 composed of Town staff and citizens, applies a rating system to each property and prepares
22 recommendations for the Town Council. The rating system looks at factors such as proposed purpose,
23 location, and property size. The Task Force and Town Council rely on a combination of local knowledge
24 and existing information as a basis for decision making. The Open Space Master Plan includes maps of
25 wetlands, farmland, steep slopes, environmentally-sensitive lands, and town-owned land, which are also
26 consulted during the decision-making process. The Town Council is the decision-making authority
27 regarding open space preservation, but serves primarily as an oversight body.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 26
-------
1996NY-01
Jurisdiction Name, State: New York: State
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Program Focus:
Evaluation Criteria:
Ballot Measure Description:
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 ABSTRACT
New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
Prioritization Type:
Watershed protection & wildlife protection
Quantitative
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).
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'."
21 Program Goals. The land protection portion of the bond measure is guided by the New York Open Space
22 Conservation Plan, which includes the following goals: the protection of water quality, scenic and cultural
23 resources, and habitat; the preservation of open space for air quality; and the provision of sites for outdoor
24 recreation, education, and research.
25 Selection Process. Anyone can suggest a parcel for consideration. State staff and nine Regional Advisory
26 Committees (RAC's; including members appointed by State officials and other appointed by the
27 communities they represent) screen projects to determine if they: (1) are in a priority project area (as
28 identified in the NY Open Space plan); (2) fall into one of the identified land protection categories; (3)
29 meet minimum criteria for that category; (4) meet a critical need; (5) score greater than 50 when
30 evaluated with established resource value screens; and (6) pass a qualitative review screen. These screens
31 are driven by both data and subjective analysis. Once State staff knows how much money is available in
32 the annual budget, the list of eligible projects is further whittled down based on: (a) the merit of the
33 project; (b) public support for it; and (c) the feasibility of purchasing it within the fiscal year. RACs
34 provide final recommendations to the New York DEC for executive decision.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 27
-------
i 2000FL-01 Safe Parks and Land Preservation Bond
2 Program
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Broward County, Florida
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
6 Program Focus: Watershed & Wildlife Protection
7 Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
8 Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue for safe parks, clean water, natural land preservation.
9 Prioritization System: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations on parcels of
10 land submitted for consideration by staff, municipalities, or residents of
11 the county.
12 ABSTRACT
13 Program Goals. The goal of the Safe Parks and Land Preservation Bond Program is to support a
14 comprehensive plan to improve and expand the conservation and recreation assets of Broward County and
15 its municipalities. In doing this, Broward County seeks to preserve and reclaim approximately 1,425 acres
16 of conservation land, green space, and open space in the county. In addition, the bond seeks to repair and
17 enhance the aging park system to provide safe places for children to play and parks for everyone's
18 enjoyment.
19 Selection Process. Any person of the county can recommend a potential acquisition parcel to the County
20 Commissioners, the Land Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB), or the Land Preservation Section (LPS).
21 The LPS reviews the proposed projects and recommends their designation within one of three land
22 categories (Conservation Land, Green Space, or Open Space). Independent ecological consultants visit
23 and complete an assessment form for each site under consideration as a Conservation Land or Green
24 Space site. Staff conducts reviews of selected sites to confirm the consultants were correctly interpreting
25 data based upon the criteria created. Sites recommended by the LPAB are brought to the County
26 Commission to allocate funding and to authorize County staff to begin the acquisition process. The Real
27 Property Section contacts the landowner, verifies their willingness to sell, performs preliminary title
28 work, and obtains and reviews appraisals and surveys on the property. The LPS contacts the relevant
29 municipality and creates a land acquisition and management agreement for each site that the municipality
30 is willing to manage as a city park. Sites that are located within a municipality but are ecologically
31 sensitive or are an addition or buffer to existing County-owned environmentally sensitive lands are to be
32 managed by the Broward County Parks and Recreation Division. The results of the site acquisition
33 process are communicated to the LPAB. If a purchase price agreement is reached for the proposed site, a
34 final recommendation made by the LPAB is brought before the County Commission for final approval.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 28
-------
i 2000FL-02 Volusia Forever*
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Volusia County, Florida
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
5 Program Focus: Watershed & Wildlife Protection
6 Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
7 Ballot Measure Description: Ad valorem tax with bonding authority for acquisition and improvement
8 of environmentally sensitive, water resource protection and outdoor
9 recreation lands.
10 Prioritization System: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations on parcels of
11 land submitted for consideration through applications from the public.
12 ABSTRACT
13 Program Goals. The goal of Volusia Forever is to finance the acquisition and improvement of
14 environmentally sensitive lands, water resource protection, and outdoor recreation lands, and to manage
15 the lands as conservation stewards. In doing this, Volusia Forever seeks to conserve, maintain and restore
16 the natural environment, provide the public with access to these lands, and ensure that the natural resource
17 values of such lands are protected.
18 Selection Process. The categories and criteria used when evaluating properties for potential acquisition
19 are specified by County Resolution. The categories are proximity and connectivity, furtherance of
20 acquisition efforts, water resources, environmentally sensitive lands, recreation/public use, management
21 and enhancement. Specific criteria are itemized under each category and each property is evaluated on a
22 Yes/No basis. In order to be eligible, a property should receive a specified minimum number of
23 affirmative answers to the primary criteria. Once a property application is submitted, staff does a desk
24 review to evaluate the property using the criteria cited above. The application, along with the staffs
25 evaluation is presented to the Volusia Forever Acquisition Committee (VFAC) for determining if the
26 property is eligible for the program. If the property is deemed eligible, staff will visit the site and prepare
27 an analytical report which is presented to the VFAC a the next bi-annual ranking meeting. These
28 documents are all public record and provided to the property owner. Properties are recommended for
29 placement within either Group A or Group B of the Volusia Forever list. Group A is comprised of the
30 active acquisition properties. Properties within Group B are not the preferred candidates for acquisition.
31 The VFAC uses site visit data, public comment, maps, GIS, photos, local knowledge, and availability of
32 matching funds during consideration for list placement. Applications for properties that fall within certain
33 priority areas are automatically placed on the A List for acquisition without further consideration. The
34 VFAC lists are presented to the County Council who has final approval of lists and property purchases.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 29
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
2000FL-04
Alachua County Forever*
Jurisdiction Name, State: Alachua County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus:
Evaluation Criteria:
Watershed and Wildlife Protection
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.
11 ABSTRACT
12 Program Goals. The goal of Alachua County Forever is to acquire and protect environmentally
13 significant lands and to protect water resources, wildlife habitat, and natural areas suitable for resource-
14 based recreation.
15 Selection Process. Landowners or other members of the county community submit parcel nominations to
16 Alachua County Forever. Program staff evaluates all nominated parcels using prioritization criteria such
17 as protection of water resources; protection of natural communities and landscapes; protection of plant
18 and animal species; and social/human values. The evaluation is a quantitative ranking process, with each
19 parcel receiving a numeric score between 1 and 5, based on the Land Conservation Decision Matrix
20 (LCDM) and reflecting how well the project addresses each criterion. The LCDM relies on weighted
21 criteria. Environmental Values account for approximately 2/3 of the total score. All other criteria make up
22 the other 1/3 of the score. This score is presented to the Land Conservation Board (LCB). Final scores
23 range from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 10. Once a property has been evaluated with the LCDM
24 scoring matrix and received a positive recommendation from the LCB, it may proceed to the County
25 Commission for final acquisition approval.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 30
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
2000MI-01
Natural Areas Preservation Program"
Jurisdiction Name, State: Washtenaw County, Michigan
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Program Focus:
Evaluation Criteria:
Wildlife & Watershed Protection
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.
12 ABSTRACT
13 Program Goals. To preserve and protect from development the natural ecological diversity and heritage
14 of Washtenaw County; complement the existing network of publicly and privately protected lands; and
15 maximize quality of life.
16 Selection Process. Property owners submit applications to the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation
17 Commission (WCPARC), which administers the program. Applications are reviewed by WCPARC staff,
18 who also gather background information and visit the nominated properties. (Although it has not yet been
19 necessary, WCPARC can initiate discussions about potential properties if not enough applications are
20 submitted by landowners.) WCPARC gathers information in four main categories: public water resources;
21 special animals, plants and plant communities; recreational and scientific values; and proximity to
22 protected land. The information gathered by WCPARC is provided to the Natural Areas Technical
23 Advisory Committee (NATAC), who reviews and visits each nominated property. Then, NATAC
24 recommends to WCPARC whether the parcel should be preserved, and how much the County should pay
25 to acquire the property. The recommendation is also forwarded to the Planning Advisory Board and the
26 local government who can provide comments. WCPARC qualitatively ranks the nominated properties and
27 selects the highest ranking properties to pursue for purchase. At this stage, promising parcels are
28 appraised and subject to a Phase 1 environmental assessment. The final step in the process is negotiating a
29 price for purchasing the property and a decision by WCPARC on whether to purchase the land for that
30 price.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 31
-------
i 2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation
2 Program*
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Meridian Township, Michigan
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
6 Program Focus: Wildlife, Ecosystem & Watershed Protection
7 Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
8 Ballot Measure Description: 10-year, .75 mill, property tax increase for open space acquisition, PDR,
9 habitat preservation and recreation
10 Prioritization System: Hybrid; advisory board first conducted an inventory of open space using
11 remote sensing and GIS and now makes recommendations on parcels of
12 land submitted for consideration.
13 ABSTRACT
14 Program Goals. To protect, preserve and enhance the township's open space and special natural features
15 while also maintaining a maximum degree of biodiversity and developing, managing, and maintaining
16 ecological infrastructure through management of protected areas. Meridian also aims to leave an
17 important natural legacy for future generations through its pursuit of a harmonious balance between
18 preservation and development.
19 Selection Process. Landowners submit applications to Meridian Township's Land Preservation Advisory
20 Board which reviews the applications as they come in and compares them to a map of open space that
21 was developed at the beginning of the program. If eligibility requirements are met, the advisory board and
22 Environmental Commission conduct an ecological review/screening. The land screening is the main
23 evaluation process and the criteria evaluated include ecological value, natural or functional value, parcel
24 size, surrounding land use, environmental quality, and aesthetic value. Each of these categories is worth a
25 specific number of points which are assigned by the members of the advisory board and environmental
26 commission that conduct the land screening. In addition to the land screening, the advisory board may
27 also consult the following data sources: State of Michigan Natural Features Inventory, State of Michigan
28 maps showing "most likely" areas to find endangered species, Township Greenspace Plan, and census
29 projections. Results of the land screening and other data collection are evaluated by the advisory board
30 and a decision is made on whether an appraisal of the land is desired. The appraisal is reviewed by the
31 advisory board and a decision is made on whether to present a buy-sell agreement to the landowner and
32 have an environmental site assessment conducted. Upon favorable negotiations with the landowner, a
33 request to purchase the property is forwarded to the Township Board for final approval.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 32
-------
Jurisdiction Name, State: San Antonio, Texas
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
i 2000TX-01
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 ABSTRACT
Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park
Expansion Program
Program Focus:
Evaluation Criteria:
Ballot Measure Description:
Prioritization System:
Drinking Water & Watershed Protection
Quantitative
4-year, 65 million, 1/8-cent sales tax increase for drinking water and
watershed protection
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.
16 Program Goals. The program seeks to locate and purchase undeveloped land in the recharge and
17 contributing zones of the Edwards Aquifer as a means of protecting the Aquifer's water quality and
18 quantity.
19 Selection Process. The Scientific Evaluation Team (SET) input the entire region into a GIS model that
20 assigned a value based on a variety of criteria to every square meter of the region. The criteria included in
21 the model aimed to prioritize characteristics of areas most likely to contain recharge features and
22 geological land features which contribute to Edwards Aquifer. The Conservation Advisory Board (CAB)
23 reviewed the SET's spatial model, and lands rated in the top three tiers by the GIS model were given to
24 the land acquisition team to pursue. The Land Acquisition Team was composed of non-profit land
25 conservation trusts (The Bexar Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, and the Trust for Public Land), the
26 City Project Manager, and San Antonio River Authority (SARA) staff. Potential land purchases were
27 approved by the City Project manager and then presented to the CAB by SARA staff, including
28 information on quality of the land and the availability of the tracts for acquisition based on CAB
29 directives. While the land acquisition team negotiated land purchases with the owners, the CAB would
30 evaluate the lands. If the CAB gave a land purchase a favorable rating, the property acquisition was
31 forwarded to the Planning Commission and then City Council for review and approval.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 33
-------
i 2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant
2 Program
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Sheboygan County, Wisconsin
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
6 Program Focus: Wildlife & Wetlands Protection
7 Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
8 Ballot Measure Description: Advisory measure to establish fund to protect watersheds
9 Prioritization System: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations on parcels of
10 land submitted as grant proposals by local governments and non-profits.
11 ABSTRACT
12 Program Goals. The goals of the Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program are to preserve
13 the natural resources of the County while promoting wise growth and economic development and
14 minimizing the loss of local property tax revenues. The program also aims to coordinate County
15 stewardship activities so they are in harmony with other conservation and recreation activities already
16 occurring or planned for the County.
17 Selection Process. Any town, village, city, county agency, or other government agency completing
18 projects within Sheboygan County or any non-profit group may apply for funds through this program.
19 Projects are accepted in four categories: project development, purchase of development rights, land
20 acquisition, and restoration of wetlands and natural habitat. County planning department staff reviews
21 applications first, using a point system that includes the following criteria: natural resources, recreational
22 opportunities, significant features, development potential and more. Their evaluations and scores are
23 forwarded to the Smart Growth-Stewardship Technical and Advisory Committee (SGSTAC). The
24 SGSTAC then reviews the applications and discussions are held to debate point distributions and
25 evaluations of the applications. The SGSTAC then makes a final analysis and provides a final score for
26 each application. These final analyses and scores are provided to the Sheboygan County Resources
27 Committee, which completes a thorough review of the grant applications and recommendations and has
28 full discussions on the funding of the projects. The five-person committee holds a vote and measures pass
29 as long as they have a 3 to 2 vote.
30 There is also a pre-evaluation period during which agencies/non-profits can submit their grant
31 applications early and get feedback including a 'draft' score and a list of the weaknesses in their
32 application. The organization can then revise their application and re-submit it during the application
33 period after making revisions to improve their chances of getting funded.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 34
-------
i 2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat
2 Protection*
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Pima County, Arizona
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Program Focus: Watershed protection & wildlife protection
7 Evaluation Criteria: Qualitative
8 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for open space, habitat protection, and forests
9 Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the Conservation Acquisition Commission (a citizen advisory
10 committee) reviews and recommends to the Pima County Board of
11 Supervisors properties already identified in the bond measure.
12 ABSTRACT
13 Program Goals. Program goals include the acquisition of land to protect wildlife habitat, scenic
14 landscapes, riparian areas, and water quality, and to preserve lands in the vicinity of Davis-Monthan Open
15 Space. The program recognizes four types of properties, and the specific goals for each property depends
16 on the property type. The Community Open Space Parcels are more focused on scenic landscapes and
17 recreation and may not meet the goals to protect wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and water quality. The
18 Habitat Protection Priorities were chosen solely based on their ability to achieve biological goals. The
19 Urban Space Requested by Jurisdictions may meet a mix of the goals, depending on why a jurisdiction
20 chose to include it on their list. The Davis-Monthan Open Space is intended to keep people off the land
21 that falls in the approach and departure corridors from the Davis-Monthan air force base.
22 Selection Process. This bond measure provides funding for four categories of properties (with monetary
23 allocations in parentheses): Community Open Space Parcels ($37.3 million), Urban Open Space
24 Requested by Jurisdictions ($15 million), Habitat Protection Priorities ($112 million), and Davis-Monthan
25 Open Space ($10 million). After the bond measure was approved by voters, the Conservation Acquisition
26 Commission asked county staff to identify habitat-protection priority properties that are greater than 2,500
27 acres in single ownership, contain important riparian areas, and have critical landscape connections in
28 order to further focus acquisition resources. However, the selection process for each property type varied
29 according to the goals associated with that property type. Projections of future development were also
30 consulted and evaluated to determine how set asides would impact biological factors and avoid negative
31 impacts. Properties in excess of the available funding were listed in the bond measure with the
32 understanding that some properties may be acquired through other sources of funding or at no cost along
33 the way. The Conservation Acquisition Commission reviews and recommends to the Pima County Board
34 of Supervisors all acquisitions of property or rights in property.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 35
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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:
Evaluation Criteria:
Ballot Measure Description:
Prioritization Type:
Watershed protection
Quantitative
Proposition O, Clean water bond to reduce total maximum daily load
(TMDL), including storm water retention facilities, parks, and
greenbelts.
Hybrid. Non-profit organizations and community groups can propose
parcels as well as City departments. The City of Los Angeles determines
how funding is allocated with oversight from two citizen committees.
14 ABSTRACT
15 Program Goals. This measure is intended to protect public health by cleaning up polluted storm water
16 and reducing dangerous bacteria in the City's rivers, lakes, beaches, bay, and ocean. It will also institute
17 improvements that protect ground water quality, provide flood control, and increase water conservation,
18 habitat protection, and open space. The primary program goal is to meet federal water quality standards;
19 land protection is only one component of the program.
20 Selection Process. Parcel selection is a stakeholder-driven process, involving the City Council,
21 environmental activists, non-profit organizations, and neighborhood councils. Non-profit organizations
22 and community groups can propose parcels as well as City departments. There is a semi-annual six-month
23 proposal and decision-making process. Proposals are submitted to the City. The Mayor, City Council, 44
24 City departments, and key stakeholders are all involved in the development of the master schedule,
25 funding allocations, and management decisions. City departments and other key stakeholders in the
26 watershed gather and evaluate technical information. The mayor appoints members to a citizens'
27 oversight advisory committee and an administrative oversight committee. Project review committees
28 (including City staff and the two oversight committees) evaluate projects based on three weighted criteria
29 (and several sub-criteria): water quality improvements; achieves multiple objectives; and project
30 feasibility/readiness/finance. One of the key sub-criteria for parcel selection is whether or not the project
31 addresses a pollution problem identified by the adopted TMDL. The Mayor and City Council ultimately
32 adopt project funding.
33
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 36
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2004CO-01
Open Space Sales Tax Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Adams County, Colorado
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus:
Evaluation Criteria:
Watershed protection & wildlife protection
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:
ABSTRACT
Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations on grant
applications submitted for consideration.
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.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 37
-------
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
2004FL-01
Osceola County Land Protection Measure
Jurisdiction Name, State: Osceola County, Florida
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus:
Evaluation Criteria:
Ballot Measure Description:
Prioritization System:
Watershed & Wildlife Protection
Quantitative
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.
Bottom up: an advisory committee makes recommendations on parcels
submitted for consideration by residents or landowners of the county.
13 ABSTRACT
14 Program Goals. The goal of the Osceola County Land Protection Measure is to acquire and manage
15 environmentally significant lands and green space for the protection of wetlands and surface water
16 resources, wildlife habitat, and public green space for passive recreation. Osceola County seeks to
17 additionally protect present conservation lands and restore vulnerable habitats, while implementing the
18 objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Management Plan.
19 Selection Process. Parcels are nominated for consideration by landowners within the County, or by a
20 citizen nominating a parcel with the landowner's permission. Parcels are given an initial evaluation by the
21 program coordinator (using information from the application) to determine whether it meets a minimum
22 of 2 of 5 screening criteria. Parcels that pass this initial screening are then presented to the Land
23 Conservation Advisory Board (LCAB) for evaluation and ranking using a quantitative scoring matrix.
24 The LCAB uses a variety of data to perform the evaluation, including application information as well as
25 data from a site visit and data prepared by county staff. After all parcels have been ranked, the LCAB
26 creates an Acquisition List, consisting of two specific lists: The Target Protection List (Target List) and
27 the Active Acquisition List (Active List). The Active List represents parcels of highest interest to the
28 LCAB, and which are immediately ready for acquisition. Target List parcels are also parcels of high
29 interest, yet require initial restoration or improvement, or matching funds for acquisition. The lists are
30 presented to the County Commissioners for final approval prior to any attempts at acquisition.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 38
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
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:
ABSTRACT
Top-down; the City determines where land will be set aside to improve
the storm water system.
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 of 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 1500 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
$7500/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.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 39
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2004MI-01
Scio Township Land Preservation Commission
Jurisdiction Name, State: Scio Township, Michigan
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Program Focus:
Evaluation Criteria:
Wildlife and Wetlands Protection
Quantitative
Ballot Measure Description: 10-year, .50 mill, property tax for the preservation of farmland, open
space, and habitat
Prioritization System:
ABSTRACT
Bottom-up; landowners submit applications and the land preservation
commission evaluates applications based on a set of criteria.
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.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 40
-------
i 2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space*
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Wake County, North Carolina
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
5 Program Focus: Watershed protection & wildlife protection
6 Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for open space, recreation, and for the protection of water quality
8 and wildlife habitats
9 Prioritization Type: Hybrid; most acquisitions originate from plans and maps developed by
10 County staffer Open Space Advisory Committee members (a citizen
11 group), but the public is also welcome to suggest a property at any time.
12 ABSTRACT
13 Program Goals. The Wake County Open Space Program is focused on preserving land within four
14 critical watersheds (Falls and Jordan Lakes, Swift Creek, and Little River), 40 miles of stream corridors
15 within these watersheds, and the Mark's Creek area in eastern Wake County. Open space is prioritized to
16 fulfill multiple objectives, including: (1) floodplain management, (2) wildlife habitat, (3) water quality,
17 (4) recreation access, (5) environmental and cultural education, (6) personal fitness, (7) alternative
18 transportation, and (8) recreational resources.
19 Selection Process. There are two avenues for acquiring parcels: (a) the Partnership Program, which
20 provides 50 cents on the dollar for any partner interested in acquiring a parcel; and (b) the Preservation
21 Program, through which the County buys 300 foot parcels on either side of 8 stream corridors identified
22 in a watershed analysis. The Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC), an eight-member citizen group
23 appointed by the County Board of Commissioners, identifies types of open spaces to be included in the
24 program, develops prioritization criteria, and identifies options for acquisition and conservation of
25 parcels. Parcels over 50 acres or within 30 feet of a priority area (as defined in the countywide
26 Comprehensive Open Space Plan) are evaluated initially against technical criteria for 81 sub-watersheds
27 to determine existing water quality conditions and potential for preservation and restoration. Data from
28 the planning department is then used to identify development pressures. The final step of the selection
29 process is to identify available acquisition opportunities and potential partners and prioritize among the
30 highest ranked projects using 15 qualitative criteria that are subjectively weighted. A potential acquisition
31 undergoes several rigorous reviews by internal staff, the OSAC, the Land Acquisition Review
32 Commission, and, finally, the elected Board of Commissioners.
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 41
-------
i 2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space*
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Guilford County, North Carolina
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
5 Program Focus: Watershed protection & wildlife protection
6 Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for parks, greenways, watershed protection, and open space
8 Prioritization Type: Hybrid; parks and recreation projects were determined before the bond,
9 while the open space program relies on nominations and
10 recommendations of a citizen committee.
11 ABSTRACT
12 Program Goals. The Guilford County Open Space Program seeks to identify suitable lands for
13 acquisition and preservation and to provide public education about land conservation. The $20 million
14 2004 bond measure will provide funding for the protection of natural areas as well as specific parks
15 projects and greenways.
16 Selection Process. Parcels can be selected through two routes: (1) a nomination process that requires
17 submission of an application; and (2) an active selection process that pursues acquisition in 9 targeted
18 areas. Nominated parcels are evaluated by the Open Space Subcommittee based on their environmental,
19 social, and cultural importance, recreational and farmland preservation potential, urgency, and cost. The
20 Open Space Subcommittee compiled an initial inventory of existing park land and open spaces through
21 the use of tax records, the watershed acquisition database, and parks and recreation records. They then
22 selected the targeted areas based largely on scientific criteria (e.g., groundwater recharge areas, buffers
23 for drinking water supply lakes and streams, sites providing significant plant or wildlife habitat) and some
24 non-technical criteria (e.g., sites of geologic or historic importance, suitable properties adjacent to
25 existing parks and open space lands). The Open Space Subcommittee works with the County staff person
26 to evaluate and recommend potential land acquisitions. They look at whether or not there are willing
27 sellers and whether or not the project meets the established environmental and biological criteria, and to
28 make sure that the parcel fits in with the existing plans. The Subcommittee and Staff person use maps,
29 surveys and appraisals to analyze the property, and provide recommendations to the Parks & Recreation
30 Commission. The Parks & Recreation Commission looks at the cost and other criteria of interest to them
31 and then provides recommendations to the County Commissioners (elected officials).
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 42
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2004NY-01
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
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:
ABSTRACT
Bottom-up; citizen open space advisory committee makes
recommendations on nominated projects.
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: open space and parkland acquisition, parkland improvement, storm water quality improvement and
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.
Land Protection Programs
DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 43
-------
i 2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program*
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Orange County, New York
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
5 Program Focus: Watershed protection & wildlife protection
6 Evaluation Criteria: Quantitative
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond to acquire land to be used for open space, natural areas, farmland,
8 and protecting water quality.
9 Prioritization Type: Bottom up; the program relies on an application process for parcel
10 selection.
11 ABSTRACT
12 Program Goals. The Orange County Open Space Program seeks to protect 5 major resource areas (listed
13 in rank order of importance): (1) water resources (e.g., existing reservoirs and watersheds, wellhead
14 areas); (2) agriculture; (3) recreation (as it relates to water resources or trails; not for general parks or
15 ballfields); (4) significant land forms and landscapes; and (5) biodiversity (important habitats).
16 Selection Process. Governmental entities, non-governmental organizations, or individual property owners
17 may apply for open space funding. Applications must fall within one or more of the five program resource
18 areas: water resources, agriculture, recreation, landforms and landmarks, and biological diversity. The
19 County requires each non-municipality application to get resolution from the municipality to move
20 forward on a property acquisition to ensure that nothing else has been proposed for the parcel. The
21 County also checks to make sure that the application is compatible with both local (municipal) and
22 County comprehensive plans for open space protection and economic development plans. The County
23 Planning Board reviews the applications and evaluates them according to set criteria for each resource
24 category as well as supplemental criteria. They score and rank projects using a 160-point system, discuss
25 their rankings, and then submit a report with funding recommendations for all eligible and complete
26 applications. The Commissioner of Planning does a technical review of the report. The County Executive
27 reviews applications that contain positive funding recommendations and submits a legislative request to
28 approve funding for recommended projects. All funding requires the approval of the Orange County
29 Executive and Legislature
Land Protection Programs DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 44
-------
i VIM. Appendix B: Write-Ups of Tier 4 Programs
2 Background information on the 19 programs with quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria. The
3 research for these write-ups was originally conducted in 2005. In 2009, all 19 programs were contacted
4 for updates. Those write-ups that were updated in 2009 are marked with an asterisk (*) below.
5 Table of Contents
6 1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program* 46
7 1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act 51
8 2000FL-01 Safe Parks & Land Preservation Bond Program 57
9 2000FL-02 Volusia Forever* 60
10 2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever* 64
11 2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program* 69
12 2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation Program* 77
13 2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park Expansion Program 84
14 2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program 89
15 2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat Protection* 94
16 2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm Water Cleanup Measure 99
17 2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program 103
18 2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure 107
19 2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's Approach to Stormwater Management* .. 112
20 2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission 117
21 2004NC-01 Wake County Open Space* 125
22 2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space* 129
23 2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program 133
24 2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program* 138
25
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 45
-------
1996CT-01 South Windsor Open Space Program"
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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.
2009 Update
The South Windsor Open Space
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.
There have been no major changes in
parcel selection criteria, though the
program has increased open space
requirements from developers. For
proposed projects subject to a
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)
22 (Source: Town of South Windsor Open Space Master Plan)
23 Program goals:
24 In 1996, the Town went to referendum for $4 million with which to purchase land for open space
25 preservation, recreation, conservation, or agricultural land preservation. Another $4 million bond went up
26 for vote in the first week of November 2005.
27 Program goals focus on protection of both human and natural environments (including farmland
28 preservation). The voting public seems to respond to preservation of open space for passive recreation,
29 aesthetic reasons, and to avoid future increases in taxes due to further development. M. Gantick senses,
30 though, that the public is becoming more aware of the air quality and habitat issues that are tied to the
31 protection of open space.
32 The goals were intentionally left wide open. Many of the acquisitions are market driven (ability to
33 purchase often depends on when a property becomes available). The Plan outlines 13 goals and
34 objectives. The Town has also identified certain sites that are higher priority than others.
35 (Source: Town council minutes, Gantick)
36 Parcel selection process:
37 There are two avenues for land protection in South Windsor: (1) coordination with developers; or (2)
38 acquisition of specific pieces of land. The first option can take a number of different forms: (a) the Town
39 takes open space from developers at the time of development; (b) the Town asks the developer to provide
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 46
-------
1 money instead of land; (c) the association of homeowners in a new development own shares of set aside
2 open space; (d) the developer deeds a parcel of land to the South Windsor Land Trust; or (e) the State
3 acquires the property as part of the State open space program.
4 When specific pieces of land are considered for acquisition, there are two basic approaches for initial
5 parcel selection: (1) letters are sent every few years to owners of properties that are on the top priority list;
6 and (2) people approach the Task Force with properties to sell.
7 The top priority properties were initially identified using criteria such as location (weighted more heavily
8 than other criteria), proximity (to other protected lands, trails, or wildlife corridors), natural or
9 environmental features, archaeological value, and environmental sensitivity. The selection of these
10 properties was mostly qualitative.
11 (Source: Gantick)
12 Prioritization criteria:
13 The Open Space Master Plan contains the following criteria for review of open space:
14
15 "Town-owned open space (subdivision or non-subdivision) can generally serve a number of functions
16 including:
17
18 • conservation of natural resources and environmentally sensitive land,
19 • screening and buffering of residential properties from other land uses/developments,
20 • preservation of scenic vistas and rural characteristics, and
21 • recreational areas (passive and/or active).
22
23 The above functions can be used to evaluate the proposed open space relative to the criteria listed below.
24
25 1. Proposed purpose
26
27 The proposed purpose needs to be determined first, as the majority of the following criteria are directly
28 related to the purpose.
29
30 • What is the intended purpose?
31 • What is the most appropriate purpose (active recreation (present or future), passive recreation, open
32 space, agriculture, natural diversity, habitat, buffering, access to something)?
33
34 +2 very appropriate purpose
35 +1 somewhat appropriate purpose
36 0 purpose neither appropriate nor inappropriate
37 -1 somewhat inappropriate purpose
38 -2 very inappropriate purpose
39
40 2. Location
41
42 • Is the property contiguous to other open space or is it a solitary property?
43 • Is the location appropriate to the intended purpose?
44 • Is the external access adequate?
45 • Is this an area in which the Town would like to acquire open space?
46 • If part of a proposed subdivision, is the open space exterior or interior to the proposed subdivision?
47
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 47
-------
1 +2 very desirable location
2 +1 somewhat desirable location
3 0 location neither good nor bad
4 -1 somewhat undesirable location
5 -2 very undesirable location
6
7 3. Property size
8
9 Size evaluation is directly related to contiguous/non-contiguous status.
10
11 • Is the width appropriate for the planned purpose?
12 • Is the length appropriate for the planned purpose?
13 • Area? Will it serve the intended purpose? If contiguous to existing open space, does it enhance the
14 existing open space (just making existing open space bigger is not necessarily an enhancement)?
15
16 +2 size is very appropriate
17 +1 size is somewhat appropriate
18 0 size is neither appropriate nor inappropriate
19 -1 size is inappropriate
20 -2 size is very inappropriate
21
22 There has historically been little weighting of criteria, but the current plan and revisions to the scoring
23 system above have tried to incorporate more weighting. A sliding scale is now used to compare final
24 scores (rather than pluses and minuses, which can cancel one another out and not provide an accurate
25 final score). Generally, a higher score means that a parcel is a better candidate for acquisition. Some
26 properties are clear winners, and some are more questionable (and, thus, more reliant on the ranking
27 system for evaluation). (Source: Gantick)
28 Decision-making process:
29 The Task Force applies the rating system to each property referred to it by the Town Council and prepares
30 a recommendation to the Council regarding the desirability of that property. (Source: Open Space Master
31 Plan)
32 The Task Force is composed of several Town staff (representing relevant departments), representatives
33 from relevant Town Boards (e.g., Planning and Zoning, Wetlands Conservation, Parks and Recreation,
34 Agricultural Land Preservation), three residents at large, and one representative from the South Windsor
35 Land Conservation Trust. There are no term limits, but there is some turnover as people change positions.
36 The Task Force walks each prospective property and discusses it as a group. They work on scoring
37 individually and then reconvene to discuss the rankings. They come to a consensus and submit their
38 recommendations in a report to the Town Council.
39 Disagreements are usually worked through in discussions. The recommendations to the Town Council
40 usually represent the viewpoints of more than 50 percent of the group. The Town Council gets a summary
41 of what the vote was, so they are aware if there was a lot of dissent.
42 Task Force meetings are open to the public. There are also public input sessions, and the Town Council
43 has a public hearing when they are planning to purchase a property.
44 Barriers that have arisen in the past have included: (1) cost of the property is too high; (2) disparity in the
45 appraisal of land by local and State appraisers (when partnering with the State grant program); (3)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 48
-------
1 property owners are not in a position to sell; or (4) the Council does not want to purchase a parcel that the
2 Task Force recommends (which has only happened once).
3 Ultimate decision maker:
4 The Town Council, as the legislative body for the Town, is the primary decision-making authority
5 regarding open space preservation. It primarily serves as an oversight body. The Council can authorize
6 funds, arrange referenda and bond issues, accept land gifts, and authorize other programs (such as
7 purchase of development rights). The Town Council has total power to veto the recommendations of the
8 Task Force, but they have only exercised it once. The Task Force wanted to purchase the development
9 rights for a high visibility property from a farmer, but the Town Council did not want to pay 90% of the
10 property value to simply keep the farmer from selling out to a developer (but not own the land). (Source:
11 Open Space Master Plan, Gantick)
12 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
13 The Task Force and Town Council rely on a combination of local knowledge and information in records
14 as a basis for decision making. The Open Space Master Plan includes numerous maps of wetlands,
15 farmland, steep slopes, environmentally-sensitive lands, town-owned land, etc. The Town has also hired
16 consultants to do surveillance of species and habitats (usually when partnering with the State grant
17 program). Build-out analyses for the town have been considered. The impacts of climate change have not
18 been discussed. (Source: Open Space Master Plan, Gantick)
19 Priority map:
20 Yes. There are 2 maps in the Plan that cover: (1) prospective properties; and (2) prospective areas for
21 conservation and preservation.
22 Partnerships:
23 The Town has partnered with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in the past. The
24 Town also partners with the South Windsor Land Trust when developers deed land to them. The Town
25 partners with various local and national non-profit organizations to share information and collaborate in
26 setting aside land (e.g., Audubon Society, Trust for Public Land, a local Wildlife Refuge).
27 Available and expended funding:
28 Most of the $4 million in the 1996 bond has been spent. Another $4 million was approved in a vote in
29 November 2005.
30 There is no upper limit on how much can be spent to acquire a parcel of land. Land appraisals usually
31 guide the determination of reasonableness of cost.
32 Acres protected:
33 Since the program began with bond money in 1989, 1600 acres (out of a total of 19,000 acres in the
34 Town) have been set aside.
35 Members of the Task Force did an analysis of the tax impact of business as usual (not setting aside a
36 parcel of land). There have also been several surveys of how the community feels about open space.
37 There is State surveillance of forest lands, habitat, and biological populations. Additionally, the local high
38 school has started tracking biological indicators as well.
39 South Windsor is at the front of the pack in Connecticut, but some other communities have started to
40 think about open space protection.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 49
-------
1 (Source: Gantick)
2 Sources:
3 Town of South Windsor, http://www.southwindsor.org/Open%20Space/Openspace.htm. accessed on
4 August 17, 2005.
5 Town of South Windsor Open Space Master Plan, revised February 2005.
6 Gantick, Michael, Director of the South Windsor Public Works Department, personal communication
7 with Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, on October 26, 2005.
8 Banach, Marcia, Director of the South Windsor Planning Department, personal communication with
9 Philip Groth, ICF International, on April 24, 2009.
10 POINT OF CONTACT:
11 Michael Gantick, Director of the South Windsor Public Works Department. Phone: 860-644-2511 ext
12 242. Email: Gantic@southwindsor.org.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 50
-------
i 1996NY-01 New York Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 The 1998 guiding principles of the Open Space Conservation Plan stated that, "Given limited public
6 dollars and overall economic concerns, it is essential to establish careful and understandable priorities for
7 State action to conserve specific open space parcels and cultural resources; Such priorities ought to be
8 established through the combination of objective measurements of land conservation needs and broad
9 based citizen opinion." (Source: 1998 Open Space Plan)
10 "Objective measurements" come into play throughout the analyses by staff and the nine Regional
11 Advisory Committees (RACs). Databases with scientific information (described in chapter 3 of the 2002
12 Open Space Conservation plan) trigger closer looks at particular parcels and then citizen opinion (through
13 public comments) is laid on top of these more technical analyses. (Source: Sheehan)
14 Program goals:
15 The land protection portion of the bond measure is guided by the New York Open Space Conservation
16 Plan. This plan is regularly updated, and the 2002 Goals of the Open Space Conservation Plan include:
17 • protect water quality (including surface and underground drinking water) to sustain aquatic
18 ecosystems and water based recreation,
19 • provide high quality outdoor recreation, on both land and water,
20 • protect and enhance scenic and cultural resources,
21 • protect habitat for the diversity of plant and animal species both to assure the protection of unique
22 and irreplaceable ecosystems and to sustain traditional pastimes of hunting, fishing, trapping and
23 viewing fish and wildlife,
24 • maintain critical natural resource based industries of farming, wood products, commercial fishing
25 and tourism,
26 • provide places for education and research on ecological, environmental and appropriate cultural
27 resources to provide better understanding of the systems from which they derive, and
28 • preserve open space, particularly forest lands, for the protection and enhancement of air quality.
29 The NY Open Space Plan must be updated every three years by the State Department of Environmental
30 Conservation (DEC) and the State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).
31 None of the goals are more central to the program mission than others, but programs that can achieve
32 multiple objectives are favored. The Open Space Program engages both the State Department of
33 Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation
34 (OPRHP), so it touches upon dual goals of conservation and recreation. These goals are updated every
35 three years along with the plan. The goals have expanded to include biodiversity in the 2005 Plan.
36 (Source: New York Open Space Conservation Plan; Sheehan)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 51
-------
i Parcel selection process:
2 Project review and selection process includes:
3 (1) Resource area screen (project is within a resource area)
4 (2) Category & Minimum Eligibility Screen (project meets category definition and minimum subcategory
5 qualifications),
6 (3) Vulnerability & Criticalness Screen (project is vulnerable or project meets critical needs),
7 (4) Alternatives Screen (Do any alternatives provide adequate protection OR meet a critical need?
8 including voluntary programs, protection programs, land use regulation, non-state protection),
9 (5a) if an alternative is available, implement Alternative Protection,
10 (5b) Resource Value Screen (calculate resource value (RV) from Rating System Subcategory),
11 (6) If RV > 50, Qualitative Review Screen (impact of location, compatibility with other plans,
12 compatibility with regional and local plans, multiple benefits, alternative or additional funds for
13 acquisition, alternative management support, agricultural or commercial forestry impact, local economy),
14 (7) Executive Decision (based on location, availability, easement potential, cost vs. value, human benefit,
15 other factors).
16 Anyone can suggest a project (including the general public), but generally projects are put up for
17 consideration by the DEC or the RACs. The program operates on a "willing seller willing buyer" basis.
18 The State has the power to exercise eminent domain, but has not.
19 New projects can be considered at any time, but the process generally follows the annual State budget
20 cycle. The Governor's budget comes out in April for the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) and
21 includes a list of eligible projects taken from the Open Space Plan. The list has been recommended by
22 State staff and the RACs (after having gone through the entire screening process). The State legislature
23 can add to the list. Once State staff knows how much money is available, the list of eligible projects is
24 further whittled down based on: (1) the merit of the project; (2) public support for it; and (3) the
25 feasibility of purchasing it within the fiscal year.
26 (Source: Sheehan)
27 Prioritization criteria:
28 (1) Needs assessment (recreation, open space, natural resources),
29 (2) Resource categories (forest preserve, water resource protection, significant ecological areas,
30 recreational opportunities, distinctive character, enhancement of public lands),
31 (3) Areas of important open space values (major resource areas (i.e., specific geographic subdivisions),
32 major linear systems (corridors, rivers, topographic ridges, important trails), resources of statewide
33 importance, historic and archaeological resources, heritage areas, urban recreation, shore access, public
34 land improvement, water resource protection, exceptional biological & natural sites, working landscapes,
35 trail)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 52
-------
1 Projects that make it onto the priority list may remain on the list for years until funding is available and
2 the seller is willing to sell. If a new project is proposed, it can be analyzed and put on the list in a matter
3 of weeks (usually those projects that are clear winners).
4 Climate change impacts have been considered in thinking about what parcels to set aside. The 2005 plan
5 identifies a goal to increase carbon sequestration in forests, which is seen as and described as a good
6 reason for forest land preservation. The forest health group has also looked at climate models to think
7 about the impacts of climate change on forest structure and composition. Climate change is recognized as
8 particularly relevant (and taken into account) when thinking about coastal areas.
9 (Source: Sheehan)
10 Decision-making process:
11 See Open Space Plan 1998 (or 2002) Appendix C: Resource Value Rating Systems (Step 6 in
12 Prioritization Process); each of the six resource categories has a set of rules that correspond with a rating
13 between 0 and 100. Recommendations to decision makers (Step 7).
14 The first screen is a check on whether or not the proposed parcel is in a priority project area. If it is not,
15 there is little chance it will move forward. If it is, the decision-making process proceeds through the
16 following steps:
17 (1) An analysis of whether or not the project falls into one of the land protection categories
18 (listed in Chapter 3, p. 57 of the 2002 plan). If it falls into more than one of the categories, it
19 is noted and preferred.
20 (2) An analysis of whether or not the project meets the land protection category definition and
21 minimum subcategory qualifications (also on p. 57 of the 2002 plan).
22 (3) A look at whether or not the project meets a critical need.
23 (4) An assessment of the alternatives (i.e., if the goals can be met by alternative approaches that
24 do not involve purchase of the land or development rights). If an alternative exists that is
25 preferable, the alternative is pursued at this point.
26 (5) If no alternatives are preferable, State department staff and RACs apply the resource value
27 screens to rate projects from 1-100. If a project scores above 50, it proceeds to the next step.
28 Project scores are not used to compare projects (i.e., a project that receives a 70 is not
29 considered a better candidate than one that receives a 60; both move forward in the decision-
30 making process as equals).
31 (6) A qualitative review screen (chapter 4, p. 72 of 2002 Plan) is applied by staff of relevant
32 agencies. Projects are analyzed at the regional level first, then reviewed at the State level, and
33 then reviewed by the agency executive.
34 (7) An executive decision is made by the head of the lead agency, but in consultation with the
35 Governor and State staff. The lead agency (either DEC or OPRHP) is determined depending
36 on the goals of the project. If projects overlap the domain of both agencies, they work
37 together.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 53
-------
1 State staff and RAC members carry out the resource value screen and assigning rankings, all of whom
2 have technical expertise, rank projects. The rankings are both data driven and subjective analysis. See
3 more details above.
4 Many citizens and groups choose to comment. There are State-wide public hearings. The overwhelming
5 majority of comments (on a scale of about 2,000 to 3,000 in the last round of public hearings) are
6 positive. The public can (and do) propose projects. The RAC's are half appointed by the State and half by
7 the community they represent (which is another avenue for public participation). This program is among
8 the most popular planning efforts in State history.
9 Communities have the power to veto any land acquisition in their domain, which has brought a lot of trust
10 to the process, but can also create barriers. As an example, 4 communities vetoed a plan to create a
11 working easement in the State's largest working forest. The State negotiated a working easement for
12 250,000 acres owned by International Paper. The area fell into the domain of 31 towns in the
13 Adirondacks. The four communities that have vetoed the project account for about 30,000 of those acres.
14 The State is working with those communities to convince them of the merits of the plan, but will have to
15 move forward without those 30,000 acres if the communities will not budge.
16 Most places, however, are begging the State to come buy land. In particular, communities facing
17 development pressures are looking to preserve open space at a critical time in their development. The
18 State is encouraging local government measures to complement their efforts. The State has produced an
19 open space planning guide for local governments that provides step-by-step advice on creating and
20 implementing an open space program. The State is also encouraging communities to come up with local
21 revenue sources.
22 (Source: Sheehan)
23 Ultimate decision maker:
24 The nine Regional Advisory Committees provide recommendations to the New York DEC for "executive
25 decision."
26 The RACs and State staff work closely together and engage in ongoing dialogue. There is mutual respect
27 for the expertise that both bring to the table and a good working relationship towards shared goals.
28 (Source: Sheehan)
29 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
30 The NY Open Space plan is based on an elaborate set of GIS-based resource inventories, including public
31 lands, private forest lands, protected wetlands, agricultural areas and agricultural districts,
32 wild/scenic/recreational rivers, aquifer recharge areas, waters, floodplains, coastal erosion hazard areas,
33 significant coastal fish and wildlife habitats, local government, lands of statewide or regional significance,
34 significant ecological and wildlife resources (via a contractual agreement with The Nature Conservancy,
35 the DEC maintains a statewide biodiversity inventory of significant natural resources for the state of New
36 York—NY Heritage program), wildlife management areas, historic preservation area, heritage area,
37 geologic resources (importance of areas for geologic education and study), fiat boundary base maps.
38 State staff and members of the RAC's constantly consider available data and technical information. Some
39 steps of the decision-making process (as described above) are solely qualitative, though.
40 (Source: New York Open Space Conservation Plan, Sheehan)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 54
-------
i Priority map:
2 Yes, state-wide conservation value maps (appear to be pixels or small analytical units).
3 Partnerships:
4 Guiding principles for the open space conservation plan include: the State should work in partnership
5 with others including local governments, not-for-profit conservation organizations and private landowners
6 to establish and achieve land conservation goals.
7 Partnerships are preferred, particularly easements and cost sharing with private/non-profit organizations;
8 implementation is based on creating effective partnerships including:
9
10 • Regional Advisory Committees (membership shall represent sportsmen, farmers, forest owners,
11 environmentalists, historic preservationists, recreationalists, and educators) that consult with and
12 advise agencies on regional projects and priorities;
13 • Local Governments (including promoting the creation of local open space plans);
14 • Conservation, Recreation, and Preservation Organizations (are playing an increasingly important
15 role, including fund raising, obtaining land donations, acting as an intermediary for the acquisition of
16 land, managing open space areas, providing volunteers for management and maintenance, providing
17 technical assistance to governments and others involved in land conservation);
18 • Private Landowners (especially via conservation easements);
19 • Tourism and Travel Industry (promote link between land protection and tourism/visitor experiences);
20 • Federal Government (incl. funding and technical assistance via USFWS, USNPS, GSA Rural
21 Development Program, FERC, ACOE, Conservation Reserve Program, USD A, Office of Ocean and
22 Coastal Resource Management, Wetlands Reserve Program)
23 The Nature Conservancy, The Open Space Institute (regional), Trust for Public Land, Scenic Hudson
24 (regional) has partnered with the State to pursue its open space goals. The State views the local land trusts
25 and other groups as the eyes and ears on the ground. They work closely with State staff and the RAC's to
26 provide information and advice.
27 (Source: New York Open Space Conservation Plan, Sheehan)
28 Available and expended funding:
29 $150 million was set aside for State land acquisition projects identified in the New York Open Space
30 Plan. All of the $150 million in bond money has been spent, but the Open Space Program gets an annual
31 budget through the EPF.
32 (Source: New York Open Space Conservation Plan, Sheehan)
33 Acres protected:
34 Unavailable (many different numbers are presented in the Plan)
35 925,000 acres have been set aside through the NY Open Space Program. There are numerous general
36 studies and NY-specific studies showing the benefits (including the economic benefits) of open space
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 55
-------
1 protection. There have been no specific studies showing how particular open space parcels set aside
2 through the NY Open Space Program have resulted in public benefits.
3 Sources:
4 The Department of Environmental Conservation and The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
5 Preservation. Conserving Open Space in New York State: Final State Open Space Conservation Plan and
6 Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement. 1998.
7 Pataki, George E. Letter from Governor George E. Pataki to New Yorkers. 2002.
8 New York Open Space Conservation Plan, 2002, http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/opensp/. accessed
9 online October 25, 2005.
10 Sheehan, Francis, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests,
11 personal communication with Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, October 27 and 28, 2005.
12 POINT OF CONTACT:
13 Francis Sheehan, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Lands and Forests.
14 Phone: (518) 402-9405. Email: fesheeha@gw.dec.state.ny.us.
15
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 56
-------
i 2000FL-01 Safe Parks & Land Preservation Bond Program
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 "To support a comprehensive plan to improve and expand the conservation and recreation assets of
6 Broward County and its municipalities." (Source: Broward County Website)
7 Program goals:
8 "Preserve and reclaim approximately 1,425 acres of conservation land, green space, and open space in
9 Broward County; Repair and enhance our aging park system to provide safe places for our children to
10 play and parks for everyone's enjoyment." (Source: Broward County Website)
11 Parcel selection process:
12 Anyone can recommend a potential acquisition project to the Land Preservation Advisory Board.
13 Proposed projects may be submitted to the County Commissioners, the Land Preservation Advisory
14 Board, or the Land Preservation Section. (Source: Broward County Website)
is Prioritization criteria:
16 • Habitat type and diversity
17 • Exotic or invasive species presence
18 • Development pressure
19 • Management needs
20 • Passive recreation potential
21 • Aesthetic significance
22 • Stage of ecological succession
23 • Structural diversity
24 • Wildlife utilization
25 • Protected species
26 • Species diversity
27 Ecological consultants were hired to visit and complete an assessment form for each site under
28 consideration as a Conservation Land or Green Space site. Staff conducted reviews of selected sites to
29 confirm the consultants were correctly interpreting data based upon the criteria created. The main criteria
30 that differentiated between a Conservation Land and a Green Space was whether the resource was
31 considered by staff to be a "restorable" resource. (Source: Broward County Website)
32 Decision-making process:
33 Participants include the public, Board of County Commissioners, Land Preservation Advisory Board,
34 Broward County municipalities, Land Preservation Section (Environmental Protection Department), Real
35 Property Section (Public Works and Transportation Department), County Attorney's Office, and the Parks
36 and Recreation Division (Community Services Department). (Source: Burgess)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 57
-------
1 Anyone can recommend a potential acquisition project to the Land Preservation Advisory Board.
2 Proposed projects may be submitted to the County Commissioners, the Land Preservation Advisory
3 Board, or the Land Preservation Section. (Source: Broward County Website)
4 The Land Preservation Section reviews the proposed projects and recommends their designation within
5 one of the three land categories identified in the Land Preservation Resolution 2000-1230 (sites that do
6 not meet the criteria for Conservation Land or Green Space may be proposed for acquisition as Open
7 Space). The Land Preservation Advisory Board recommends the addition of each site into the Land
8 Preservation Inventory within one of the three land categories. (Source: Burgess)
9 The sites recommended by the Land Preservation Advisory Board are brought to the County Commission
10 to allocate funding for the sites and to authorize County staff to initiate the acquisition process. (Source:
11 Burgess)
12 The Real Property Section or their designee contacts the landowner, ascertains the landowner's
13 willingness to sell, and, in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office, performs preliminary title
14 work and obtains and reviews appraisals and surveys on the property. The Land Preservation Section
15 contacts the relevant municipality and prepares, in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office, a land
16 acquisition and management agreement for each site that the municipality is willing to manage as a city
17 park. The Land Preservation Section will obtain a letter of support from the city or town for sites that are
18 located within a municipality but would be managed by the Broward County Parks and Recreation
19 Division because of their ecological sensitivity and/or their potential as an addition or buffer to existing
20 County-owned environmentally sensitive land. (Source: Burgess)
21 The results of the site acquisition process are communicated to the Land Preservation Advisory Board. If
22 a purchase price agreement is reached for the proposed site, the LPAB's recommendation is sought and
23 an Agenda Item is placed for the County Commission discussion, including a 28-day advance notice of
24 acquisition, when required by the Administrative Code. The Agenda Item will include the results of the
25 due diligence and negotiation process and the Land Preservation Advisory Board recommendation.
26 (Source: Burgess)
27 Staff generally recommends into which category a site qualifies. The category of Conservation Lands is
28 essentially natural communities considered restorable. Green Spaces contain a component of a natural
29 community but are not considered restorable (e.g., tree canopy only with understory highly disturbed, or
30 drained wetland that cannot be rehydrated.) Everything else is lumped into the Open Space category:
31 agricultural lands, vacant lots, even motels on the beach to be removed and replanted with trees and grass.
32 (Source: Burgess)
33 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
34 There is no prioritization in the Conservation Land (CL) or Green Space (GS) categories. Open Space
35 parcels are narrowed down to the following: sites in County Commission districts with funding shortfalls
36 (in an attempt to provide district equity); sites in cities with no other land acquisition projects in the CL or
37 GS categories; and the projects that provide the best passive recreational amenities. (Source: Burgess)
38 Ultimate decision maker:
39 The Broward County Board of County Commissioners are the ultimate decision makers, with
40 recommendations from the Land Preservation and Acquisition Advisory Board (LPAB). (Source:
41 Broward County Website)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 58
-------
1 The ultimate decision as to whether or not a site is acquired is based on the price offered. While it is
2 estimated that the program could acquire approximately 75% of the sites in the CL and GS inventories,
3 the actual percentage was closer to 30% because of the hot real estate market in south Florida in 2005.
4 Many sites were lost to development, others had unwilling sellers, and some resulted in failed
5 negotiations because the County relied upon property appraisals that did not always appear to reflect the
6 "market value" that others were willing to pay. (Source: Burgess)
7 Some of the main constraints for the program have been: the willingness of a property owner to sell to the
8 County; a lack of support for specific sites by the municipality within which the sites lie; the
9 unwillingness of the County Commission to exceed 10% above the appraised value; or the unwillingness
10 of a municipality to manage a small site within their jurisdiction (i.e., they support acquisition but are not
11 interested in managing). (Source: Burgess)
12 Priority map:
13 All Conservation Land and Green Space sites were selected for acquisition (no prioritization). The Open
14 Space sites were ranked by the LPAB, utilizing various criteria based upon the funding cycle, with a main
15 priority to ensure that each municipality received at least one land acquisition within their jurisdiction if
16 they requested any.
17 Partnerships:
18 Trust for Public Lands; TPL assisted initially in acquiring sites that were subject to intense development
19 pressure before we were able to contract with private acquisition consultants. TPL worked independent of
20 the County (not under contract) and assisted in several early acquisitions. The partnership was
21 discontinued after the early stages of the program's inception. (Source: Burgess)
22 Available and expended funding:
23 As of October 2005, $135 million spent on land acquisition and ecological restoration costs. (Source:
24 Burgess)
25 Acres protected:
26 As of October 2005, 145 acres of conservation land, 111 acres of green space, and 545 acres of open
27 space have been protected. The dollar per acre average is approximately $300,000 (this figure averages
28 beachfront and commercial sites with more rural lands). (Source: Burgess)
29 Sources:
30 Broward County Parks and Recreation Commission: http://www.broward.org/ourfuture/. accessed August
31 2005.
32 Donald Burgess, Land Preservation Administrator Environmental Protection Department, personal
33 communication with Toby Mandel, ICF Consulting, on November 14, 2005.
34
35 POINT OF CONTACT:
36 Donald Burgess, Land Preservation Administrator Environmental Protection Department, 954-519-0305.
37 Email: dburgess@broward.org
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 59
-------
i 2000FL-02 Volusia Forever*
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 "The Mission of Volusia Forever: Finance the acquisition and improvement of environmentally sensitive,
6 water resource protection, and outdoor recreation lands, and to manage these lands as conservation
7 stewards in perpetuity." (Source: Volusia Forever Website)
8 Program goals:
9 Volusia Forever was created by vote (61%) of the county's citizens in the year 2000. This twenty year
10 program is supported by an annual ad valorem assessment (0.2 mills). "Conserve, maintain and restore the
11 natural environment and provide access for the enjoyment and education of the public; provide resources
12 to ensure that sufficient quantities of water are available to meet current and future needs; meet the need
13 for high-quality resource based outdoor opportunities, greenways, trails, and open space; preserve the
14 habitat and water recharge; ensure that the natural resource values of such lands are protected and that the
15 public has the opportunity to enjoy the lands to their fullest potential." (Source: Volusia Forever Website)
16 Parcel selection process:
17 The Volusia Forever Advisory Committee (VFAC) provides assistance on potential acquisitions by
18 reviewing and ranking properties under consideration and making formal recommendations to the County
19 Council. (Source: Volusia Forever Website)
20 Committee is comprised of nine (9) citizens appointed by the County Council. Each district County
21 Council member appoints one Committee member and the County Council Chair and Vice-Chair each
22 appoint two Committee members. The Committee's term is for 2 years and members can be re-appointed.
23 Other than being a registered elector and resident of the county, there are no formal qualifications
24 required in order to be appointed to the VFAC. The members of the VFAC typically represent a wide
25 variety of backgrounds and interests.
26 In general, when designing the program (not just the VFAC), Volusia looked at other counties with
27 programs in place, and then took the best practices of each of the other programs. In particular, Volusia
28 Forever looked heavily at the State's Florida Forever program.
29 Volusia Forever is a voluntary program relying exclusively upon willing sellers. Applications are only
30 accepted from the landowner or his/her authorized representative. Members of the public may not submit
31 an application to the program for land which they do not own or are not authorized by the landowner to
32 represent.
33 There are two application cycles each year, typically concluding in June and December. The application
34 solicits information describing the site and explaining why the property should be considered for the
35 program. Applications received are forwarded to the VFAC for determination of eligibility using the
36 established criteria. (Source: Isenhour)
37 Prioritization criteria:
38 The categories and criteria used when evaluating properties for potential acquisition are specified by
39 County Resolution. The categories are proximity and connectivity, furtherance of acquisition efforts,
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 60
-------
1 water resources, environmentally sensitive lands, recreation/public use, management and enhancement.
2 With the exception of the enhancement category, each of these categories are primary.
3 Specific criterion are itemized under each category. Each property, as it relates to the criterion, is
4 evaluated on a Yes/No basis. A sliding scale, ranging from Low to High, is used to further define the
5 applicability of an affirmative response to a criterion. In order to be eligible, a property should receive a
6 specified minimum number of affirmative answers to the primary criteria. (Source: Isenhour)
7 Decision-making process:
8 Once a property application is submitted, staff does a desk review to evaluate the property using the
9 criteria cited above. The application, along with staffs evaluation, is presented to the VFAC for the
10 purpose of determining if the property is eligible for the program.
11 If the property is deemed eligible, staff will visit the site and prepare an analytical report which is
12 presented to the VFAC at the next bi-annual ranking meeting. These documents are all public record and
13 provided to the property owner.
14 Properties are recommended for placement within either Group A or Group B of the Volusia Forever list.
15 Group A is comprised of the active acquisition properties. Properties within Group B are not the preferred
16 candidates for acquisition, and more importantly, typically do not have a funding partner. If a funding
17 partner were to become available, a Group B property could be elevated to Group A.
18 When considering placement of property within a Group, the Committee uses the criteria cited above plus
19 additional information including public comment, maps, GIS, photos, local knowledge and the probability
20 for receiving matching funds from other land acquisition sources. Climate change is not considered at all,
21 as it is beyond the scope of what is necessary to determine if a property is worthy of acquisition.
22 The VFAC's recommended ranking of eligible properties is subsequently presented to the County
23 Council, which has final approval of the ranking. The meetings of both the VFAC and County Council
24 are public hearings. (Source: Isenhour)
25 Ultimate decision maker:
26 The County Council has final approval of the Ranking list and approves all property purchases. (Source:
27 Walsh)
28 A property must be Group A to be acquired. The County Council can move properties between Groups A
29 and B, but cannot place a property within either Group without prior eligibility review and
30 recommendation by the VFAC. The County Council has been very supportive of the recommendations of
31 the VFAC. (Source: Isenhour)
32 There is no ranking scheme of the properties within Groups A or B. Acquisition efforts for multiple
33 properties within group A may be undertaken concurrently. Initially, there was a ranking system within
34 the Groups, but it was removed. Prioritization ceased for several reasons: conflicts with partners,
35 coordinating grant cycles with the highest priority sites didn't work out, and many prime sites could not
36 be acquired. Volusia is attempting to acquire properties at as the opportunity arises, rather than having to
37 wait for a certain property to make it to the "top of the list." This strategy promotes the effectiveness of
38 the program's overall acquisition efforts by eliminating the scenario wherein a landowner placed in a
39 preeminent position could delay or preclude negotiates for other properties. Volusia also has the ability to
40 buy a property with 100% funding and can seek matching funding later. (Source: Isenhour)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 61
-------
1 Significant time constraints of a potential acquisition are the requirements associated with the process by
2 which a local government purchases real property (i.e., the appraisal process, surveying, etc.).
3 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
4 Not available.
5 Priority map:
6 Priority areas are the Volusia Conservation Corridor (VCC), which bisects the county, the Ponce Preserve
7 Conservation Project and the Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve, both of which are located in the
8 eastern portion of the county, and the Lake George Conservation Area, located in the northwestern
9 quadrant of the county.
10 All properties that fall within these priority areas move to Group A without any other considerations
11 (prioritization criteria, etc).
12 When looking outside of the priority areas, connectivity of a potential acquisition with other conservation
13 lands is a significant consideration. Conservation lands represent approximately one quarter of the county.
14 Other important considerations are property size and habitat(s).
is Partnerships:
16 A goal of the program is to leverage each local dollar with a dollar from a funding partner. Potential
17 acquisition partners include; the St. Johns River Water Management District, State agencies (e.g. Florida
18 Division of Forestry, Florida Communities Trust), Federal agencies (e.g. Department of Agriculture),
19 local municipalities and non-profit organizations (e.g. the Trust for Public Lands). (Source: Isenhour)
20 Available and expended funding:
21 Monies generated from a $40 million bond (issued in 2005) and annual ad valorem revenue support the
22 Volusia Forever program. While the bond funds represent a "one-time" source of revenue, the ad valorem
23 assessment is for the twenty-year life of the program. As recently demonstrated, the real estate market can
24 be volatile. The amount of revenue generated yearly varies dependent upon the taxable base upon which
25 the millage is levied. Ten percent of the total annual funds are allocated for land management. (Source:
26 Isenhour)
27 To date, approximately $52 million in Volusia Forever funds have been expended for acquisition. This
28 amount has been furthered by the expenditure of approximately $33 million by our acquisition partners.
29 (Source Isenhour)
30 Acres protected:
31 To date, Volusia Forever has protected, with our funding partners, approximately 33, 000 acres. This
32 acreage consists of 39 purchases (both fee simple and less-than fee) plus numerous parcels acquired in
33 antiquated subdivisions/plats through the "small-lot" initiative of the Volusia Forever program. (Source:
34 Isenhour)
35 Other Information:
36 Volusia County was one of the first counties to have a taxpayer funded program, established in 1986. The
37 Volusia Forever program is the second land acquisition endeavor.
38 The Volusia Forever program has received both national and state awards;
39 - "Better Community Award" (2008) from the 1000 Friends of Florida
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 62
-------
1 - "County Leadership in Conservation Award" (2006) from the Trust for Public Lands
2 and the National Association of Counties, and
3 - "Achievement Award (2003) from the National Association of Counties.
4
5 Sources:
6 Ed Isenhour, Volusia Forever Program Coordinator, County of Volusia, personal communication with
7 Philip Groth, ICF Consulting, May 8th, 2009.
8 Volusia Forever, http://volusiaforever-echo.com/forever/default.htm. accessed August 2005.
9 Robert J. Walsh, Volusia Forever Program Manager, Land Acquisition & Management, personal
10 communication with Toby Mandel and Anne Choate, ICF Consulting, November 11, 2005.
11
12 POINT OF CONTACT:
13 Ed Isenhour, Volusia Forever Program Coordinator, County of Volusia, Division of Land Acquisition and
14 Management, (386)740-5261. Email: eisenhour@co.volusia.fl.us
15
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 63
-------
i 2000FL-04 Alachua County Forever*
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 "Alachua County Forever is a land conservation program to acquire and protect environmentally
6 significant lands. Through this program, Alachua County seeks to acquire, protect and manage
7 environmentally significant lands, protect water resources, wildlife habitat, and natural areas suitable for
8 resource-based recreation." (Source: Alachua County Forever website www.alachuacountyforever.us)
9 Program goals:
10 Alachua County Forever will be a conscientious, innovative, progressive leader in land conservation and
11 use acquisition, stewardship and funding development practices to preserve the environmental integrity of
12 Alachua County and improve the quality of life for current and future generations. (Source: Alachua
13 County Forever website www.alachuacountyforever.us)
14 Parcel selection process:
15 On July 25, 2000, the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) approved Ordinance 00-
16 13, enabling the creation of a Land Conservation Board (LCB). Appointed by the BoCC, the eleven
17 citizens volunteer to review and recommend lands within Alachua County to be acquired for conservation
18 purposes. The LCB is composed of five members representing diverse community interests and six
19 members whose qualifications include education and experience in natural resources. (Source: Alachua
20 County Forever website)
21 Selection of a property generally takes between two and six months. A landowner or another member of
22 the community submits parcel nominations. Approximately 1/3 of non-landowner nominations do not
23 progress past the nomination stage, as the owners are not interested in selling the land. Of the remaining
24 2/3, half are eager to participate, and half are only interested in considering alternative arrangements such
25 as easements, etc. (Source: Buch)
26 Program staff evaluates all nominated parcels using the prioritization criteria below. The evaluation is a
27 quantitative ranking process, with each parcel receiving a score. This score is presented to the LCB.
28 (Source: Buch. http://www.alachuacounty.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/Files/Resolution%2009-
29 010_Web.pdf)
30 Prioritization criteria:
31 I. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
32 I.I. Protection of Water Resources
33 A. Whether the property has geologic/hydrologic conditions that would easily enable
34 contamination of vulnerable aquifers that have value as drinking water sources;
35 B. Whether the property serves an important groundwater recharge function;
36 C. Whether the property contains or has direct connections to lakes, creeks, rivers, springs,
37 sinkholes, or wetlands for which conservation of the property will protect or improve surface
38 water quality;
39 D. Whether the property serves an important flood management function.
40 1.2. Protection of Natural Communities and Landscapes
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 64
-------
1 A. Whether the property contains a diversity of natural communities;
2 B. Whether the natural communities present on the property are rare;
3 C. Whether there is ecological quality in the communities present on the property;
4 D. Whether the property is functionally connected to other natural communities;
5 E. Whether the property is adjacent to properties that are in public ownership or have other
6 environmental protections such as conservation easements;
7 F. Whether the property is large enough to contribute substantially to conservation efforts;
8 G. Whether the property contains important, Florida-specific geologic features such as caves or
9 springs;
10 H. Whether the property is relatively free from internal fragmentation from roads, power lines,
11 and other features that create barriers and edge effects.
12 1.3. Protection of Plant and Animal Species
13 A. Whether the property serves as documented or potential habitat for rare, threatened, or
14 endangered species or species of special concern;
15 B. Whether the property serves as documented or potential habitat for species with large home
16 ranges;
17 C. Whether the property contains plants or animals that are endemic or near-endemic to Florida or
18 Alachua County;
19 D. Whether the property serves as a special wildlife migration or aggregation site for activities
20 such as breeding, roosting, colonial nesting, or over-wintering;
21 E. Whether the property offers high vegetation quality and species diversity;
22 F. Whether the property has low incidence of non-native invasive species.
23 1.4. Social/Human Values
24 A. Whether the property offers opportunities for compatible resource-based recreation, if
25 appropriate;
26 B. Whether the property contributes to urban green space, provides a municipal defining
27 greenbelt, provides scenic vistas, or has other value from an urban and regional planning
28 perspective.
29 II. 1. MANAGEMENT ISSUES
30 A. Whether it will be practical to manage the property to protect its environmental, social and
31 other values (examples include controlled burning, exotics removal, maintaining hydro-period,
32 and so on);
33 B. Whether this management can be completed in a cost-effective manner.
34 II.2 ECONOMIC/ACQUISITION ISSUES
35 A. Whether there is potential for purchasing the property with matching funds from municipal,
36 state, federal, or private contributions;
37 B. Whether the overall resource values justifies the potential cost of acquisition;
38 C. Whether there is imminent threat of losing the environmental, social or other values of the
39 property through development and/or lack of sufficient legislative protections (this requires
40 analysis of current land use, zoning, owner intent, location and market conditions);
41 D. Whether there is an opportunity to protect the environmental, social or other values of the
42 property through an economically attractive less-than-fee mechanism such as a conservation
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 65
-------
1 easement. (Source: Alachua County Forever website.
2 http://www.alachuacountv.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/site scoring criteria.pdf
3 http://www.alachuacounty.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/Files/Resolution%2009-
4 010_Web.pdf)
5 The Decision Matrix uses weighted criteria (the most important criteria are more heavily weighted).
6 Environmental Values account for approximately 2/3 of total score. All other criteria make up the other
7 1/3 of the score. (Source: Buch)
s Decision-making process:
9 Staff evaluates projects, or portions of projects, with the Land Conservation Decision Matrix (LCDM)
10 and assigns a numeric score between 1 and 5 reflecting how well the project addresses each criterion. The
11 Environmental and Social/Human Values that make up Section I of the LCDM determine if a property
12 meets the intent of the Alachua County Forever Program. This section is weighted so that the average of
13 the scores in this section equals two-thirds of the total final score calculated by the LCDM. The
14 Management and Economic/Acquisition Issues make up Section 2, which assess a property's
15 vulnerability and the economic feasibility of acquisition and management. This is weighted so that the
16 average of the scores from this section equals one-third of the total score calculated by the LCDM. Total
17 final scores range from a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 10. (Source, Buch.
18 http://www.alachuacounty.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/Files/Resolution%2009-010_Web.pdf).
19 Ultimate decision maker:
20 The County Commission (CC) is the ultimate decision maker. The LCB makes recommendations to the
21 CC. Once a property has been evaluated with the LCDM scoring matrix and has received a positive
22 recommendation from the board, it may proceed to the CC. Properties that do not meet these two
23 requirements are not eligible for consideration or acquisition. Approximately 1A of the properties that are
24 presented to the LCB by the program staff are approved to the CC. (Source: Buch)
25 A total of 31 properties have been recommended to the CC from the LCB. Although it was initially
26 specified in the ballot language, there is not a priority list or ranking among the properties. Prioritization
27 was discontinued to try to increase negotiation power for the county. By keeping all parcels on an equal
28 playing field, landowners may be more apt to accept an offer made by the County since there are other
29 parcels the County can choose if any given landowner is difficult during negotiations. (Source: Buch)
30 There is a loose link between the results of the evaluation of prioritization criteria by the LCB and the
31 ultimate decision to purchase a parcel. The highest scoring property would ideally be the highest priority
32 for acquisition, but the County is a political environment with additional factors that need to be
33 considered. One example of a low scoring property which was elevated for acquisition is a property that is
34 close in proximity to three elementary schools. The CC decided that it was more valuable to instill a sense
35 of environmental ethic in the younger population of the County than choose a parcel with a higher score.
36 In short, the CC has the ability to deviate from top scorers, but will only do so for the greater benefit of
37 the community. (Source: Buch)
38 There are not too many legal, regulatory or political constraints, but there are significant financial
39 constraints to acquisition. There is huge competition with developers for many of their properties.
40 Unfortunately the county tends to "lose" the battle with developers, since the upper limit of purchasing
41 price is not allowed to exceed the appraised price per acre of land. The issue has always been present, but
42 it is becoming increasingly prevalent. (Source: Buch)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 66
-------
i Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
2 Many data sources are used to evaluate a property, including technical sources. GIS mapping and current
3 aerial maps are used in addition to a property walk. The LCB also uses 1-2 foot laser shot contour lines
4 from aircraft showing fine scale hydrology and topography, aiding them to see sink holes and
5 microclimates. (Source: Buch)
6 Priority map:
7 There is a map available on the web site, with color coded parcels for the county.
8 http://www.alachuacounty.us/assets/uploads/images/EPD/Land/Images/ACF%20Project%20Map%20090
9 313.pdf.
10 Partnerships:
11 Partners include the State of Florida, regional water management authorities, city of Gainesville, The
12 Nature Conservancy, other private groups, and the Forest legacy program (grant). (Source: Buch)
13 Available and expended funding:
14 From 2001 through March 2008, acquisitions were funded through $29 million in voter-approved bonds,
15 payable through a quarter-mill ad valorem property tax, levied for 20 years. (Source: Alachua County
16 Forever Website). With its passage in 2008, the "Wild Spaces Public Places" referendum funds new
17 acquisitions from April 2009 onward. This new 0.5% Local Government Infrastructure Surtax is expected
18 to raise between $10 million and $15 million for land conservation through December 2010.
19 Both funds must be used for land acquisition or acquisition activities. Up to 10% of the funds can be set
20 aside for initial capital improvements, and none can be used for stewardship or management. In order for
21 there to be any management of the property, the County must designate County funds in the annual
22 budget. (Source: Buch)
23 The program has experienced significant financial restraints in acquiring lands. There is an extremely
24 high level of competition with developers for many of the properties on the acquisition list.
25 Unfortunately, many properties are "lost" to the developers, as the County is restricted to paying up to the
26 appraised value for the property. (Source: Buch)
27 Acres protected:
28 Currently (though March 27, 2009) the Active Acquisition List has $98 million and ,42,863 acres.
29 Included in this estimate is the 17,086 acres that have already been protected. Those acquisitions cost $74
30 million, $23 million of which came from the program budget. Prices have ranged from $1,000 to $50,000
31 per acre. (Source: Buch.
3 2 http ://www .alachuacounty .us/assets/uploads/image s/EPD/Land/Files/Program%2 0 Summary .pdf)
33 Other Information:
34 The Florida Communities Trust (a state agency) www.myflorida.com has a very good system for soliciting
35 and evaluating applications. This program, like the other state programs is funded through bonds and
36 transfer taxes, which might be a statutory requirement. (Source: Buch)
37
38 In Florida, approximately 30 of all 67 counties have some form of land protection and acquisition
39 program. Programs which have dedicated management/stewardship funding built into the measure are
40 clearly in the best situation for long term success. (Source: Buch)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 67
-------
i Sources:
2 Alachua County Forever, www.alachuacountyforever.us, accessed June 15,2009.
3 Ramesh Buch, Environmental Program Supervisor, personal communication with Toby Mandel, ICF
4 Consulting, October 31,2005.
5 POINT OF CONTACT:
6 Ramesh Buch, Environmental Program Supervisor, 352-264-6804. Email: rpbuch(g),alachuacounty.us
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 68
-------
i 2000MI-01 Natural Areas Preservation Program*
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 "The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners declares that Washtenaw County is a desirable place
6 to live, work and visit in large part because of the existence of natural areas within the County. Natural
7 areas have aesthetic as well as practical benefits for County citizens. In addition, the purchase of natural
8 areas can be used to protect fragile lands and environmentally threatened lands. The purchase of natural
9 areas within the County will further these public benefits. Passive recreation would be appropriate use of
10 this land." (Source: NAPP)
11 The property tax millage and land preservation program was established through a grassroots effort to set
12 aside natural areas and protect them from development. (Source: Freeman)
is Program goals:
14 "Preservation of the natural, ecological diversity/heritage of Washtenaw County; complement the existing
15 network of publicly and privately protected lands; maximize the public benefit." (Source: Parks and
16 Recreation Commission)
17 The phrase "maximize public benefit" means "maximize quality of life". The preservation of natural areas
18 is a key component of quality of life and that water resources and wildlife are included in the term natural
19 areas. In addition, all land areas preserved are required to be viable habitat for wildlife or plants and as
20 such, larger parcels often receive higher priority. (Source: Freeman)
21 Parcel selection process:
22 Property owners are invited to submit applications to the Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation
23 Commission (WCPARC), which administers the program,-. (Commission has elected to prohibit initiating
24 contact with owners) Applications are reviewed by WCPARC staff, who also gather background
25 information and visit the nominated properties. The information gathered by WCPARC is provided to the
26 Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC), who reviews and visits each nominated
27 property. Then, NATAC recommends to WCPARC whether the parcel should be preserved, and how
28 much the County should pay. The recommendation is also forwarded to the Planning Advisory Board and
29 the local government who can provide comments. WCPARC ranks the nominated properties and selects
30 the highest ranking properties to pursue for purchase. At this stage, promising parcels are appraised and
31 subject to a Phase 1 environmental assessment. The final step in the process is negotiating a price for
32 purchasing the property and a decision by WCPARC on whether to purchase the land for that price. See
33 figure 1 below.
34
35
36
37 Figure 1: Washtenaw County Natural Areas Preservation Program Property Review Process
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 69
-------
NOMINATION
FORM
SUBMITTAL
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
1
FINAL DECISION
BY WCPARC
PURCHASE OR
NOT PURCHASE
2 (Source: Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission)
3 The Natural Areas Technical Advisory Committee (NATAC) includes seven county residents with the
4 following expertise: Professional Real Estate or Development Practice, Environmental Education,
5 Fisheries Biology/Aquatic Ecology, Professional Land Use Planning, Wildlife Management,
6 Botany/Forestry, and Land Trust/Conservation. Currently, three positions are filled by faculty or staff at
7 the University of Michigan; the others are a realtor, a public school employee, and a design professional.
8 (The affiliation of the member holding the land trust position was not available.)
9 Prioritization criteria:
10 "A. Public Water Resources.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 70
-------
1 I. Water Resources Access/Frontage. Does the property have frontage on a lake or perennial
2 stream? yes no.
3 If the property borders an aquatic ecosystem, assign relative screening score following the table below. If
4 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
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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
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)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 71
-------
1 >50 acres of any type of wetland or a complete palustrine wetland >20 acres in size (Very High)
2 NOTE: Lacustrine = lake; Riverine = river; Palustrine = standing water.
3 B. Special Animals, Plants and Plant Communities
4 I. Wildlife Habitat. Does the property support important terrestrial or aquatic populations or habitat
5 or add to already protected property/ies that would protect wildlife populations or habitat?
6 yes no
7 The property contributes high quality home range habitat for wide ranging resident wildlife compatible
8 with surrounding land uses. (Medium)
9 The property secures important habitat within the property or in combination with protected adjoining
10 properties for at least one of the following: migrating songbirds, migrating waterfowl, desirable resident
11 species requiring specialized habitat conditions. (High)
12 The property secures essential habitat for rare, threatened or endangered species. (Very high)
13 II. Special Plants and Plant Communities. Does the property have some native vegetation?
14 yes no
15 The property contains sufficient components of pre-European settlement vegetation to allow restoration to
16 pre-European settlement conditions. (Medium)
17 The property supports populations of plant species that show a fidelity to high quality natural
18 communities and specialized habitats within the property. (High)
19 The property secures essential habitat for rare, threatened or endangered plant species or rare, imperiled
20 or critically imperiled plant communities. (Very high)
21 C. Recreational and Scientific Values
22 I. Recreation. Will the property provide access to public waters or trails, or protect a trail corridor?
23 (a) Will the property, or a specifically granted affirmative right to public access if a conservation
24 restriction, provide deeded public access to public waters where no such permanent access now exists in
25 the vicinity?
26 (b) Will the property abut a trail, or be within reasonable proximity of a trail that is now or could be
27 regularly used by the general public for recreation?
28 II. Scientific Site. Is the property a recognized, or potential, site of scientific/interpretive study (e.g.,
29 natural communities, species, archeological resources)?
30 D. Proximity to Protected Land
31 I. Adjacency. Does the property abut, or is otherwise integral to, a permanently protected tract of
32 public or private land being held for conservation or recreation purposes?
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 72
-------
1 II. Enhancement. Will the property enhance the ecosystem integrity of an adjacent, permanently
2 protected tract of public or private land being held for conservation or recreation purposes?" (Source:
3 Parks and Recreation Commission 2001)
4 WCPARC intentionally did not develop a point based system. The program did not want to be held back
5 or restricted from purchasing a property because of a point score. Instead, a more subjective system was
6 developed which evaluates properties through comparison of the qualifications of all nominated
7 properties. Essentially, the properties are ranked in order of importance for preservation. They are also
8 able to review properties submitted in earlier years if the property owner agrees. Under this system, the
9 properties that are evaluated as having highest priority are pursued first. (Source: Freeman)
10 In their evaluation criteria, there is no single most important criteria for selection although there is an
11 emphasis on water resources and stream/river frontage. And, while the focus in the water resources
12 criteria above is on amount of water frontage, wetlands, and recharge zones, they do consider the
13 condition of the water resource as well. In addition, they do not specifically consider the implications of
14 climate change, pollution, or habitat loss, on the properties in the evaluation process but they do consider
15 development pressures. The program might consider pursuing a property above another if there is an
16 imminent development threat. (Source: Freeman)
17 Decision-making process:
18 NATAC recommends properties to WCPARC for purchase. WCPARC evaluates the recommendation
19 and selects properties to pursue. These properties are then appraised, subject to a Phase 1 environmental
20 assessment and cost negotiations are begun with property owners. WCPARC reviews the appraisals,
21 environmental assessments, and cost negotiations for these properties and makes final decision on
22 whether to purchase each property. For the full parcel selection process, see Figure 1 above.
23 The process takes about 4-6 months to come to a decision on which properties the Commission would
24 like to acquire. The actual acquisition process can take much longer, especially if extensive Title work is
25 required for the property. The process is slow and deliberate but necessary to assure the acquisition of
26 prime properties. (Source: Freeman)
27 Ultimate decision maker:
28 Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission.
29 The Commission thoroughly reviews the recommendations made by NATAC and makes the decision on
30 which lands to purchase and how much money they are willing to spend. In one instance, a piece of land
31 recommended by NATAC for purchase was rejected by the Parks Commission. In this instance, the Parks
32 Commission decided that this land parcel was not as high a priority as other lands being recommended
33 and funding is limited such that not all parcels can be purchased. (Source: Freeman)
34 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
35 Data used in the evaluation process include data from the University of Michigan on groundwater and
36 water quality, maps of groundwater/recharge areas from the Dept. of Planning and Environment, analysis
37 of the land by the naturalist on NATAC, endangered species/species of concern data from state DNR, and
38 additional GIS layers/maps from the County Planning and Environment Office - including protected land
39 and conservation easement information. In addition, WCPARC staff, NATAC, and WCPARC decision
40 makers walk the properties nominated. (Source: Freeman)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 73
-------
i Priority map:
2 No county wide map of priority lands has been developed. The program is still receiving numerous
3 nominations each year and is working to keep on top of them. If the number of nominations decreases,
4 they would consider putting together a map of priority areas in the County and perhaps contacting
5 landowners. (Source: Freeman)
6 Partnerships:
7 Parks Commission partnered with a local land trust, the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy on
8 protection of a 64-acre parcel, part of the 325 acre LeFurge Woods Nature Preserve, owned by the
9 Conservancy. A 205-acre site near the River Raisin included an agreement that The Nature Conservancy
10 would purchase an additional adjacent 40 acres. (Source: the Nature Conservancy) Applicants are asked if
11 they have been working with an organization.
12 There is no specific partnership with one NGO or land protection agency. The program will work with
13 other groups to purchase land or help purchase land if needed though. (Source: Freeman)
14 Available and expended funding:
15 $27.5 million is current estimate. Implementing legislation allows up to seven percent to be spent on
16 program administration.
17 They receive about 2.75 million per year from the property tax. (Source: Freeman)
18 Through June 2009, they have spent atotal of $ $17.75million to purchase land. They are in their ninth
19 funded year. So far, land costs have ranged from $5,000/acre to $25,000/acre depending largely on
20 location. (Source: Freeman)
21 They are able to carry any excess funds over to the next year for future land purchases. They can also
22 work with a property owner to purchase a land area in two installments if there are not enough funds in
23 the budget to purchase a property. So far however, they have not had to do this.
24 They have noticed an increase in wildlife activity on the natural lands that they have protected, especially
25 if the lands were previously being used (or farmed) regularly. Scientific articles discussing these types of
26 impacts have not been identified, but the program keeps the public informed of their process regularly
27 through local newspaper articles on land that has been protected. Providing this information to the public
28 will be critical in making sure that the millage is renewed in 2010.
29 Acres protected:
30 Twenty-four parcels, ranging in size from six acres to 205 acres, have been acquired since 2002.
31 As of June 2009, a total of 1687 acres have been protected. (Source: Freeman)
32 The land can't be sold or removed from protection while the millage is in effect. Technically, if the
33 millage is not renewed in 2010, the legislation could be interpreted such that the land could be sold (this
34 is unlikely as WCPARC has not sold any land in 35 years). The Washtenaw County Parks and
35 Recreation Commission is the owner of the properties purchased and they hold the properties under state
36 statute in the name of the County.
37 The lands purchased through NAPP are kept completely natural. No buildings are put on the lands (not
38 even bathrooms) and only passive recreation, essentially walking, is allowed on the properties. The public
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 74
-------
1 is allowed to access the land but there are no paved trails and neither bikes nor pets are allowed. The
2 naturalist on staff does hold nature walks periodically. (Source: Freeman)
3 NAPP focuses on the fee simple purchase of land rather than the purchase of conservation easements. As
4 of June 2009, only three conservation easements, totaling 82 acres, have been purchased. Public access is
5 an important aspect of the program in Washtenaw County and if public access were not allowed, they
6 would not even consider purchase of a conservation easement. (Source: Freeman)
7 NAPP was not modeled after any other land preservation program but it did draw on the experience of
8 some citizens (members of NATAC) that had prior work experience at a Land Trust. (Source: Freeman)
9 As far as providing helpful information for other Counties interested in similar programs, it is critical to
10 have a public forum for discussion of the program and that it is imperative to get the local home builders
11 association to support the program. They were able to do this by convincing them that they would receive
12 less public opposition to the developments they were building if the public felt that key natural areas were
13 being preserved in the process. Although the process may be slow-going at times, it is important to be
14 deliberate and not rush the process. (Source: Freeman)
is Sources:
16 Freeman, Tom. 2005. Telephone conversation between Tom Freeman, Superintendent of Park Planning,
17 Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission, and Amanda Vemuri, ICF Consulting on October
18 25,2005.
19 Parks and Recreation Commission,
20 http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/parks_recreation/napp/pr_natac.html. accessed on
21 July 19, 2005.
22 Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission. 2001. Natural Areas Preservation Program
23 Screening System for Review of Potential Acquisitions. Received by email from Tom Freeman, October
24 25,2005.
25 Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission. Natural Areas Preservation Program Property
26 Review Process. Received by email from Tom Freeman, October 25, 2005.
27 Natural Areas Preservation Program (NAPP). Ordinance No. 128. Declaration of Purpose.
28 http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/departments/parks recreation/napp/pr natac.html/pr natacord.ht
29 ml. accessed on October 25, 2005.
30 Washtenaw County,
31 http://bocdob.ewashtenaw.org/bocdob/jsp/ad boards.jsp?value=Natural%20Areas%20Technical%20Advi
32 sory%20Committee%20&subid=32. accessed on July 19, 2005.
33 The Nature Conservancy, http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/michigan/funding/.
34 accessed on July 19, 2005
35 Michigan Natural Areas Council Newsletter, October 2001, No. 42:3, http://www-
36 personal.umich.edu/~ranecurl/mnac/News&Views 1001 .pdf. accessed on July 19, 2005.
37 POINT OF CONTACT:
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 75
-------
1 Tom Freeman, Superintendent of Park Planning, Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation Commission.
2 Phone: 734-971-6337, ex. 323. Email: FreemanT(g),ewashtenaw.org.
3
4
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 76
-------
i 2000MI-02 Meridian Charter Township Land Preservation
2 Program*
3
4 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
5 Mission statement:
6 Purpose from the Land Preservation Program Ordinance (Article III. Division 1. Sec. 22-57)
7 "This article is adopted for the following purposes: 1) To protect, preserve and enhance the township's
8 open space and special natural features. 2) To serve additional public purposes through the purchase of
9 property or interests in property for open space, enhancement of the natural habitat and water quality, and
10 the establishment of a reserve fund to ensure that funding is available for the perpetual stewardship of
11 these lands. 3) To leave an important natural legacy for future generations. 4) To take deliberate steps to
12 ensure the continuation of a pleasant and livable community that will benefit our residents, visitors, and
13 the local economy by employing a variety of techniques that will allow areas of natural landscape to
14 remain in perpetuity throughout the township." (Source: Meridian Township Ordinance)
15 Meridian residents have a long history of very active pursuit of keeping their community "rural in
16 character." As a regional shopping destination, a population of nearly 40,000 and excellent school
17 systems in Michigan, this is not an easy task. Meridian residents have the benefit of living beside
18 Michigan State University with many of its professors of forestry, wetlands, fisheries, agriculture, etc., as
19 members of the community. As a result, Meridian has many residents who highly value the surrounding
20 natural resources, have an in-depth knowledge and understanding of its value, and are willing to assist the
21 Township in its pursuit of finding a harmonious balance between preservation and development. (Source:
22 Helmbrecht)
23 Program goals:
24 "The criteria were developed to reflect principles established by landscape ecology and land conservation
25 objectives to maintain a maximum degree of biodiversity and to develop, manage, and maintain
26 ecological infrastructure through management of protected areas." (Source: Thomas)
27 Parcel selection process:
28 The Land Preservation Advisory Board based their screening process (in part) "on principles of landscape
29 ecology using a weighted, multi-variable approach similar to USDA's Land Evaluation and Site
30 Assessment procedure." (Source: Thomas)
31 The process consists of four main components. First, open space was inventoried using remote sensing
32 and GIS. Second, land screening criteria were developed and tested. Third, nominated properties are
33 reviewed in the field and results are archived in the GIS. Fourth, technical information are input into a
34 public information program. (Source: Thomas)
35 Property owners are invited to submit applications.
36 Prioritization criteria:
37 "The screening criteria include ecological value, natural or functional value, parcel size, surrounding land
38 use, environmental quality, and aesthetic value." (Source: Thomas)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 77
-------
1 Each of the categories listed also has subcriteria with associated point values. Ecological value is worth
2 100 points total, spread across the following five subcriteria: contains ecosystems of state, regional or
3 local importance (40 points); contains protected wildlife or vegetation and/or overall high diversity of
4 species (30 points); contains habitat for protected species (15 points); helps connect prime greenways and
5 wildlife corridors (10 points); other ecological values (5 points).
6 Natural or functional value is worth a total of 90 points and has the following subcriteria: significant
7 upland buffer to an area otherwise protected (wetland, riparian area, or shoreline) (31.5 points); contains
8 significant woodlot or woodland (22.5 points); contains prime/unique soils or agricultural values (18
9 points); provides ground water recharge and water quality enhancement; provides flood and storm water
10 control (13.5 points); important natural feature not protected by other means (4.5 points).
11 Parcel size is worth 80 points with four subcriteria: large land area with potential, through succession, to
12 become significant natural resource (40 points); parcel > 5 acres, contiguous to permanently preserved
13 property or one which has PDR offered (20 points); parcel > 5 acres (12 points); parcel < 5 acres having
14 important habitat value (8 points).
15 Surrounding land use is worth a total of 70 points and has the following five subcriteria: property
16 contiguous to protected property (e.g., wetland, riparian area, park) (24.5 points); open space value of
17 property can be protected after purchase (17.5 points); property contiguous to agricultural area (14
18 points); property contiguous to residential area (10.5 points); property contiguous to mixed use area (3.5
19 points).
20 Environmental quality is worth 40 points total, spread across three subcriteria: property contains no
21 environmental contamination (32 points); property contains possible environmental contamination (6
22 points); property contains known environmental contamination (2 points).
23 Aesthetic value is worth 40 points and has three subcriteria: provides open greenspace to separate
24 incompatible land uses or monotony of same uses (22 points); provides unique multiple use opportunities
25 (12 points); aesthetic values average for township (6 points).
26 Special considerations can be worth up to 40 points. (Source: Thomas)
27 The most important criteria/intent is to select properties with significant natural feature7 value. Program
28 money is set aside for "enhancement" which allows for projects such as returning a wetland to its more
29 natural state or rescuing plants, e.g. Trillium, from a development site and having it transplanted onto a
30 Land Preservation property. (Source: Helmbrecht)
31 Occasionally the advisory board has debates regarding the point values for highly visible parcels carrying
32 a higher aesthetic value than natural feature value. The debates are 'lively" and generally board members
33 fall into the following two categories, academics vs. "sensitives". (Source: Helmbrecht)
34 The program has targeted many properties alongside water features or known spawning habitats. Red
35 Cedar River flows across the Township and the Township also boasts medium-size Lake Lansing. That
36 said, Helbrecht stated that "One of the beauties of this program is its intentional diversity. Unlike other
37 programs focusing on one specific type of land, e.g. Leelanau County, MI and the cherry farms, we have
38 selected to preserve a wide variety of lands." (Source: Helmbrecht)
7 Natural features include lakes, rivers, animals, plants, ecosystems, etc and maps of this information can be
obtained from the Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 78
-------
1 In discussions of the evaluation criteria, the advisory board has considered change over time and this is
2 projected to some extent in the Stewardship and Stewardship Implementation plans. Climate specific
3 discussion, however, has not occurred. (Source: Helmbrecht)
4 Decision-making process:
5 "Amend Section 22-61 as follows:
6 (a) Application completion and submission. A property owner interested in submitting property
7 for consideration shall personally or through an agent complete the township's land
8 preservation application form. Application forms shall be obtained from, and completed
9 applications shall be submitted to, the office of the township clerk.
10 (b) Application receipt and review. The office of the township clerk may receive applications at
11 any time and shall take them to the Advisory Board no less frequently than on a quarterly
12 basis.
13 (c) Advisory board initial review. Within sixty (60) days after the applications are forwarded by
14 the township clerk the advisory board shall perform an initial review to determine whether
15 the subject properties meet applicable eligibility requirements. Advisory board members,
16 accompanied by Environmental Commission members shall cause an ecological review
17 applying the land screening criteria outlined in the rules of procedure to be performed with
18 respect to each eligible property and the results of that ecological review shall be timely
19 reported to the advisory board.
20 (d) Advisory board evaluation and recommendation. Following receipt of the ecological review,
21 the advisory board may obtain appraisals, title work, surveys and such other information as it
22 deems reasonably necessary to conduct its final evaluation and arrive at a determination as to
23 which property interests, if any, may be recommended to the township for acquisition. No
24 appraisal shall be required for property to be donated to the land preservation program.
25 (e) Negotiations for acquisition. Upon determining that a property interest may be recommended
26 to the township for acquisition, the advisory board may undertake negotiations with the
27 property owner to arrive at mutually acceptable terms for the township's acquisition of that
28 property interest.
29 (f) Conditional agreements for property interest acquisition. After completion of negotiations all
30 terms and conditions agreed upon for the acquisition of a property interest by the township
31 shall be set forth in a writing executed by the property owner and the township's designated
32 representative. This agreement shall be expressly conditioned upon approval by a majority
33 vote of the township board.
34 (g) Environmental site assessment. An environmental site assessment shall be authorized by the
35 township manager and conducted on behalf of the township before any acquisition of a
36 property interest is submitted for final approval by the township board.
37 (h) Final board approval. After a conditional agreement for the township's acquisition of a
38 property interest is obtained, that agreement and the advisory board's recommendation with
39 respect to the subject acquisition shall be submitted to the township board. Upon review of
40 the conditional agreement and recommendation, the township board shall determine, by a
41 majority vote taken at a regularly scheduled or special meeting, whether to approve the
42 purchase or donation as set forth in the conditional agreement.
43 (i) Completion of acquisition. The advisory board shall take all actions necessary to complete
44 the acquisition of property interests approved by the township board and the township clerk
45 shall record all documents necessary to evidence those acquisitions with the Ingham County
46 Register of Deeds."
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 79
-------
1 The decision-making process as presented above reflects recommended changes in the ordinance.
2 (Source: Helmbrecht)
3 To summarize the official language above for the decision-making process, Helmbrecht provided the
4 following synopsis of the process as it actually functions.
5 Applications are received at any time.
6 Applications are taken to the Advisory Board during their next regularly scheduled meeting, but not less
7 than quarterly. (Advisory Board meets on a monthly basis.)
8 Advisory Board members discuss the merits of the property having been submitted and determine if
9 walking the property to evaluate using the Land Screening Criteria is appropriate. If yes, members of both
10 the Land Preservation Advisory Board, as well as the Township Environmental Commission select a date
11 and walk the property to determine its desirability.
12 Land Preservation Advisory Board members are provided the Land Screening Criteria results at their next
13 meeting.
14 Following presentation of the "field results" the Advisory Board determines if the results warrant
15 contracting for an official appraisal of the property.
16 The completed appraisal is reviewed by the Advisory Board and determination is made if we choose to go
17 forward and present a buy-sell agreement to the property owner.
18 An Environmental site assessment is requested and received.
19 Upon completion of favorable negotiations with the landowner and Advisory Board, a request to purchase
20 is forwarded to the Township Board (which is the same as a city council).
21 Upon favorable response for purchase of the property from the Township Board, the recommended
22 property is forwarded, through resolution to the Planning Commission for a section 9 review as required.
23 Upon favorable response from both Township Board and Planning Commission all approvals are
24 complete and closing documents can be prepared.
25 Following purchase an environmental consulting firm is hired to complete an extensive "Stewardship
26 Plan" for the property. The "plan-report" includes: Site Description; Environmental feature descriptions
27 for all types of trees, scrubs, wet and dry meadows, open water, wetlands, upland and any rare plants and
28 wildlife. Additionally it describes easements and restrictions, management opportunities, constraints,
29 recommendations for enhancement, use - both long and short term, photographs and maps.
30 The final step is the Stewardship Implementation Plan. This plan describes where trails should go or
31 where existing trails should be diverted to protect rare species etc; where signs identifying property as a
32 Land Preservation Natural Area should be placed; an annual schedule for completion of recommended
33 actions: (e.g., remove dangerous little bridges, culverts, car parts, debris; remove invasive non-native
34 species, place interpretive signage, etc.); and finally, an annual schedule for general monitoring and
35 reporting. (Source: Helmbrecht)
36 All applications offering property to the Advisory Board are available to the public. All discussion
37 following receipt of the application through signed agreement is conducted in closed session. Once a buy-
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 80
-------
1 sell agreement is taken to the Township Board the information is available to the public. The Advisory
2 Board has a very strong commitment to using the millage dollars wisely and openly, as well as a complete
3 responsibility and gratitude to the residents for funding this program. (Source: Helmbrecht)
4 Ultimate decision maker:
5 Township Board.
6 There have been no modifications to the properties or prices presented to the Township Board.
7 Helmbrecht did not think modifications or rejections would be likely. However, the Township Board is
8 the ONLY body capable of approving expenditures and therefore they have all the discretion they choose
9 to effect. (Source: Helmbrecht)
10 The time it takes to acquire a new parcel for protection (from parcel identification through the acquisition
11 process) varies widely depending on circumstances associated with each property. Their acquisitions have
12 ranged from as short as 6 months to as long as 4-5 years. (Source: Helmbrecht)
is Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
14 State of Michigan Natural Features Inventory (Source: Helmbrecht); Ecological Assessment (Source:
15 Thomas; Meridian Township Ordinance); Local biological surveys; and open space identified through
16 remote sensing and GIS. Land screening was also used as a data source. The Township and advisory
17 board have access to State of Michigan maps identifying the "most likely" areas to find endangered
18 species and have used it as a data source on occasion as well (Source: Helmbrecht).
19 In addition, the data are validated by the Township's Environmental Commission and/or by an
20 Environmental Consultant. The advisory board also considers census projections and development in
21 general during its discussions of potential properties. (Source: Helmbrecht)
22 Priority map:
23 Yes. They developed their own map by first mapping available open space. As open space is nominated
24 for acquisition, the parcels are reviewed in the field and the results of the review are input into the GIS
25 map. (Source: Thomas)
26 Independent of Land Preservation, the Township Board commissioned the research and development of a
27 Greenspace Plan for the Township, which includes consultant data plus resident data gathered during four
28 public forums for discussion and identification of the public's perception of the valuable properties in the
29 Township. The completed Greenspace plan is used on a regular basis by the Land Preservation Advisory
30 Board. (Source: Helmbrecht)
31 Partnerships:
32 Michael Thomas, Former Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies,
33 Michigan State University (wrote a paper and poster of activity.)
34 Available and expended funding:
35 $9.5 million is current estimate for total funding that will be generated. (Source: Meridian Monitor
36 Summer 2005)
37 Thirty properties have been acquired so far through purchase, donation, and tax delinquency. (Source:
38 Helmbrecht)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 81
-------
1 The cost of the properties has ranged from $3,500 to $38,000 per acre depending upon whether the
2 property consists mainly of wetlands or uplands. Approximately 20% of current acquisitions have been
3 100% donation. Donated parcels are among the highest ranking acquisitions from an environmental
4 perspective. (Source: Helmbrecht)
5 In the process of purchasing the properties, an appraisal is required (except for donated parcels) and the
6 Township shares the appraisal with the landowner and does not offer less than the appraised value. There
7 have been multiple instances when the seller has offered to donate a portion of the value, which is
8 allowed. There is a "general, unwritten rule" that if someone wants the property to carry their name, there
9 must be at least a 50% donation of its appraised value. Additionally, when there is a lack of agreement
10 between seller and buyer on the Township's appraised value, the landowner may choose to obtain his/her
11 own appraisal, after which the discussion begins anew toward finding a purchase price. (Source:
12 Helmbrecht)
13 Acres protected:
14 Since implementation in 2001, five properties had been acquired through donation (90 acres), nineteen
15 properties (376 acres) through purchase, six properties (28 acres) through tax delinquency, for a total of
16 494 +/- acres as of Summer 2009. (Source: Helmbrecht)
17 The ordinance states that the land is permanently preserved with strict requirements. The land could only
18 be sold if there was a public vote resulting in a 75% majority vote in favor of selling. More importantly
19 the ballot language used when the millage was passed included the words "for the purchase of land and/or
20 interests in land for permanent preservation of open green spaces and natural features throughout the
21 township." Should future boards choose to change the ordinance language, the permanency issue will
22 revert to the intent written into the original ballot language from which the funds for purchase were
23 derived. (Source: Helmbrecht)
24 Only one difficulty was identified related to the purchase of development rights. Michigan law does not
25 provide the authority to Townships to purchase development rights. However, legislation was found that
26 permits Townships to purchase conservation easements of any size which allows them to reach the same
27 goal. While it takes a long time to finalize land protection deals, the people who want to have their land
28 protected are very passionate about its protection. These people "have no interest in the money they
29 receive and have no need to sell it quickly, as long as it will be protected in perpetuity." (Source:
30 Helmbrecht)
31 Sources:
32 Helmbrecht, Mary. 2005. Email from Mary Helmbrecht, Clerk of Meridian Township, to Amanda
33 Vemuri, ICF Consulting including an attachment with typed responses to questions. Sent Oct. 24, 2005.
34 Telephone conversation between Mary Helmbrecht and Amanda Vemuri on Oct. 20, 2005.
35 Thomas, M.R. The Use of Ecologically Based Screening Criteria in a Community-Sponsored Open Space
36 Preservation Program. Poster Presentation at 2004 Michigan Land Use Summit.
37 http://www.landpolicy.msu.edu/resources/2004summit/thomas_eco.pdf. accessed on July 15, 2005.
38 Meridian Township Board. Meridian Land Preservation Program Growing. Meridian Monitor. Summer
39 2005. http://www.twp.meridian.mi.us/frame meridmon.htm. accessed on July 18, 2005.
40 Meridian Township. Ordinance No. 2001-15, 1(127-2), 11-8-2001. Article III. Land Preservation
41 Program. Section 22-56 through Section 22-89.
42 http://www.municode.com/services/mcsgateway.asp?sid=22&pid=13564. accessed on July 18, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 82
-------
1 POINT OF CONTACT:
2 Mary Helmbrecht, Meridian Township Clerk. Phone: 517-853-4324. Email: Helmbrecht@meridian.mi.us.
3
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 83
-------
i 2000TX-01 Edwards Aquifer Land Acquisition and Park
2 Expansion Program
4 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
5 Mission statement:
6 There is no specific mission statement for the program. The main focus of the program was to buy
7 sensitive land8 over the Edwards Aquifer to protect water quality and quantity. (Source: Spegar (a))
8 The program itself was the result of a grassroots effort when it became apparent in the 1980s and 1990s
9 that development in the northern band of Bexar (pronounced Bear) County along Loop 1604 (local
10 interstate) was beginning to increase. This area is known for winding roads, trees, and the ability to
11 overlook downtown San Antonio, which makes it an attractive place to live. People in the area became
12 concerned about the rapid development and its potential impact on Edwards Aquifer, which is their sole
13 drinking water source. As a result, the Proposition 3 initiative was developed. The initiative was
14 successful, resulting in the approval of a sales tax to collect up to $45 million for the purchase of sensitive
15 land over Edwards Aquifer and $20 million to create linear parks along the Leon and Salado Creeks.
16 (Source: Spegar (a), (b))
17 The Proposition 3 initiative passed in 2000 went through January of 2005. A new sales tax referendum
18 has already passed and will kick off in Fall 2005/Winter 2006. This sales tax included an additional $90
19 million for the purchase of sensitive land over Edwards Aquifer. (Source: Spegar (a))
20 Program goals:
21 Locate and purchase undeveloped land in the recharge and contributing zones of the Edwards Aquifer as a
22 means of protecting the Aquifer from increased pollution. (Source: Corzine)
23 Parcel selection process:
24 The entire region was input into a GIS model that assigned a value based on a variety of criteria to every
25 square meter of the region. Lands rated in the top three tiers by the GIS model were given to the land
26 agents to pursue for acquisition. (Source: Stone and Schindel)
27 Prioritization criteria:
28 The Scientific Evaluation Team (SET)9 developed a matrix using GIS to allow objective comparison of
29 all properties in the recharge and contributing zones (about 150,000 acres). The three primary data
30 categories included in the spatial model were geologic, biologic, and watershed data. Specific criteria
31 were selected for each category. The geologic criteria included were terrain slope, stratigraphy, mapped
32 faults, caves and sinkholes, and soils. The biologic criteria included were the habitat of the Golden-
33 Cheeked Warbler to represent surface biologic datasets and to represent the subsurface component they
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))
9 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.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 84
-------
1 selected nine species of karst invertebrates found only in caves in this area. The Golden-Cheeked Warbler
2 is an endangered species that needs mature mixed ash juniper and oak forests for nesting. These nine
3 invertebrates include three beetles, five spiders, and one harvestman and are listed on the Threatened and
4 Endangered Wildlife List. The third category, watershed, consisted of multiple criteria including property
5 size, adjacency, and proximity of a property to other "Open Space" properties. The SET also set a
6 minimum property size at 60 acres; this size was deemed necessary for effective wildlife management.
7 These three data categories were combined into a GIS spatial overlay and given the following weightings
8 by category, geologic (50 percent); biologic (20 percent); and watershed (30 percent). The GIS modeling
9 process assigned a value based on the weighted overlay to every square meter of the region. Lands
10 meeting the greatest number of criteria had the higher values.
11 "The results of the modeling were divided into 8 tiers with the 3 highest tiers meeting the overall criteria
12 developed by the SET to be considered for evaluation for purchase."
13 (Source: Stone and Schindel)
14 The goal of the model was to "prioritize characteristics of areas most likely to contain recharge features
15 and geological land features which contribute to Edwards Aquifer." Since the focus of the land
16 acquisition was to protect Edwards Aquifer water quality, quantity and recharge potential, the geologic
17 features associated with the recharge and contributing lands were of most importance. They were not very
18 concerned with the protection of wildlife habitat specifically although it was often the case that areas
19 important for wildlife habitat were also important for the aquifer. (Source: Spegar (a), (b))
20 In addition to the criteria embedded in the spatial model, the CAB focused on additional selection criteria.
21 The CAB was especially concerned with areas for acquisition where development was imminent and they
22 made an effort to negotiate and acquire land prior to development. Specific considerations during the
23 process also included "size, cost, proximity to other public property, open space linkages, and adjacency
24 to other Prop 3 property, advance sale of small parcels around property indicating development direction,
25 location in relation to developed areas, status of development plans, visible street centerline staking or
26 initial street cut, and extension of utilities or considered extension of utilities." (Source: Spegar (b))
27 In the criteria development and evaluation process, climate change was not specifically considered.
28 (Source: Spegar (a))
29 Decision-making process:
30 The Conservation Advisory Board (CAB)10 reviewed the SET's spatial model and then lands rated in the
31 top three tiers by the GIS model were given to the land acquisition team to pursue. The Land Acquisition
32 Team was "composed of non-profit land conservation trusts (The Bexar Land Trust, The Nature
33 Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land), the City Project Manager, and San Antonio River Authority
34 (SARA) staff. The non-profit land conservation trusts each focused on lands in a different part of the
35 county and would suggest potential land purchases. When the non-profit conservation trusts identified a
36 potential land purchase, they would get approval by the City Project manager and then work with SARA
37 staff to develop a presentation for the CAB. SARA would present each potential land purchase to the
38 CAB, including information on quality of the land and the availability of the tracts for acquisition based
10 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))
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 85
-------
1 on the CAB directives. "While the land acquisition team negotiated land purchases with the owners, the
2 CAB would evaluate the lands. If the CAB gave a land purchase a favorable rating, the property
3 acquisition was forwarded to the Planning Commission and then City Council for review and approval."
4 After land is purchased, CAB works with City staff to determine appropriate park land use intensity.
5 (Source: Spegar (a), (b); Stone and Schindel)
6 Ultimate decision maker:
7 City Council
8 The City Council approved each of the land acquisitions put before them. Spegar thinks this is a result of
9 the effective screening process by the CAB. A few land purchases did not get approval from the CAB.
10 (Source: Spegar (a))
11 After approval from City Council, the City Project Manager would finalize the land purchases, sometimes
12 going to closing as soon as two days after final approval. (Source: Spegar (a))
is Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
14 • USGS GIS map of terrain slope, stratigraphy, mapped faults, caves and sinkholes, and soils.
15 • SET provided GIS layer of Golden-Cheeked Warbler habitat—an endangered species.
16 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided GIS layer of nine species of karst invertebrate
17 (subsurface) habitat—on the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife.
18 • Texas Parks and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided GIS overlay of vegetation.
19 Priority map:
20 Yes. Full explanation of the map is in the prioritization criteria section. In general, a map was created
21 using biologic, geologic, and watershed overlays and rankings from these overlays generated ranked tiers
22 of lands needing protection. They developed the map using data from a variety of sources listed above.
23 They also have maps of the lands that have been protected through this program. (Source: Spegar (b))
24 Partnerships:
25 "With approximately half of the aquifer's 80,000 acres of recharge zone already developed or planned for
26 development, the Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy and the Bexar Land Trust are working
27 closely with the City of San Antonio, the San Antonio Water System and the Texas Parks and Wildlife
28 Department to quickly protect the remaining sensitive lands before further development can take place.
29 Since 1993 the Trust for Public Land has protected almost 10,000 acres of recharge land over the
30 Edwards Aquifer in the San Antonio area. Most of the land has been conveyed to the Texas Parks and
31 Wildlife Department, and water quality conservation easements on the properties are conveyed to the City
32 of San Antonio." (Source: Ernst, Gullick and Nixon)
33 The Trust for Public Land, The Nature Conservancy, and the Bexar Land Trust made up the Land
34 Acquisition Team and were responsible for identifying willing sellers of high priority land for the
35 protection of the Edwards Aquifer. They were responsible for negotiating purchase prices and being the
36 contact person for the landowner during the acquisition process. They also attended the CAB land
37 acquisition evaluation meetings, so that they could answer questions if needed (Source: Spegar (a))
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 86
-------
i Available and expended funding:
2 The sales tax initiative was for a total of $65 million, only $45 million of which went towards Edwards
3 Aquifer land acquisition. The remaining $20 million was for the purchase of parks along the Leon and
4 Salado Creeks. (Source: Spegar (a), (b))
5 About $40.5 million from the sales tax initiative was used to purchase land or conservation easements
6 while about $4.5 million was set aside for maintenance and operations after purchase. (Source: Stone and
7 Schindel; Spegar (a))
8 A further breakdown of the $40.5 million for land acquisition is the following, $36.4 for land acquisition,
9 $1 million for park infrastructure, $2 million for due diligence, and $1.1 for commercial paper. (Source:
10 Spegar (a), (b))
11 In total, $36.71 million was spent on land acquisition. Money remaining in the improvements/due
12 diligence funds was able to be put toward acquisition. Currently, $710,000 remains and will be used for
13 clean-up. (Source: Spegar (a))
14 The average purchase price was $5808/acre. In just a few years, land costs have risen in the area to
15 $35,000/acre. (Source: Spegar (a))
16 No studies have been done yet to access the impacts of the protection of land in the recharge and
17 contributing zones of Edwards Aquifer but this is something that they would like to do in the future.
18 (Source: Spegar (a))
19 Acres protected:
20 About 6,484 acres (from 17 purchases and 3 donations) have been protected through the program. Two
21 additional parcels are still in the acquisition process and if purchased will add an additional 60 acres.
22 (Source: Spegar (a), (b))
23 The land acquisition process would take anywhere from 45 days to 3 years from initial identification to
24 acquisition. (Source: Spegar (a))
25 The land is protected permanently. Under state law, once property becomes park land, the decision to sell
26 land must be approved by a majority vote of the voters. They are able to grant public easements for
27 utilities if needed. (Source: Spegar (a))
28 When they started the process to develop the program, there were no other programs in Texas on which to
29 base their program. Spegar is aware of another land preservation program in Austin, Texas, but its goals
30 and method of identifying land for protection are significantly different. (Source: Spegar (a))
31 Some difficulties that were encountered include the following.
32 • They initially had some difficulty purchasing and owning Bexar County land since the purchase
33 was being made by the City of San Antonio. Some initial purchases were annexed to the City but
34 then they were able to change the law slightly to allow the City to purchase the land.
35 • Some of the developers that owned the land were rather greedy and made it difficult to settle on a
36 deal. The City could not pay over the appraisal cost and the sellers were in a willing seller
37 program but still the negotiation process could be difficult.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 87
-------
1 • Properties might have an option period for purchase and it could be difficult to get the entire
2 process completed before the period during which the property could be purchased expired.
3 • The program had a number of different agencies and parties involved which could make the
4 process difficult and slow moving.
5 • Coordination between different agencies and organizations could be difficult as each has a
6 different culture and set of constraints. This problem lessened over time as the groups began to
7 understand each other better.
8 (Source: Spegar (a))
9 Sources:
10 Spegar, Susan, (a) Telephone conversation between Susan Spegar, Special Project Manager, Proposition
11 Three Special Projects Office, and Amanda Vemuri, ICF Consulting. November 1, 2005.
12 Spegar, Susan, (b) Prop 3 Edwards Aquifer Program. PowerPoint Presentation, sent via email from Susan
13 Spegar to Amanda Vemuri, November 1,2005.
14 Corzine, Jason. "San Antonio Protects 90 Acres for Park (TX)." Trust for Public Land. May 15, 2003.
15 http://www.tpl.org/tier3 cd.cfm?content item id=11723&folderid=264. accessed on July 18, 2005.
16 Ernst, C., Gullick, R., and Nixon, K. "Protecting the Source: Land Conservation as a Drinking Water
17 Protection Tool." Trust for Public Land, www.lgean.org/documents/tplforest.doc. accessed on July 18,
18 2005.
19 Stone, D. and Schindel, G.M. 2002. "The Application of GIS in Support of Land Acquisition for the
20 Protection of Sensitive Groundwater Recharge Properties in the Edwards Aquifer of South-Central
21 Texas." Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, 64(1): 38-44.
22 http://www.caves.Org/pub/journal/PDF/V64/v64n 1 -Stone.pdf. accessed on July 18, 2005.
23 Bexar Land Trust. "Our Help to the City of San Antonio as it Acquires Land to Protect the Aquifer."
24 Bexar Land Trust News. Volume 5, issue 1, 2004.
25 http://www.bexarlandtrust.org/BLT2004WinterNewsletter.PDF. accessed on July 18, 2005.
26 POINT OF CONTACT:
27 Susan Spegar, Special Project Manager, Proposition Three Special Projects Office, City of San Antonio.
28 Phone: 210-207-2815. Email: SSpegar@SanAntonio.gov
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 88
-------
i 2000WI-01 Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant
2 Program
4 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
5 Mission statement:
6 No mission statement was specifically written for this program. (Source: Haydin)
7 The County wanted to be engaged in the land acquisition process and provide a pot of money that could
8 assist in the acquisition of key lands as land acquisition costs were rising and non-profits were finding it
9 more difficult to purchase some of these lands. (Source: Haydin)
10 Program goals:
11 The goals are the following:
12 • Ensure citizen involvement in the County's Stewardship process
13 • Cultivate environmental stewardship within individuals, organizations, and government entities
14 • Help implement projects identified in the County's Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan
15 • Provide County-matching funds for leveraging dollars from federal, state, local, and private
16 entities for conservation activities.
17 • Coordinate County stewardship activities so they are in harmony with other conservation and
18 recreation activities already occurring or planned for the County.
19 • Initiate only those stewardship activities that cannot be accomplished by current or upcoming
20 regulatory tools, such as land use planning, zoning, land division ordinances, and shoreland-
21 wetland-floodplain regulations.
22 • Preserve the County's natural resources while minimizing the loss of local property tax revenues.
23 • Form green space and wildlife habitat corridors by linking existing natural areas together.
24 • Acquire, protect, and restore only those resources that can adequately be maintained by specific
25 public or private custodians in the future.
26 • Preserve the natural resources of the County while continuing to promote wise growth and
27 economic development.
28 • Promote beautiful, healthy, and thriving cities and villages, so new and existing County residents
29 will always have attractive alternatives to living in rural areas.
30 • Municipalities that have adopted "Smart-Growth" compliant comprehensive plans will receive
31 higher priority for County Stewardship Funding.
32 (Source: 2004 application form)
33 Parcel selection process:
34 "Any town, village, city, county agency, or other government agency completing projects within
35 Sheboygan County or any non-profit group as reported in federal form 501(c) may apply for funds
36 through this program." (Source: 2004 application form) Projects are accepted in four categories: project
37 development, purchase of development rights, land acquisition, and restoration of wetlands and natural
38 habitat. Other projects not fitting these categories can be awards, provided they meet program goals.
39 County planning department staff reviews applications first, then forwards them to the Smart Growth-
40 Stewardship Technical and Advisory Committee (formerly named the Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) in
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 89
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
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)
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)
Part A
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 right.
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)
Natural Resources: Water
Natural Resources: Land
Recreational Opportunities
Cultural/Historical Qualities:
Community Cooperation
30
20
25
15
10
PartB
PartC
Quality of Farmland
Development Potential
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.)
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
30
40
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 90
-------
1 An example of a project that would receive high marks for the water components is the following: A
2 public/private partnership needed $ 10,000 for habitat construction in a trout stream that was located in a
3 watershed that historically had a great deal of agriculture - resulting in agricultural run-off into the stream
4 as well as dredging and trenching in the stream. The larger project was reconstructing stream flow to a
5 more natural, meandering stream. Habitat construction would complement this larger project and result in
6 improved water quality, habitat and aesthetics. (Source: Haydin)
7 Climate change has not been a part of the discussions on these grant applications. Personally, Haydin
8 thinks that climate change will impact these resources but specific grants or projects have not been
9 pursued for climate change related reasons. In thinking more broadly about global change, the land use
10 aspect is discussed when evaluating grant applications. She suspects that some of the reason why climate
11 change is perhaps not forefront in the discussion is because Sheboygan County already has a great deal of
12 public land, specifically state-owned forest which is already protected. (Source: Haydin)
is Ultimate decision maker:
14 Sheboygan County Resources Committee.
15 This committee does a thorough review of the grant applications and recommendations that are put before
16 them and have full discussions on the funding of the projects. The five-person committee holds a vote and
17 measures pass as long as they have a 3 to 2 vote. So far all recommended projects have been funded, but
18 at least one received some opposition by a Resources Committee member. (Source: Haydin)
19 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
20 Applicants are required to provide, among other items: a project narrative; project information (including
21 county map, plat map, topographic map, aerial photograph, soils survey, site plan, additional graphic
22 information); environmental hazards assessment form (only necessary if an acquisition); information on
23 community support; and a management plan.
24 County planning department staff use information provided by applicants as well as their own databases
25 to evaluate properties. Specifically, county staff use GIS to review land information such as aerial
26 photography, contour maps, USGS topographic maps, wetland inventories, parcel and zoning maps. In
27 addition, they review County/state agency plans such as outdoor recreation plans, water quality plans, etc.
28 to see if a project would contribute to the achievement of an agency goal as laid out in the agency plan.
29 (Source: Haydin)
30 Typically no projections or forecast data are used; occasionally census projections would be reviewed, but
31 the growth rate in Sheboygan County is not changing much so this is generally not necessary. (Source:
32 Haydin)
33 The grant applications can vary widely in what they are aiming to do, which means that the most useful
34 information in the evaluation process is application specific. (Source: Haydin)
35 Priority map:
36 No priority maps are used. However, GIS is used when evaluating grant applications - on a site by site
37 basis. (Source: Haydin)
38 Partnerships:
39 The Sheboygan County Stewardship Fund Grant Program has no formalized partnerships. However,
40 funds are often provided to assist one aspect of a larger project or funds are joined with funds from other
41 organizations such as the Sheboygan County Conservation Association (and association of non-profit
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 91
-------
1 conservation organizations in the county). The groups that the grant program might work with ranges
2 from non-profits to local, county, or state agencies. (Source: Haydin)
3 Available and expended funding:
4 $40,000 available in 2004 grant cycle; expenditures not available.
5 There is political pressure for the program to spend all its money each year and since some of the money
6 comes from impact fees levied during the year, the money is not allowed to be carried over to the next
7 year. (Source: Haydin)
8 There is no documented evidence of economic, environmental or social impacts resulting from the grant
9 applications that have been funded, but Haydin suspects that some do result from specific projects. She
10 provided three examples. First, they provided money to help with the development of a promenade along
11 a river in the City of Sheboygan which has provided access and possibly generated positive economic
12 impacts. Second, the habitat restoration in the trout stream described in the "Decision-making process"
13 above will likely provide positive environmental impacts. Third, they provided funding for a wetlands
14 delineation project as part of a Village park development which will likely result in positive social
15 impacts since the parks has natural areas as well as trails and a playground. (Source: Haydin)
16 The greatest challenge Haydin has found is the amount of money they have available and the inability to
17 carry funding over into the next year if applications are not as worthy in one year or if a larger/more
18 important acquisition might be coming up in a future year. (Source: Haydin)
19 Acres protected:
20 This program is not a direct land acquisition program. Some of the grant applications do support direct
21 land acquisition but they often support other goals. In addition, the funding that goes toward land
22 acquisition is often only a smaller part of a larger funding source for the acquisition, so the acres that are
23 acquired are only purchased through this program in part. As a result, no specific information on the
24 number of acres protected through this program is available or applicable. (Source: Haydin)
25 Haydin did note that land costs have varied for the projects they have been involved in, ranging from a
26 cost of $12,000 for 10 acres of marshland to costs of $5400 per acre and $7500 per acre for other projects.
27 (Source: Haydin)
28 As mentioned in the "Mission Statement" discussion above, this program was modeled after the Dane
29 County Stewardship Fund Program. The idea for implementing this type of program in Sheboygan
30 County came from Adam Payne, the County Administrative Coordinator, who had lived in Dane County
31 for many years. It was also a nice alternative to a sales tax program because sales tax referendums are not
32 popular in Sheboygan County. (Source: Haydin)
33 Sources:
34 Haydin, Shannon. 2005. Telephone Conversation between Shannon Haydin, Sheboygan County Planning
35 Director, and Amanda Vemuri of ICF Consulting. October 24, 2005.
36 Project web site, http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.us/html/d%5Fplanning%5Fstewardship.htm, accessed July
37 15,2005.
38 Application forms for 2002, 2003, and 2004
39 Grants guidelines, 2002
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 92
-------
1 Press release, 2004
2 POINT OF CONTACT:
3 Shannon Haydin, Sheboygan County Planning Director. Phone: 920-459-3060. Email:
4 planning @co. sheboygan. wi .us.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 93
-------
i 2004AZ-01 Sonoran Desert Open Space and Habitat
2 Protection*
3
4 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
5 Mission statement:
6 Voters approved the sale of general obligation bonds "for the purpose of acquiring open space and habitat
7 protection, including Sonoran Desert open space, protecting wildlife habitats, saguaro cacti, ironwood
8 forests and lands around rivers, washes and recharge areas to ensure high water quality, and the
9 acquisition of lands in the vicinity of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base to prevent urban encroachment."
10 (Source: Pima County (b))
11 Program goals:
12 Program goals include, "the acquisition of land in fee or for the purchase of conservation easements, to
13 protect wildlife habitat, scenic landscapes, riparian areas, and water quality, and to preserve lands in the
14 vicinity of Davis-Monthan Open Space." (Source: Pima County (a))
15
16 The specific goals depend on the category of properties. The Community Open Space Parcels are more
17 focused on scenic landscapes and recreation and may not meet the goals to protect wildlife habitat,
18 riparian areas, and water quality. The Habitat Protection Priorities were chosen solely based on their
19 ability to achieve biological goals. The Urban Space Requested by Jurisdictions may meet a mix of the
20 goals, depending on why a jurisdiction chose to include it on their list. The Davis-Monthan Open Space is
21 intended to keep people off the land that falls in the approach and departure corridors from the Davis-
22 Monthan air force base.
23 The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan was developed over several years and identified 55 vulnerable
24 species that are indicators of ecological health. An analysis of the habitat they need to thrive was
25 undertaken and a 2-million acre Conservation Land System was identified. Approximately 1 million acres
26 of the Conservation Lands System was already protected in federal, state, and local reserves. The
27 remaining 1 million acres was narrowed down to 500,000 acres that were idenitified for protection first.
28 The 2004 Open Space bond is one tool for acquiring that land. A second tool is development set asides.
29 The County will only purchase land from a willing seller. The County cannot use eminent domain; that
30 clause was included in the bond measure to gain the support of voters.
31 (Source: Fyffe)
32 Parcel selection process:
33 There are four categories of properties included in this measure: Community Open Space Parcels ($37.3
34 million), Urban Open Space Requested by Jurisdictions ($15 million), Habitat Protection Priorities ($112
35 million), and Davis-Monthan Open Space ($10 million). Properties in excess of the available funding
36 were listed in the bond measure with the understanding that some properties may be acquired through
37 other sources of funding or at no cost along the way, and that others would have owners unwilling to sell.
38 Habitat Protection Priorities are prioritized into highest priority and secondary priority categories. During
39 implementation of the program, secondary priority properties were sometimes acquired before highest
40 priority properties depending on when opportunities arose.
41
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 94
-------
1 The Community Open Space Parcels were selected for their scenic and recreational value through a
2 qualitative selection process with no set criteria. Some of the parcels remained unpurchased from 1997
3 Bond measure. Others were important to the Parks and Recreation department and still others were
4 nominated by individual community groups that approached Pima County.. The Urban Space Requested
5 by Jurisdictions parcels were requested by jurisdictions, or community members on behalf of those
6 jurisdictions, who compiled lists based on their own open space plans or community priorities. The
7 Habitat Protection Priorities were selected based on biological indicators and analysis, as described
8 above. Pima County contracted out the development of the priorities to the Arizona Open Space Land
9 Trust and The Nature Conservancy. The Davis-Monthan Open Space included all the land in the approach
10 and departure corridors surrounding the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
11 The list of properties is intentionally static to provide the voters with an idea of what may be purchased.
12 The process to select parcels initially was driven by the community and the County, though, and the list
13 of properties to acquire is much longer than could possibly be achieved with the available money. Owners
14 can apply to sell a property and the County can buy it if it is already on the list. Owners occasionally
15 approach the County looking to sell a property that is not on the list, but in these cases, the County tries
16 every avenue possible to protect the property without acquiring it, or seeks other funding sources.
17 (Source: Fyffe)
18 Prioritization criteria:
19 After the bond measure was approved by voters, the Conservation Acquisition Commission asked county
20 staff to identify habitat-protection priority properties that meet the following criteria: "greater than 2,500
21 acres in single ownership, parcels with important riparian areas, and parcels within critical landscape
22 connections in order to further focus acquisition resources." (Source: The Nature Conservancy)
23
24 Properties identified from the following sources were evaluated to develop a list of Community Open
25 Space parcels: "1) remaining parcels included in the voter-approved 1997 Open Space Bond Program; 2)
26 parcels identified as important to the open space goals of Pima County's Natural Resources, Parks, and
27 Recreation Department; 3) additional parcels located on the urban fringe or within urban Tucson that
28 were identified by community and environmental groups as well as individual members of the community
29 as being of special merit...; and 4) parcels reclassified to conservation status by the Arizona State Land
30 Department through Pima County's Arizona Preserve Initiative Application." (Source: Pima County (c))
31
32 There were not that many Community Open Space properties on the list, so the County targeted all of
33 them. The decision-making process for "Urban Open Space Requested by Jurisdictions" involved
34 jurisdictions giving the County a list of properties for inclusion in the bond measure. The properties were
35 chosen based on criteria such as location in flood prone areas or historical value of the area. They are
36 more urban areas than are acquired through other components of the Open Space Program. The County
37 typically negotiates with landowners and then consults the jurisdiction to make sure that they support the
38 acquisition of the land. There is no formal application process.
39 The parcels that fall within the Davis-Monthan Open Space portion of the program were based on a report
40 by the Davis-Monthan Air Force base and the City of Tucson. The goal for now is to simply keep people
41 off lands that are already vacant. The space may be used in the future for solar photovoltaic ground
42 mounted panels.
43 (Source: Fyffe)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 95
-------
i Decision-making process:
2 The Conservation Acquisition Commission must review and recommend to the Pima County Board of
3 Supervisors all acquisitions of property or rights in property. It calls upon county staff to initially identify
4 candidate properties. (Source: Pima County (c))
5 The Conservation Acquisition Commission members are appointed. The Board of Supervisors appoints
6 several people who are conservation-minded. The County Manager appoints a person (who currently
7 represents real estate interests). Additionally, certain organizations have representatives that sit on the
8 Commission (e.g., realtor groups, rancher groups, environmental groups). The members serve 8-year
9 terms.
10 The Commission plays both an oversight role for work done by county staff and participates in detailed
11 analyses and evaluation of properties. The County staff negotiates deals with varying levels of
12 involvement from the Commission. The Commission may also get involved with prioritization and
13 instruct the County to look into particular issues.
14 The Commission votes on decisions. They meet about once a month. They are required to meet four times
15 a year, but they have been meeting more frequently due to the number of acquisitions underway.
16 The biggest barrier is having a willing seller, which, by definition, is willing to sell at the appraised value
17 of the land. There is sometimes disagreement over appraisals. At the beginning of the program rapid
18 increases in land prices meant that less land could be acquired with available funds. However, after the
19 housing market collapsed, land prices dropped, and the number of potential buyers dropped, and the
20 County was able to acquire a significant number of properties and reasonable prices.
21 Another barrier is the inability to purchase State land, which is a huge proportion of land in Arizona. The
22 State auctions land off, with the profits going to schools. The County cannot outbid developers in an
23 auction. Numerous efforts at State Trust land reform at the State Legislative level and the ballot box have
24 failed.
25 Meetings of the Conservation Acquisition Commission are open to the public and the press (which had a
26 strong presence in the early months of the program). The public can comment during meetings and
27 generally provides comments in support. There have been a few incidences when the public is opposed to
28 an acquisition (e.g., mining interests were worried about how their rights to mine land would be impacted
29 by an acquisition).
30 (Source: Fyffe)
31 Ultimate decision maker:
32 Pima County Board of Supervisors
33 The Pima County Board of Supervisors generally supports the recommendations of the Conservation
34 Acquisition Commission and does not try to overturn or block acquisition decisions. The Board, which
35 consists of 5 members, is elected for 4-year terms. They serve a role similar to a City Council. Most of
36 them have been educated about land protection over the past years by going through the conservation
37 process and are pretty savvy in this area. (Source: Fyffe)
38 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
39 The multi-year planning process mentioned previously involved considerable collection and analysis of
40 data. Decisions about the Habitat Protection Parcels were based heavily on the data analysis. Other land
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 96
-------
1 protection decisions are based on more qualitative information. Projections of where development was
2 expected to go in the future were consulted and evaluated to determine how set asides would impact
3 biological factors and help avoid negative impacts. The impacts of climate change have not been
4 specifically considered. (Source: Fyffe)
5 Priority map:
6 Thousands of maps were developed during the planning process. A single map was referenced in the bond
7 measure and it shows all properties that are eligible to acquire under the acquisition program.
8 Maps are heavily consulted and analyzed. There are in-house County GIS staff members who work full
9 time to update and analyze maps. (Source: Fyffe)
10 Partnerships:
11 The Nature Conservancy and Friends of the Sonoran Desert worked together to identify Pima County's
12 priority conservation lands and encourage the County's Board of Supervisors to include the open space
13 bond measure on the ballot. (Source: The Nature Conservancy)
14 The County continues to get information from The Nature Conservancy. The County also contracts out
15 work to the Arizona Open Land Trust, which acts as the County realtor in negotiating some land
16 acquisitions. The Friends of the Sonoran Desert was a political group set up to help the bond measure
17 pass initially. They continue to put out a periodic newsletter covering the performance of the County and
18 will help to get voters on board for another measure in the future. Counties can partner with a state open
19 space program. The Heritage Fund Program is a voter initiative that is supposed to provide $20 million a
20 year for land protection, but the legislature cuts from it each year when preparing the budget. Pima
21 County has partnered with the State in the past for some grant money for open space and trails.
22 Pima County is a bit of an anomaly in the state in terms of their open space program. There are not other
23 counties in Arizona that are so proactive.
24 (Source: Fyffe)
25 Available and expended funding:
26 $140 million of the available $174.3 million has been spent to date, and it is expected that all but $10
27 million will be spent by August 2009.. The County can only spend at or near appraised value for the land.
28 (Source: The Nature Conservancy, Fyffe)
29 Acres protected:
30 42,000 acres of land have been bought through this measure to date. 130,,000 acres worth of grazing
31 rights have been purchased. (Source: Fyffe)
32 Sources:
33 Fyffe, Nicole, Pima County, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, November 4,
34 2005.
35 The Nature Conservancy. "Bond Celebrates First Anniversary," June 2, 2005,
36 http://nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/arizona/press/pressl948.htmL accessed on July 18,
37 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 97
-------
1 Pima County (a), Completed Projects Question 1, June 2005,
2 http://www.bonds.pima.gov/bonds2004/pdf2004/OpenSpaceCompleted2004.pdf. accessed on July 18,
3 2005.
4
5 Pima County (b), Pima County Bond Election, May 18, 2004,
6 http://www.bonds.pima.gov/bonds2004/questions_map/Bond_Q 1 .pdf. accessed on July 18, 2005.
7
8 Pima County (c), Bond Implementation Plan, May 18, 2004,
9 http://www.bonds.pima.gov/bonds2004/pdf2004/BIPOtoc.pdf. accessed on July 18, 2005.
10 Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, http://www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/index.html. accessed November 3,
11 2005.
12 POINT OF CONTACT:
13 Nicole Fyffe, Pima County. Phone: (520) 740-8162. Email: nfvffe@,pima.gov.
14
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 98
-------
i 2004CA-02 Clean Water, Ocean, River, Beach, Bay Storm
2 Water Cleanup Measure
3
4 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
5 Mission statement:
6 The program mission is, "to protect public health by cleaning up polluted storm water; keeping pollution,
7 trash, toxic chemicals, dangerous bacteria from rivers, beaches; preserving clean drinking water by
8 protecting groundwater quality; reducing flooding; increasing water conservation; protecting bays, rivers,
9 lakes from storm water contamination." (Source: League of Women Voters)
10 Program goals:
11 "The improvements will clean up polluted storm water and reduce dangerous bacteria in the City's rivers,
12 lakes, beaches, bay and ocean. The measure will also institute improvements that protect ground water
13 quality, provide flood control, and increase water conservation, habitat protection and open space."
14 (Source: League of Women Voters)
15 The primary purpose of the program is to improve water quality in the city. Human health and
16 environmental protection are intertwined, so (in the opinion of S. Kharagani) improving water quality
17 benefits both humans and the environment (including wildlife habitat). The primary goal is to meet
18 TMDL standards; compliance is not an easy task. Land protection is one tool in the effort to reduce
19 TMDL. The City is using an adaptive management approach (which adapts as conditions and needs
20 change), employing green technologies, and considering achieving compliance to be an iterative process.
21 If there are other needs (e.g., protection of human health, habitat protection) that can be met while
22 improving water quality, then it is a bonus. (Source: Kharagani)
23 Parcel selection process:
24 Program priorities were identified at the outset based on the Clean Water Act §303(d), which lists
25 polluted water bodies and specific pollutants. In the LA area, entire water bodies are polluted with a
26 variety of pollutants (e.g., trash, heavy metals, etc.). The driving factor in the initial prioritization effort
27 was to identify the most polluted areas (among those on the CWA §303(d) list) to tackle first, which
28 turned out to be the LA River). Beaches were also identified as a priority, because they are so visible to
29 the public and tourists. Additionally, there was a lawsuit concerning beach clean up and, subsequently a
30 court-mandated order to take action. Cleaning up these polluted areas is one of the key goals of the
31 program. One of the sub-criteria for project selection is whether or not the project addresses a pollution
32 problem identified by the adopted TMDL, since meeting TMDL standards is a key aspect of the program.
33 Parcel selection is a stakeholder-driven process, involving the City Council, environmental activists, non-
34 profit organizations, and neighborhood councils (of which there are 123-124 each containing members
35 nominated by their community to advise elected officials). All of the stakeholders can and do consult
36 available sources and many are experts in the field of water quality. Non-profit and community
37 organizations can propose projects during two-month windows that occur twice a year. Neighborhood
38 councils can provide input at public meetings. (Source: Kharagani)
39 Prioritization criteria:
40 "The primary criteria are divided into three categories, with the following weighting: (1) Water Quality
41 Improvements at 40%; (2) Achieves Multiple Objectives at 30%; and (3) Project Feasibility/Readiness/
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 99
-------
1 Financial at 30% of the overall scoring." Within these three categories, there are a number of sub-criteria
2 (ranging from compliance with regulations to subjective criteria) to help evaluate potential projects. These
3 sub-criteria are evaluated on a yes/no or low/medium/high basis. See Exhibit 1 below for more detail.
4 Criteria for selection are dynamic; they can be amended as necessary if it becomes apparent they should
5 be revised.
6 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
8 (Source: City of Los Angeles Storm water Program)
9 The project review committees (including a citizens oversight advisory committee (COAC) and an
10 administrative oversight committee (AOC)) consult technical information and discuss issues). There has
11 only been one set of projects to go through the evaluation process, and it was probably an exceptional
12 case due to the tight deadline. There was not enough time for discussion; funding for trash technologies
13 had to be passed to be implemented before surpassing the TMDL limits in September 2006.
14 The committees make final decisions with a vote and then send them to the City Council and Mayor (the
15 ultimate decision makers). (Source: Kharagani)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 100
-------
i Decision-making process:
2 There are 44 City departments (e.g., Recreation and Parks, Water and Power, Street Services,
3 Engineering) as well as key stakeholders that are involved in the development of the master schedule,
4 funding allocations, and management decisions. The time frame for decision making is two months to
5 receive proposed projects, another two months to evaluate them, and another two months to adopt them.
6 This is a semi-annual process; projects in 2005 can be proposed from October 15 to December 15 (and are
7 submitted to the City).
8 The Mayor and City Council approves criteria for selection of individual projects, the list of projects, the
9 general scope of each project and the overall program budget and schedule. The mayor appoints members
10 to the citizens oversight advisory committee (COAC) and the administrative oversight committee (AOC)
11 for 3-year terms. The COAC and AOC oversee everything that happens in the Prop O. Committee
12 members bring considerable expertise to the table (in water, land protection, and other subjects) and
13 represent a cross-sectional cut of the community. The AOC develops and reviews project criteria (which
14 are dynamic) and has the power to make some adjustments to projects along the way.
15 Deputies from the City Council and the Mayor's office are involved in the process and staff provides
16 input at various points in the system. Any outstanding issues arise at those points, rather than at the final
17 decision point. Staff review technical information and participate in discussions throughout. The elected
18 officials ultimately adopt the project funding.
19 The process is very political, but also very transparent and open to the public. All meetings are open to
20 the public. Some meetings are held in the communities to get more involvement.
21 (Source: City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program, Kharagani)
22 Ultimate decision maker:
23 City Council and the Mayor.
24 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
25 Adopted TMDLs, EPA water quality information. The program also uses a number of existing plans in
26 the watersheds. GIS and dynamic modeling is used and life-cycle costs are considered. Community needs
27 and input is also used in decision making. The system is monitored daily and weekly. More effort is
28 focused in areas where things are working (responding to changes).
29 Data is one factor among many considered. City departments and other key stakeholders in the watershed
30 gather and evaluate the technical information. There is an expert review of the scientific information
31 before it is used in decision making.
32 (Source: Kharagani)
33 Priority map:
34 GIS-based maps have been developed and used. The City prioritizes based on TMDL requirements. The
35 community may have other concerns that are parallel to the TMDL goals. The City strives to work on
36 projects that achieve multiple objectives. (Source: Kharagani)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 101
-------
i Partnerships:
2 Partnerships include: Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF); Clean Water Association;
3 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project; and more. The City tries to leverage the resources
4 (often studies, expert advice) they provide. (Source: Kharagani)
5 Available and expended funding:
6 The measure authorizes the City to issue up to $500 million in general obligation bonds. The City is just
7 starting the process; they have approved $17 million for trash TMDL compliance. (Source: Kharagani)
8 Acres protected:
9 Not available.
10 Sources:
11 City of Los Angeles Stormwater Program,
12 http://www.lastormwater.org/WPD/general/measure o/about.htm. accessed on August 8. 2005.
13 League of Women Voters, http://www.smartvoter.Org/2004/ll/02/ca/la/meas/O/. accessed on August 8,
14 2005.
15 Kharagani, Shahram, LA Stormwater Program, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF
16 Consulting, October 25, 2005.
17 POINT OF CONTACT:
18 Shahram Kharagani, LA Stormwater Program. Phone: (323) 342-1582. Email: sxkhragh@san.lacity.org.
19
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 102
-------
i 2004CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 The bylaws of the Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) include the vision, which incorporates the
6 program goals listed below.
7 Program goals:
8 "To preserve land that protects water quality; protect wildlife areas, wetlands, rivers, and streams;
9 preserve farmland; protect open space to limit sprawl; and for creating, improving, and maintaining parks,
10 trails, and recreation facilities." (Source: Rocky Mountain News)
11 The Adams County area is under a lot of pressure by development. The OSAB, thus, considers land
12 acquisition to be a more primary goal than building recreational sites. (Source: Spinella)
is Parcel selection process:
14 The Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) consist of seven members, four of whom are residents of
15 unincorporated Adams County and three of whom are residents of cities or towns located in Adams
16 County.
17 The OSAB meets quarterly to review grant applications and recommend projects for funding to the Board
18 of County Commissioners (BOCC). (Source: Open Space Grant Program)
19 To establish priorities initially, the County developed two plans: (1) Adams County Open Space Plan; and
20 (2) South Platte River Heritage Plan. These plans identified areas of priority for preservation, and were
21 developed by an extensive steering committee that represented varying interests. They are taken into
22 consideration during project evaluation.
23 "The Open Space plan was developed by a steering committee of interested citizens, representatives of
24 the Adams County cities and staff from the county and cities. Barr Lake State Park, Colorado Division of
25 Wildlife, Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Urban Drainage, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
26 Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory also participated in the planning process." (Source: Adams County
27 Open Space Plan)
28 No formal criteria were used to evaluate areas. A more qualitative, discussion-based process was
29 undertaken to develop the plan.
30 Members of the OSAB are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for four-year
31 terms. The OSAB is set up to get representatives from unincorporated areas (who often serve repeat
32 terms) and different cities (who rotate). People who want to sit on the OSAB can submit a letter as to why
33 they want to be on the Board.
34 Grant applications follow a twice yearly cycle, due on February 1 and August 1. Rejected applicants are
35 encouraged to reapply, and the Board sometimes offers suggestions on what to change in their application
36 before they reapply.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 103
-------
1 Grant applications must be from agencies that collect taxes or must have one of those agencies as a
2 sponsor. This provision was designed to limit applications to those that seek to benefit the public good. It
3 is meant to eliminate applications from individuals seeking benefits for themselves.
4 The program is constantly evolving, so the information that applicants must supply also changes. The
5 Board generally wants to see budget information, a timeline, what funding leverage the project will
6 provide, whether or not the project crosses city boundaries, and a land appraisal.
7 The OSAB receives about 9-12 grants each cycle, of which nearly all get recommended to the BOCC.
8 The BOCC can choose to fully or partially fund projects, so it has some flexibility.
9 (Source: Spinella)
10 Prioritization criteria:
11 The OSAB makes funding recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners based on a set of
12 criteria. The criteria are:
13 Project funding and quality of leverage summary
14 Partnerships
15 Community support information
16 Project budget
17 Estimated proj ect timeline
18 Proposed grant fund use(s)
19 Long-term maintenance
20 Connectivity
21 Fulfilling the needs of the community and meets the open space tax goals
22 Project management and performance
23 Urgency
24 Opposition
25 The OSAB generally considers projects with partners to be better. Partners provide funding support, as
26 opposed to advice or information. The most successful projects tend to have partners.
27 The County frequently uses the sales tax funds as seed money for other grants. They have tapped into the
28 State Lottery Funds for open space (called Great Outdoors Colorado, or GOCO). There are also various
29 State grants available such as the "Fishing is Fun" grants or the State Trails Program that can be accessed
30 depending on the project goals. There are community donations that can act as partnerships (such as a
31 donate-a-brick program). The Colorado Rockies (the baseball team) has also provided support in the past
32 to build ball fields.
33 Applicants need to provide evidence that they have a plan for long-term maintenance; the OSAB wants to
34 see that there is a plan. Cities with maintenance departments are often the applicants, and need to
35 demonstrate that they have considered how they will maintain an area. The OSAB has not chosen to
36 provide grant money for maintenance in the past, but could in the future. Funding typically goes towards
3 7 improvement or acquisition of a parcel.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 104
-------
1 Connectivity refers to wildlife corridors and recreation areas, as well as anything else that could be
2 instrumental in a larger effort (e.g., trails, connecting cities, etc.). It is broadly defined.
3 In determining if the needs of the community will be met, the OSAB looks at how projects will contribute
4 to the community and how they will benefit the public. Community surveys are often done and included
5 with application materials. The OSAB wants to see that the community supports the measure (and likes to
6 see letters of support from community members).
7 Project management and performance is assessed by looking at whether or not the applicant has
8 experience in similar projects. If they have never undertaken a similar project, the OSAB is likely to
9 recommend a project mentor (e.g., the Parks Department).
10 The OSAB wants to know if there is any opposition from the community (if anyone is strongly against
11 the project and why) before approving a project. If there is opposition, they suggest the applicant return to
12 their community and mitigate the conflict before funding is granted. There is infrequently opposition from
13 community members. (Source: Spinella)
14 Decision-making process:
15 Grants are submitted twice yearly. County staff reviews the applications first and then forwards them to
16 the OSAB. The OSAB visits the sites under consideration and applicants provide 3-minute presentations
17 at the next OSAB meeting. The OSAB then recommends projects to the BOCC, who reviews the projects
18 and asks further questions. Decisions are driven by qualitative criteria (as described above).
19 It typically takes 3 months to make awards from the time the application is submitted. The entire
20 decision-making process is open to the public. The public attends meetings, which are posted on the
21 website. Comments are generally positive. There was more significant involvement by the public in the
22 beginning of the program when it was being developed.
23 (Source: Spinella)
24 Ultimate decision maker:
25 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC gets involved in the final decisions. They ask a lot
26 of questions, but do not typically analyze much data. (Source: Spinella)
27 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
28 This program relies more on a qualitative analysis of projects. (Source: Spinella)
29 Priority map:
30 There are priority maps that are available online and are closely consulted during the decision-making
31 process. One of the criteria in evaluating projects is how they fit with the open space plans and existing
32 maps. The Boards want to know if a project is part of their larger goals. (Source: Spinella)
33 Partnerships:
34 Adams County and Trust for Public Lands are working together to purchase a 70-acre farm along with 10
35 shares of the Lower Clear Creek Ditch Company. The land is currently being farmed to produce irrigated
36 grass alfalfa mix hay. Adams County would like to purchase the land and water to place conservation
37 easements on the land, and then trade the land for conservation easements on other nearby farms
38 (Riverdale Road Farmland Purchase, $800,000).
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 105
-------
1 The Conservation Fund, in partnership with Colorado State Parks and Adams County Open Space,
2 proposes to purchase the 153-acre Maul Property as an addition to Barr Lake State Park buffer (Maul
3 Property Acquisition, $400,000). (Source: Funded Open Space Projects)
4 Available and expended funding:
5 $173 million ($8.65 million per year starting January 2007 and ending December 2026) in additional
6 revenue is expected from increasing the dedicated sales tax from 0.2 to 0.25 percent.. (Source: Rocky
7 Mountain News)
8 As of 2004, the Open Space Sales Tax had funded 87 grants (totaling $17.8 million and leveraging over
9 $78 million in matching funding from other sources) since the program's inception in 1999 (1999CO-01).
10 Sixty-eight percent of revenues are earmarked for Open Space grants. Thirty percent is returned to the
11 local jurisdiction in which it was collected. Two percent goes towards administrative costs. (Source: Open
12 Space Report)
13 To date (November 2005), a total of $25 million has been spent. (Source: Spinella)
14 Acres protected:
15 3,500 acres have been protected through tax funds to date. (Source: Spinella)
16 Sources:
17 Adams County Open Space Plan. http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/parks/open_space-
18 plan.html. accessed on November 4, 2005.
19 Open Space Sales Tax Program, http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/index.html.
20 accessed on June 28, 2005.
21 Rocky Mountain News .com, http://election.rockymountainnews.com/issueDetail.cfm7issu id=2104.
22 accessed on June 28, 2005.
23 Open Space Grant Guidelines,
24 http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open_space/grant_info.html, accessed on June 28. 2005.
25 Open Space Report,
26 http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/2004 Open Space Report.pdf. accessed on
27 June 28, 2005.
28 Spinella, Kathy, Adams County Open Space Program, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF
29 Consulting, November 4, 2005.
30 POINT OF CONTACT:
31 Kathy Spinella, Adams County Open Space Program. Phone: (303)-637-8004. Email:
32 kspinella@co.adams.co.us.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 106
-------
i 2004FL-01 Osceola County Land Protection Measure
2 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
3 Mission statement:
4 Synopsis of mission statement:
5 • "To acquire, protect and manage environmentally significant lands and green space that
6 */ contain natural upland or wetland communities, native plant communities, rare and endangered
7 flora and fauna, endemic species, endangered species habitat....
8 */ offer optimal human social value, including balanced geographic distribution when possible,
9 resource and nature-based recreation, and protection of water resources ....
10 v' serve to recharge the county's aquifers and protect its wetlands and surface water resources...
11 • To protect present conservation lands by acquiring, protecting and managing adjacent
12 properties... and add to resource connectivity and to existing natural areas and wildlife corridors;
13 • To restore the natural functions, as necessary, to any impacted and vulnerable habitats....
14 • To help implement the objectives and policies of the County's Comprehensive Management Plan....
15 • To identify the County's environmental lands and green spaces for acquisition, including...
16 development rights, environmental easements, leases, leaseback arrangements and life estates ....
17 • To... maintain and preserve their natural resource values, and provide appropriate resource and
18 nature-based recreational and educational opportunities....
19 • To have the acquired sites available... to educate the general public....
20 • To protect natural resources which are adjacent to the boundaries of other conservation land
21 acquisition programs....
22 • To cooperate actively with other acquisition, conservation, and resource management programs....
23 • The Program fund shall be in addition to... current and future funds for parks and recreation....
24 • To purchase lands not to exceed $60 million as outlined in Resolution 04-55R...."
25 (Source: Ordinance 04-28 text)
26 Program goals:
27 The goal of this measure is to "acquire and manage environmentally significant lands for the protection of
28 water resources, wildlife habitat, and public green space for passive recreation." (Source: Ballot measure
29 text)
30 Parcel selection process:
31 Synopsis of parcel selection process:
32 The Land Conservation Advisory Board ("LCAB") shall be made up of nine Osceola County residents,
33 exclusive of elected officials ... .The nine members shall.. .provide the following representation:
34 Members of the LCAB shall have expertise in ecology, conservation of natural resources, real estate or
35 land acquisition, land appraisal, land management, ecotourism or environmental education....
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 107
-------
1 The LCAB shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
2 ... .[RJecommend to the Board an Acquisition List consistent with the goals of the Program.
3 ... .[M]ay recommend to the Board proposed expenditures from the fund; additional selection or
4 acquisition policies, procedures, and programs....
5 ... .The actions and recommendations of the LCAB are advisory only."
6 (Source: Ordinance 04-28 text)
7 Applications for the LCAB were solicited from any citizen or business owner in Osceola that had an
8 interest in participating. After soliciting the applications, approximately 2 dozen applications were
9 received for all board seats. The county commissioners selected the LCAB based on the qualifications of
10 the applicants. (Source: Matthews).
11 Prioritization criteria:
12 Synopsis of prioritization criteria:
13 "The evaluation of each acquisition proposal shall be based on satisfying at least two of the initial
14 screening criteria in this section. Qualified sites shall then be prioritized by a Site Scoring Criteria Matrix
15 ("Scoring Matrix") to be developed by the LCAB and County staff, based on similar scoring systems used
16 by the State of Florida's Conservation and Recreational Lands program and/or other land acquisition
17 programs. The initial screening criteria are:
18 1. Land with the rarest, most unique and endangered habitats found in the County, in the following order
19 of preference: sandhill, lake margin swamps, wetlands, bayheads, pine uplands and flatwoods, river
20 floodplain, dry prairie, wet prairie, cypress domes, xeric oak, scrub, high quality open range, other
21 native habitats.
22 2. Lands offering the best human social values, including balanced geographic distribution, where
23 possible, proximity to population, connectivity to other green space, green way and/or other
24 conservation areas, appropriate access for passive and compatible uses, and enhancement of the
25 aesthetic setting of the County.
26 3. Land, which protects the most natural water resource values, including aquifer recharge, water
27 quality, wetland dependant species habitat, and flood control.
28 4. Land containing the most biological value, including biodiversity, listed species habitat, connectivity,
29 restoration potential, and ecological quality.
30 5. Land, which enhances and/or protects the environmental value of current conservation lands through
31 function as a buffer, ecological link, or habitat corridor.
32 Any qualified land which meets at least two of the above criteria, and has matching funds available and/or
33 which the Program has funds available and could leverage a significantly higher funding rank if submitted
34 with another acquisition program....
35 The proposed acquisition lands which are qualified under the initial screening criteria shall be evaluated
36 and ranked by the LCAB, with the assistance of County staff, using the Scoring Matrix described [above],
37 and site visit information which confirms or refutes the initial screening criteria evaluation, and based on
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 108
-------
1 comparative size (to prefer larger or similar lands), vulnerability to destruction (to prefer most threatened
2 of qualified lands), and the estimated feasibility and costs of management (to prefer most manageable
3 lands).
4 The Board shall approve a list of Target Protection Areas which contains specific sites that generally
5 satisfy the initial screening criteria and meet the goals of the Program. Inclusion on this list is not a
6 guarantee of subsequent purchase. All proposals will be evaluated and ranked by the LCAB, with the
7 assistance of County staff, for recommendation to the Board."
8 (Source: Ordinance 04-28 text)
9 The criteria above are solely for the purpose of an initial evaluation. Once a property passes the initial
10 screening, it is evaluated with the scoring matrix. At this stage of evaluation the county is trying to "weed
11 out" parcels which are not worth being presented to the LCAB. The program coordinator is likely to
12 perform the initial evaluation based on the surveys and boundaries provided by the nominator, as well as
13 natural data collected by county government biologists, and private individuals. (Source: Matthews)
14 The LCAB recommends projects into one of two categories, "Target Site" or "Active Acquisition." The
15 "Target" designation indicates that the county is interested in the site, although matching funding may
16 need to be sought, or the site might not be ready for purchase. An "Active Acquisition" designation
17 indicates that the county commission will actively seek to purchase the site. Target sites can become
18 Active sites as funds become available or as properties become "ready" for purchase. The program
19 coordinator will likely make that determination. (Source: Matthews)
20 No exceptions can be made to the initial screening criteria requirement of having a minimum of at least 2
21 of 5 criteria. In many cases a program that passed the initial screening will be removed from consideration
22 once more information is acquired and the LCAB begins scrutinizing more closely. (Source: Matthews)
23 The program sought to model itself after the most successful programs in Florida. In order to do this,
24 known land protection programs in Florida were surveyed during the design phase. The program adopted
25 what was considered best practices from the other programs. The adoption of a quantitative ranking
26 system was a key feature in the design of the program. (Source: Matthews)
27 Decision-making process:
28 Synopsis of decision-making criteria:
29 "... County staff will publish a notice requesting all interested landowners who meet the eligibility
30 criteria to submit an application to the County for participation in the Program. County staff may also
31 send letters of inquiry to the eligible landowners....
32 Proposals, which satisfy the initial screening, are forwarded to the LCAB and staff for secondary criteria
33 review and ranking. Staff shall include with each proposal: boundary and location maps for each site;
34 descriptions of the biological and hydrological characteristics; a summary of its potential for appropriate
35 use; development potential of the site and adjacent land; an assessment of the management needs and
36 costs; the assessed value; and any potentially available matching funds. This acquisition proposal
37 information shall be the Initial Criteria Screening Report ("Screening Report").
38 Upon completion of the Screening Report, the LCAB shall hold a public hearing to consider the
39 recommendations regarding each site, the applicant and/or landowner's comments, and comments from
40 the public... .The LCAB shall evaluate all qualified proposals using the Scoring Matrix and propose top-
41 ranked projects for the Active Acquisition List.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 109
-------
1 The Board shall vote on whether to approve all or part of the proposed Active Acquisition List... .After
2 approval of the list, the Board will direct the County Manager to begin negotiations for property
3 acquisition(s) ...."
4 (Source: Ordinance 04-28 text)
5 Parcel applications must come from a landowner within the county, or from a citizen who would like to
6 nominate a parcel with the landowner's permission. The County will only negotiate with willing sellers
7 and does not wish to spend time and effort on parcels which are not "really" for sale. There is no
8 condemnation involved in the acquisition process. (Source: Matthews)
9 Ultimate decision maker:
10 Osceola County Board of County Commissioners. (Source: Ordinance 04-28)
11 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
12 In order to evaluate each property, staff will provide the following to the LCAB in a screening report:
13 boundary and location maps for each site; descriptions of the biological and hydrological characteristics; a
14 summary of its potential for appropriate use; development potential of the site and adjacent land; an
15 assessment of the management needs and costs; the assessed value; and any potentially available
16 matching funds. Landowner/applicants comments, as well as public comments about each property are
17 also taken into consideration. (Source: Ordinance 04-28 text)
18 Partnerships:
19 Not available.
20 Available and expended funding:
21 $60 million. The County has not bonded anything as of yet. In 2006, the program intends to bond $20-30
22 million, with the option of increasing the bond deemed necessary. The program will run for 20 years, or
23 until the funding has run out. After all funding as been spent, another vote for additional funding may be
24 proposed. (Source: Matthews)
25 Acres protected:
26 No acres have been protected yet. On January 1, 2006, the LCAB will begin to review applications. It
27 might take at least 12 months of evaluation and negotiation before the first purchase. (Source: Matthews)
28 Other Information:
29 The saveosceola.org website was created to gather support for the program, rather than use it as a way of
30 communicating updates to the public. It has been shut down since the measure is passed, and will not re-
31 open. (Source: Matthews)
32 The program will be publicized though different types of events and fliers, and through a newly created
33 website. A key element to the program's success will be transparency to the County citizens since their
34 money is funding the measure. A website listing the accomplishments and status of the acquisition will be
35 established in January 2006. Applications will be available on the website and will also be advertised in
36 the local newspapers. (Source: Matthews)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 110
-------
i Sources:
2 Ballot measure text, http://saveosceola.org/Resolution%20Ballot%20Question.pdf. accessed on July 12,
3 2005.
4 Ordinance 04-28 text, http://saveosceola.org/Ordinance%20No.%2004-28.pdf. accessed on July 12, 2005.
5 Randy Mathews, Environmental Lands Coordinator, Osceola BOCC, personal communication with Toby
6 Mandel, ICF Consulting, October 28, 2005.
7 POINT OF CONTACT:
8 Randy Mathews, Environmental Lands Coordinator, 407-962-1314. Email: rmat2@osceola.org
9
10
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 111
-------
i 2004KS-01 Turning Rain into Recreation: Lenexa's
2 Approach to Stormwater Management*
4 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
5 Mission statement:
6 "The mission of the Watershed Management Division is to reduce flooding, protect water and
7 environmental quality and create recreational opportunities for the citizens of Lenexa through a proactive,
8 integrated, watershed-based approach to storm water management." (Source: Rain to Recreation)
9 Program goals:
10 The "goals of the Program are to reduce flooding, protect water quality and natural habitat and provide
11 recreational and educational opportunities." Land protection is one part of this program. (Source: Rain to
12 Recreation)
is Parcel selection process:
14 In the growth area of the city, "Criteria will be established to identify and create an inventory of natural
15 streams that deserve protection. The City will then develop plans to conserve the identified natural
16 streams. The inventory will also identify degraded reaches. Their restoration potential will then be ranked
17 and prioritized." Property owners may also dedicate land parcels to the City if the City determines that
18 the proposed dedication meets the City's watershed purposes. (Source: Rain to Recreation)
19 The City commissioned a stream inventory that was completed in December 2001. It was created by a
20 team of consultants, including Parti Banks Associates (a local firm), a local branch of Tetratech, and
21 Applied Ecological Services (a contractor based out of Wisconsin). The team did a rapid assessment that
22 looked at streams in their entirety using a variety of technical criteria to classify them into five categories
23 ranging from "sensitive" to "significantly impacted." A matrix of the type of stream versus the stream
24 order (a measure of the relative size of streams) was created to help prioritize what kinds of restorative or
25 protective actions to take.
26 In March 2002, the City adopted a Stream Setback Ordinance to encourage dedication of stream corridors
27 or greenway trails (which fits in with the parks and recreation plan). The Stream Setback Ordinance
28 protects everything identified on the map in the stream asset inventory by requiring new developments or
29 changes in the land to comply with the ordinance (and, thus, restrains development). This protection
30 covers about 1,500 acres of riparian areas. Dedication of greenway trails is an opportunity to provide
31 flood control while providing recreational opportunities. Regional Stormwater facilities have been
32 identified, so it is clear what plots of land are good for watershed purposes. The parks and recreation
33 master plan identifies what is good for parks in terms of greenways.
34 The City requests dedications, but also gets approached (and only accepts dedications that will be good
35 for the City). In November 2002, the City adopted a Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance, which
36 set up three incentives for dedications to the city: 1) relief of $75 00/acre excise tax; 2) relief of the
37 setback requirement for the residential side of a development; and 3) opportunity to achieve previous
38 density on fewer acres. (Source: Beezhold (a))
39 Prioritization criteria:
40 "Criteria used to prioritize stream conservation or restoration efforts may include many factors, such as:
41
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 112
-------
1 • The ecological and hydraulic connectivity and function of the stream within the overall watershed
2 or drainage system
3 • The physical and biological health of the stream and its supporting ecosystem
4 • The potential to control natural flow regimes within the stream after the surrounding area is
5 developed
6 • Aesthetic and recreational value of the stream
7 • Hydraulic capacity of the natural stream
8 • Impact of stream management on surrounding property values
9 • Existence of wetlands
10 • Development potential of area immediately surrounding the stream
11 • Unique environmental or aesthetic characteristics of the stream"
12 (Source: Rain to Recreation)
13 These criteria were wrapped into the Stream Setback Ordinance that emerged from the stream asset
14 inventory. The decision-making process is mostly data driven. There has not really been an instance when
15 climate change was considered, but the larger metropolitan area has been thinking about it. (Source:
16 Beezhold (a))
17 In the mature part of the city, there is also a sub-watershed process that involves a fluvial
18 geomorphologist and consultants' assessment of stresses from a hydrologic standpoint. Expenditures are
19 prioritized based on where current stream restoration is needed or where it will be needed in the future.
20 Decision-making process:
21 The City Department of Public Works manages the program. The City Council makes the ultimate
22 decision about parcels voluntarily dedicated to the city.
23 The City Council is involved in the adoption of new standards and new ordinances (including the Erosion
24 and Sediment Ordinance, the 2002 Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance, and the 2004 Manual of
25 Best Management Practices for Stormwater Quality).
26 For the adoption of the 2004 Manual of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Quality, the City
27 Council was brought up to speed on new standards issued by the American Public Works Association
28 (APWA). They generally follow technicalities closely. The Economic Development Council is also
29 important to engage. Everything presented to these councils is couched in terms of improving the quality
30 of life for citizens.
31 There are public Council meetings when the Council takes actions. There is a lot of public participation.
32 Vision 2020, a comprehensive planning effort that initially sparked the concern for stream protection, was
33 begun in 1998. It involved over 100 groups interested in keeping a balance between development and
34 environmental protection.
35 The public also regularly attends Stormwater neighborhood meetings. These public meetings are critical to
36 bringing stream restoration to suburban areas and taking proactive steps. They provide opportunities to
37 communicate with the public about upcoming and ongoing projects. (Source: Beezhold (a))
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 113
-------
i Ultimate decision maker:
2 The ultimate decision maker is the City Council, upon recommendation of the Public Works Director.
3 The City Council is very engaged and gets briefed at a high level of detail. They are concerned about
4 efficiency and effectiveness of policies.
5 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
6 "The streams in western Lenexa were assigned a type designation, based on stream quality assessments
7 conducted by Parti Banks Associates for Lenexa's Stream Inventory. Field data, based on key indicators
8 and environmental criteria, was used in a weighting/scoring system to determine stream type. Stream type
9 and stream order served as the criteria upon which stream setback distances were based." (Source: Rain
10 to Recreation)
11 Priority map:
12 The Western Lenexa Stream Type Map "indicates stream type and order information to be used in the
13 determination of stream setback requirements." (Source: Rain to Recreation)
14 Partnerships:
15 The City plans to try to "identify and take advantage of all available opportunities to cooperate with other
16 communities to effectively manage storm water" and protect the shared Mill Creek watershed. (Source:
17 Rain to Recreation)
18 Lenexa is a municipality within Johnson County, which it sometimes partners with for funding and works
19 with to facilitate communication with neighboring municipalities. Working with other municipalities is
20 one of the 8 guiding principles behind the program. It participates in Johnson County's Stormwater
21 Management Advisory Council (SMAC) by sharing proposed projects and cost-benefit analyses to
22 determine whose project will best meet the needs of the area for the lowest cost. There are some joint
23 projects underway.
24 Lenexa took the lead in working with the Mid-America Regional Council and the Kansas City Chapter of
25 the American Public Works Association to bring municipalities together across state lines to develop
26 regional water quality standards. It also partners with some environmental groups and land trusts, such as
27 the Blue River Watershed Organization, the Kansas Land Trust, the Arbor Day Foundation, the Kansas
28 Alliance for Wetlands and Streams, the Friends of the KAW (as the Kansas River is sometimes referred
29 to), and the Audubon Society.
30 (Source: Beezhold (a))
31 Available and expended funding:
32 Anticipated revenue totals $7.9 million (includes county funds and grants)
33 Funding comes from several sources: 1) a Stormwater utility charge for impervious areas ($4.50 per
34 month per equivalent dwelling unit or EDU—considered to be the size of an average single family lot at
35 2,750 square feet), which generates about $1.4 million per year; 2) a 1/8 cent sales tax passed by 78% of
36 the voters twice, which generates about $1.5 million per year; 3) a system capital development charge
37 (each new home pays a one-time charge of $850 per EDU and then pays the Stormwater utility charge for
38 the rest of the life of the home), which contributes about $450,000 per year; and 4) a land disturbance fee,
39 which generates about $100,000 per year.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 114
-------
1 Before these charges were put into place, the City did a survey of residents to assess how much they were
2 willing to pay for water quality and quality of life. 80 percent of respondents expressed a willingness to
3 pay to protect these resources. The survey revealed that citizens were concerned with water quality and
4 habitat preservation and valued passive recreational activities such as walking, bird watching, and similar
5 hobbies. (Source: Beezhold (a))
6 Acres protected:
7 The City already owns 470 acres that are protected and is protecting about 1300 acres of future streams by
8 ordinance. About 115 of the 470 acres have been dedicated to the city.
9 The City has looked at benefits in terms of money. An analysis showed that green infrastructure would
10 save 25 percent over the business as usual approach. Other public benefits that have been considered are:
11 improved recreational opportunities; taking people out of flooding situations; providing educational
12 opportunities (signage is provided at all facilities for educational purposes); and improving quality of
13 water going to Kansas City. (Source: Beezhold (a))
14 Lake Lenexa was completed in 2006 with a park soft opening to the public the summer of 2008 and a
15 Grand Opening of Black Hoof Park and Lake Lenexa on May 2, 2009. The park is over 300 acres of
16 preserved and restored streamways, three wetlands and protected upland forest. The lake is 35 acre
17 surface area with a boat launch for non motorized boats. Miles of trails and boardwalks give the
18 community access to the park, water and spillway. (Source Beezhold (b))
19 The program has completed several other small lake and park amenities/facilities for the city including
20 Mize Lake (7.5 acre surface area) at Cedar Station Park that incorporates wetlands and bioretention cells
21 to clean road runoff and the restoration of a 2.5 acre lake at the 27 acre Hidden Woods Park. The program
22 has also completed several stream restoration projects all of which have won the APWA Environmental
23 Project award including Brentwood Neighborhood Stormdrainage Improvements and Stream Stabilization
24 ($9 million completed in 2008), Manchester Park Neighborhood Stream Restoration and Wetland
25 ($750,000 with $350,000 of that from EPA 319 grant completed in 2006) and Parkhurst Neighborhood
26 Stream Restoration done with new in-house green crew for a fraction of the cost of hiring a contractor
27 (completed 2007).
28 The program is currently completing a capital project in association with our new urbanist development
29 (live, work, play) called City Center. The project, City Center Central Green, includes a transition of
30 formal green space to a series of recirculating pools into a constructed wetland that enters into the
31 Parkhurst Stream Restoration (noted above). These connected spaces are accessible by a trail. The
32 stormwater that is cleaned in the Central Green flows down stream to Shawnee Mission Lake which is the
33 most visited lake and park in the State of Kansas and thus an important resource that must be protected.
34
35 Sources:
36 Beezhold, Mike, Watershed Manager, City of Lenexa, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF
37 Consulting, November 9, 2005 (a).
38 Beezhold, Mike, Watershed Manager, City of Lenexa, Personal Communication with Philip Groth, ICF
39 Consulting, May, 28th, 2009 (b).
40 City of Lenexa, http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/Stormwater/index.html. accessed on August 10, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 115
-------
1 Creating Quality Places, http://www.qualityplaces.marc.org/4a studies.cfm?Case=42. accessed on
2 August 10, 2005.
3 Rain to Recreation, http://www.raintorecreation.org/index.html. accessed on August 10, 2005.
4 POINTS OF CONTACT:
5 Ron Norris and Mike Beezhold, City of Lenexa, Phone: (913) 477-7680. Email:
6 rnorris@ci .lenexa.ks .us .or mbeezhold(g),ci.lenexa.ks .us
7
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 116
-------
i 2004MI-01 Scio Township Land Preservation Commission
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 There is no specific mission statement available. However, the millage was passed because of strong
6 public sentiment that land needed to be protected and saved from encroaching development. Many people
7 specifically moved to the area for a semi-rural life style and rapid development was threatening the area.
8 (Source: Knol)
9 Program goals:
10 Preserve working agricultural land; natural areas; and open space. (Source: Scio Info Newsletter, Fall
11 2004)
12 Parcel selection process:
13 A land use consultant is familiar with the area and has identified many of the properties that are relevant
14 for the program. He contacts some of the landowners directly and invites them to apply. The Land
15 Preservation Commission also sends letters to people in the township that own land parcels of a certain
16 size or larger. In this first round of applications for agricultural land, letters were sent to 50-60
17 landowners. (Source: Knol)
18 Landowners submit applications which are reviewed by the Land Preservation Commission. The Land
19 Preservation Commission uses the criteria listed below to evaluate the applications and determine which
20 are the best options. (Source: Knol)
21 Prioritization criteria:
22 Scoring System for Review of Potential Acquisitions
23 The scoring system below is used to review potential land, easement and development rights acquisitions.
24 The system is intended to identify high-quality agricultural, open space and park and recreation lands that
25 are appropriate for protection through the Scio Township program. In addition to the points identified for
26 each criteria, the Land Preservation Commission may employ discretionary points in each category to
27 address factors not included.
28 Agricultural Land
29 1. Characteristics of the Land
30 Soil Quality. Percent of the property with prime, unique or locally important soil types (as
31 defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture).
32
33 For scoring, divide the number of acres of quality soils by total acres and then multiply
34 that by 13 to produce the score.
35
36 Par eel Size.
37 <40 acres 2
38 40-80 acres 3
39 >80 acres 5
40
41 Road Frontage.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 117
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
<500 feet 0
500-1,000 feet 1
> 1,000 feet 2
Groundwater Recharge/Protection. Percent of property serving as a groundwater recharge
area or protecting groundwater resources.
<50% 2
50-75% 4
>75% 5
Woodlands. Does the property contain Landmark Trees?
Up to five points may be awarded.
Other Habitats. Does the property contain other important habitats such as wetlands,
grasslands or stream corridors?
Up to five points may be awarded.
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
in an agricultural or open space use.
<50% 2
50-89% 4
90% or more 6
is
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
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 118
-------
1 e. Scenic Value. Does the property provide a broad, sweeping view from publicly
2 accessible sites such as public roads and waterways?
3
4 Up to five points may be awarded.
5
6 f. Historic Value. Does the property have important historical or cultural
7 features?
8
9 Up to five points may be awarded.
10
11 g. Connectivity. Does the property provide a connection or decrease the distance between
12 existing trails, parks, preserves or natural feature complexes?
13
14 Up to ten points may be awarded.
15
16 3. Acquisition Considerations
17 a. Matching Funds. Percent of the appraised value of development rights available
18 from sources other than the landowner or the Township.
19 No matching funds 0
20 <20% 5
21 20-50% 10
22 >50% 14
23
24 b. Landowner Contribution. Percent of the appraised value of development rights the
25 landowner is willing to donate.
26 No contribution 0
27 <10% 5
28 10-20% 8
29 >20-30% 12
30 >30% 15
31
32 c. Development Pressure. Is the property currently on the market or otherwise threatened
33 with development?
34
35 Up to ten points may be awarded.
36
37 4. Discretionary Points. The Land Preservation Commission may award up to 15
38 discretionary points for factors not considered in the scoring system.
39
40 Draft Criteria for Natural Areas and Open Space
41 1. Characteristics of the Land
42 a. Woodlands. Does the property contain Landmark Trees?
43 Up to five points may be awarded.
44
45 b. Rare Species. Does the property feature species of special concern or interest?
46 Up to five points may be awarded.
47
48 c. Other Habitats. Does the property feature contain other important habitats such as
49 grasslands or scrub/shrub?
50 Up to five points may be awarded.
51
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 119
-------
1 d. Parcel Size.
2 <20 acres 2
3 20-40 acres 3
4 >40 acres 5
5
6 e. Road Frontage.
7 No frontage 0
8 <500 feet 1
9 500-1,000 feet 2
10 > 1,000 feet 3
11
12 f Wetlands and/or Floodplain. Percent of the property with those features.
13 No features 0
14 <10% 3
15 10-20% 7
16 >20% 11
17
18 g. Groundwater Recharge/Protection. Percent of property serving as a groundwater
19 recharge area or protecting groundwater resources.
20 <50% 2
21 50-75% 4
22 >75% 6
23
24 h. Slopes. Percent of the property that features slopes >12%.
25 <10% 0
26 10-20% 2
27 >20% 4
28
29 i.. Public Water Resources Frontage/Proximity. Amount of frontage on open water or a
30 perennial stream.
31 No frontage 0
32 <100 feet 5
33 100-500 feet 10
34 >500 feet 14
35
36 2. Context
37 a. Adjacent Zoning Classification. Percent of the properties contiguous with the subject
38 property that is in agricultural or open space zoning. (Refer to the Scio Township Zoning
39 Ordinance.)
40 <50% 1
41 50-89% 2
42 90% or more 4
43
44 b. Adjacent Land Use. Percent of the properties contiguous with the subject property that is
45 in an agricultural or open space use.
46 None 0
47 <50% 3
48 50-89% 4
49 90% or more 5
50
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 120
-------
1 c. Proximity to Protected Land. Distance to land that is permanently protected by a public
2 agency, a land conservancy or other conservation organization, or by a perpetual
3 conservation easement.
4 >1 mile low 0
5 1 mile or less medium 5
6 adjacent high 9
7
8 d. Scenic Value. Does the property provide a broad, sweeping view from publicly
9 accessible sites such as public roads and waterways?
10 Up to five points may be awarded.
11
12 e. Historic Value. Does the property have important historical or cultural
13 features?
14 Up to five points may be awarded.
15
16 f. Connectivity. Does the property provide a connection between existing trails, parks,
17 preserves or natural feature complexes, or close the distance?
18 Up to ten points may be awarded.
19
20 3. Acquisition Considerations.
21 a. Matching Funds. Percent of the appraised value of development rights available from
22 sources other than the landowner or the Township.
23 No matching funds 0
24 <20% 4
25 20-50% 8
26 >50% 11
27
28 b. Landowner Contribution. Percent of the appraised value of development rights the
29 landowner is willing to donate.
30 No contribution 0
31 <10% 2
32 10-20% 4
33 >20% 6
34
35 c. Urgency for Acquisition. Is the property currently on the market or is otherwise
36 threatened with development?
37 Up to ten points may be awarded.
38
39 d. Recreation Potential Can or will the property provide access to public lands, waters or
40 trails, or protect a trail corridor?
41 10 Yes 0 No
42
43 4. Discretionary Points. The Land Preservation Commission may award up to discretionary
44 points for factors not considered in the scoring system.
45
46
47 C. Parks and Recreation Land (criteria to be developed)
48
49 Glossary of Terms
50
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 121
-------
1 Agricultural soils:
2 • Prime: Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for
3 producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses. It
4 has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce economically
5 sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming
6 methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and
7 dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation; a favorable temperature and
8 growing season; acceptable acidity or alkalinity; acceptable salt and sodium content; and
9 few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not
10 excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do
11 not flood frequently or are protected from flooding.
12 • Unique: Land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high
13 value food and fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location,
14 growing season and moisture supply needed to produce economically sustained high
15 quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to
16 acceptable farming methods. Examples of crops are tree nuts, olives, cranberries, citruses
17 and other fruits and vegetables.
18 • Locally Important: Specified prime farmland soils with slopes of 6-18% and non-prime
19 farmland soils with slopes up to 12%.
20
21 Groundwater recharge area: Land where permeable soil and rock materials relatively close to the land
22 surface transfer an excess of water from precipitation to subsurface strata where it is stored in aquifers.
23
24 Landmark tree: Any tree listed in the definitions section of Article 12 of the Scio Township Zoning
25 Ordinance. Size varies according to species and is the diameter in inches as measured at breast height
26 (DBH).
27
28 Public water: Groundwaters, lakes, rivers and streams and all other watercourses and waters, including
29 the Great Lakes, within the jurisdiction of this state [definition of "Waters of the State," from a section of
30 the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.3101].
31
32 Open water: A lake or pond of one acre in size or greater.
33
34 Perennial stream: A water body that flows continuously throughout the year.
35
36 Natural feature complex: A cluster of natural features in a relatively undisturbed state—including but not
37 limited to unforested wetlands, forested wetlands, forested uplands, old fields, grasslands and steep
38 slopes—that relate together ecologically as a natural system. (Source: Scio Township Land Preservation
39 Program, 2005)
40
41 The Open Space criteria are still being finalized. (Source: Knol)
42 Water resources are an important factor in the evaluation process but have not been relevant thus far
43 during the evaluation of the first set of agricultural land applications. However, Scio Township is located
44 on the Huron River, so water resources could be an important aspect in future applications. There already
45 are some protections in place as regards Huron River - it is protected by the Natural Rivers Act. (Source:
46 Knol)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 122
-------
1 In the first round of agricultural land applications, six applications were received but only three qualified
2 because the criteria require that there be active agricultural use on the lands. (Source: Knol)
3 In the development of the criteria, neither climate change nor pollution or 'stressors' specifically were
4 addressed; the focus was on creating basic evaluation criteria. Many of the people on the Commission
5 have a science background (or PhDs) and would certainly consider stressors if it was relevant to a specific
6 parcel of land. There has been specific discussion of the importance of protecting land that is critical for
7 endangered or threatened species. The program has the ability to add discretionary points to the score of a
8 parcel should it be clear that a land was important for another reason, which could be related to stressors.
9 (Source: Knol)
10 Decision-making process:
11 Landowners are invited to submit applications and the applications are submitted to the Land Preservation
12 Commission. The Commission reviews the applications and uses additional information about the
13 properties to evaluate the applications and land parcels based on the criteria listed above. Next, the
14 Commission selects the applications that meet their criteria and obtains the signature of approval from the
15 landowner to show their interest in selling the development rights. The Commission then presents their
16 findings to the Township Board for final approval. (Source: Knol)
17 The Commission may submit a request to the state for matching funds to help purchase development
18 rights on the lands selected before submitting their final recommendation to the Township Board.
19 (Source: Knol)
20 The recommendation of the Land Preservation Commission is presented at a public meeting of the
21 Township Board. (Source: Knol)
22 Ultimate decision maker:
23 Township Board.
24 Theoretically, the Township Board could veto a recommendation or require changes, but it is expected
25 that the Board will rely heavily on the recommendation of the Land Preservation Commission. (Source:
26 Knol)
27 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
28 The Land Preservation Commission uses the following sources to make decisions about which
29 applications/land parcels to recommend for purchase of development rights: application, GIS,
30 independent appraisal, landowner interviews, land use consultant expertise, and the Commission walks
31 the properties. (Source: Knol)
32 Township planning documents—such as the Scio Township Master Land Use Plan (adopted on 10/8/96,
33 as amended), the Scio Township Zoning Ordinance (adopted 11/26/03, as amended), Wetland and
34 Watercourse Protection and Restoration Ordinance (2005-01) and Open Space and Greenway Plan
35 (adopted 10/19/04)—serve as reference documents for the Land Preservation Commission. (Source: Scio
36 Township Land Preservation Program, 2005)
37 No one source of information is more important than another across the board; it is likely to be situation
38 specific. (Source: Knol)
39 Priority map:
40 No.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 123
-------
i Partnerships:
2 Not available.
3 Available and expended funding:
4 $5 million is expected over 10 years. Estimated revenue for year 1 is $575,000. (Source: Scio Info
5 Newsletter, Fall 2004)
6 The program completed their first round of applications for agricultural land. No money has been
7 expended yet as they are waiting to hear if they will get matching funds from the state for the purchase of
8 development rights on two agricultural land parcels. (Source: Knol)
9 Acres protected:
10 The measure is expected to protect approximately 1,000 acres. No information on acres protected to date,
11 if any. (Source: Olsson and Rubin)
12 The program completed their first round of applications for agricultural land. No land has been protected
13 yet as they are waiting to hear if they will get matching funds from the state for the purchase of
14 development rights on two agricultural land parcels. Also, they expect to usually purchase development
15 rights rather than purchase the land outright. (Source: Knol)
16 Sources:
17 Knol, Kathleen. 2005. Telephone conversation between Kathleen Knol, Clerk of Scio Township and
18 Amanda Vemuri of ICF Consulting. October 24, 2005. A second interview with Ms. Knol and another
19 member of the Land Preservation Commission was planned but never completed because of difficulty in
20 scheduling and the additional Commission member was unreachable at the second scheduled interview
21 time.
22 Scio Township Land Preservation Program. 2005. Scoring System for Review of Potential Acquisitions.
23 Received via email from Kathleen Knol on October 24, 2005.
24 Scio Township. Scio Info, Fall 2004. Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.twp.scio.mi.us/newsletters/10-
25 04scio info.pdf. accessed on June 29. 2005.
26 Olsson, K. and Rubin, L. "Investing in Greenspace." Huron River Report, Spring 2005.
27 http://www.hrwc.org/pdf/HRR 2005 lSpring.pdf accessed on June 29. 2005.
28 POINT OF CONTACT:
29 Kathleen Knol, Clerk of Scio Township. Phone: 734-665-2123. Email: kknol@twp.scio.mi.us.
30 A second interview with Ms. Knol and another member of the Land Preservation Commission was
31 planned but never completed because of difficulty in scheduling.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 124
-------
2004NC-01
Wake County Open Space"
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 "Wake County has crafted a strong Environmental
6 Stewardship Agenda to protect our drinking water and ensure
7 that citizens tomorrow enjoy the same quality of life we
8 enjoy today. The Agenda focuses on water and air quality,
9 open space preservation, solid waste disposal and recycling,
10 and environmental health and education...
11 ... open space is a protected living system of natural and
12 cultural resources provided and maintained for the benefit of
13 residents, businesses and visitors. This 'green infrastructure'
14 is essential in protecting our water supply, keeping people
15 and property out of high risk flood hazard areas, providing
16 places where residents can recreate for health and fitness, and
17 protecting the biological diversity of irreplaceable
18 landscapes. In November 2000, Wake County voters
19 authorized $15 million...with an emphasis on purchasing land
20 that protects sensitive stream and drinking water sources."
21 (Source: Wake County Open Space Plan)
22 The 2004 bond for open space, recreation, and protection of
23 water quality and wildlife habitats was intended to provide additional funding on top of the 2000
24 authorization of $15 million in funds. All of the $15 million from the 2000 bond has been spent (on
25 giving grants to communities to develop community-level open space plans and then consolidating those
26 plans into one big plan). (Source: Smith)
27 Program goals:
28 The Wake County Open Space Program is focused on preserving land within four critical watersheds
29 (Falls and Jordan Lakes, Swift Creek, and Little River), 40 miles of stream corridors within these
30 watersheds, and the Mark's Creek area in eastern Wake County. Open space was prioritized to fulfill
31 multiple objectives, including: (1) floodplain management, (2) wildlife habitat, (3) water quality, (4)
32 recreation access, (5) environmental and cultural education, (6) personal fitness, (7) alternative
33 transportation, and (8) recreational resources.
34 The primary engine/driving objective is water quality, which appeals to multiple stakeholders (general
35 public, environmentalists, development interests, etc.). When the program partners with other towns, they
36 sometimes achieve some secondary objectives as well. Protecting stream corridors (300 ft strips) often
37 also allows for the protection of species and some of the other program goals. (Source: Smith)
38 Parcel selection process:
39 Citizens worked together on a countywide Comprehensive Open Space Plan. This "greenprint for the
40 future" knits together the County's open space plan with those of all 12 Wake County municipalities. This
41 unique plan provides for open space protection in ways that are close to home, such as greenway linkages
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)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 125
-------
1 and neighborhood parks. Watershed and Growth Management Plans address growth issues, including
2 watershed protection and prioritization of purchases under the County's open space plan.
3 The public is welcome to "suggest a property." The public does not need to provide any justification for
4 suggesting a property; they can call and inquire generally. This option is not widely exercised, and usually
5 is undertaken by people with funding already in line (for a partnership; see more information about
6 partnerships below). If someone calls with a suggestion, the County will see if it matches any of the
7 corridor goals or if there are any partners interested in purchasing the parcel. One parcel was donated, and
8 although it is not on the County's list, but will be accepted.
9 There are two avenues for acquiring parcels (and K. Smith estimates they each consume about 50% of the
10 funds):
11 (1) Partnership Program, which provides 50 cents on the $1 for any partner interested in
12 acquiring a parcel. Partners (e.g., non-profit organizations, agencies, or community groups)
13 take the lead on what is important to them and the criteria (below) need to be met, but very
14 loosely.
15 (2) Preservation Program, which involved analysis of 81 sub-watersheds using GIS data to
16 identify 8 stream corridors. The County is looking to buy parcels of 300 ft on either side of a
17 stream.
18 (Source: Smith)
19 Prioritization criteria:
20 The Open Space Partnership Program has established 15 qualitative criteria for prioritization: (1) location,
21 (2) proximity, (3) linkage, (4) water quality/water supply protection, (5) accessibility, (6) aesthetic
22 quality, (7) use/utility, (8) number of open space categories, (9) threat of loss, (10) rarity, (11) parcel size,
23 (12) cost, (13) manageability, (14) partnerships, and (15) parcel configuration.
24 Criteria (8) refers to how many of the following five priority open space categories the parcel falls into:
25 (1) environmental, (2) recreational, (3) wildlife habitat, (4) cultural resources, (5) historic resources.
26 The criteria are weighted, but subjectively. The process is data driven, but subjectivity enters later. The
27 County Open Space Plan was laid on top of the watershed data to help determine the best opportunities.
28 These criteria need to be only loosely met for partnership purchases, which is not data driven and tied to
29 the priorities of the partners. (Source: Smith)
30 Decision-making process:
31 "The Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) is an eight-member citizen group appointed by the Board
32 of Commissioners to advise it on open space preservation issues." The OSAC is responsible for
33 identifying types of open spaces to be included in the program, developing prioritization criteria, and
34 identifying options for acquisition and conservation of parcels, among other roles. (Source: Wake County
35 Open Space Program)
36 For all 81 watersheds, parcels over 50 acres or within 30 feet of a priority area were evaluated (a.k.a.
37 Matrix Prioritization Analysis) against the following factors to determine existing water quality
38 conditions and potential for preservation and restoration: (1) soil moisture (e.g., hydric soils), (2) FEMA
39 100-year flood zone, (3) wetlands (data not specified), (4) water recharge area; variables weighted
40 according to planning objectives (e.g., Wake County Open Space Plan gives higher significance to upland
41 hardwoods, bottomland forests, floodplain forests and wetlands, because they are critical to water
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 126
-------
1 quality). CH2M HILL (a consultant) completed the initial watershed analysis, using Division of Water
2 Quality data and field sampling. A watershed committee reviewed the findings as well as various
3 stakeholders.
4 Development pressures drove the development of an open space plan. Data from the planning department
5 was used to identify these pressures after the watershed analysis. In general, the County tries to buy land
6 in areas that are less than 20 percent developed. The final step of the evaluation process is to identify
7 available acquisition opportunities and potential partners and prioritize among the highest ranked projects
8 using the criteria above.
9 Barriers have included the limits on the price of the property and approval by multiple entities. The
10 County cannot buy beyond the appraised value of the land, so developers or others can easily outbid them
11 to purchase a parcel. Potential parcels undergo several rigorous reviews by internal staff, the Open Space
12 Advisory Committee (OSAC), the Land Acquisition Review Commission (LARC), and the elected Board
13 of Commissioners approves (which can be highly political).
14 The public is not that involved (and rarely to express negative opinions), but can attend OSAC meetings
15 and watch the Board of Commissioners on TV. The LARC is closed to the public.
16 (Source: Smith)
17 Ultimate decision maker:
18 The Board of Commissioners makes the final decision. They can vote on an acquisition in a public
19 session (if they know everyone is already on board), or they can have a closed session meeting that
20 usually involves a presentation of technical information by County staff. It used to be more common to
21 assess acquisitions in closed sessions, but the Board has been doing everything in open sessions and
22 approving acquisitions with little discussion or analysis. (Source: Smith)
23 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
24 Typical GIS data including Natural Heritage GIS data, and SSURGO soil data. See Appendix F of Open
25 Space Plan (Open Space Prioritization Process). The County has an in-house GIS department that works
26 with consultants to gather and analyze data (Source: Smith).
27 Priority map:
28 Yes; includes watersheds (coarse scale) and parcels (micro scale).
29 Partnerships:
30 "The Open Space Partnership Grant Program is an initiative created by OSAC and Wake County staff to
31 collaborate with local organizations in preserving our significant natural resources. The grant program
32 will provide funding to organizations in Wake County to acquire—and plan for acquiring—land...."
33 (Source: Wake County Open Space Program)
34 More than half the protected lands were acquired in partnership with other cities and towns, state
35 agencies, nonprofits and individuals.
36 Partnership strategies have included: (1) determining long-range jurisdictional responsibility; (2)
37 identifying local land-trust priorities; (3) facilitating county-wide planning effort to support the
38 Governor's Million Acre Initiative; (4) supporting county-wide planning efforts through financial and
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 127
-------
1 technical support; and (5) prioritizing and protecting significant lands outside municipal long-range
2 planning boundaries.
3 Available and expended funding:
4 $26 million.
5 $16-17 million has been spent (of the 2000 and 2004 bond money, which totals $41 million). It is
6 estimated that the appraised value of the land acquisitions is around $35 million. An estimated 2300-2400
7 acres have been set aside as open space. (Source: Smith)
8 Acres protected:
9 From the late 1990s, when the program began, through 2005, atotal of 1,800 acres worth $23.1 million
10 have been acquired.
11 There has not been an analysis of the benefits resulting from the 1800 acres of open space that have been
12 acquired, but there may be more down the road. No noticeable changes other than noticing that nothing is
13 built on the set aside land. (Source: Smith)
14 Sources:
15 Wake County Open Space Program, http://www.wakegov.com/parks/openspace/default.htm, accessed
16 July 2005.
17 Smith, Kurt, Wake County Open Space Planner (Program Coordinator), Personal communication with
18 Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, on October 25, 2005.
19
20 Smith, Kurt, Wake County Open Space Planner (Program Coordinator), Personal communication with
21 Philip Groth, ICF International, on April 24, 2009.
22
23 POINT OF CONTACT:
24 Kurt Smith, Wake County Open Space Planner (Program Coordinator), Phone: (919) 856-6555. Email:
25 kwsmith@co.wake.nc.us.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 128
-------
i 2004NC-02 Guilford County Open Space*
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 "The mission of the Guilford County Open Space Program is to identify suitable lands for acquisition and
6 preservation and to provide public education about land conservation." (Source: Readling)
7 Program goals:
8 The goals of the programs are to (1) protect 100 acres of open space per 1000 residents, (2) educate the
9 public about the benefits of land conservation, (3) develop a land management and stewardship plan that
10 balances the needs of natural resource protection with appropriate public access, and (4) enhance regional
11 open space initiatives through partnerships. Of The $20 million 2004 bond measure, $10 million was set
12 aside for protection of natural areas through the County's open space program. (Source: 2009 Guilford
13 County Open Space Report)
14 This funding for the open space program represented a major win (and the first sum of money) for a
15 program that started in the late 90s through a grass-roots effort to address preservation of natural areas as
16 open space. The grassroots group went before the County Commissioners to request funding for a formal
17 program, and followed the advice of the Commissioners to go through the planning department to draft a
18 plan and conduct a survey of how much open space existed in the County. Open space is defined as (see
19 definition in report) The County decided it was not going to fund a formal program, but would provide
20 the salary for one person. It also established a committee under the Parks and Recreation Commission,
21 which consisted of people involved in the initial grassroots efforts. (Source: Readling)
22 The following principles govern the open space program:
23 1. Acquisition and preservation of open space will be based on working with willing
24 property owners. There will be no takings of private land.
25 2. Establishing priority areas for the acquisition of open space and updating them
26 periodically, while being flexible enough to take advantage of special acquisition
27 opportunities and respond effectively to threats on high priority tracts.
28 3. A focus on the multiple uses, functions and benefits of open space.
29 4. Adherence to the concept of corridors and bubbles, such that, in thirty years, there will be
30 strategically located open space bubbles or core areas throughout the county. Those core
31 areas will be linked together by corridors, such as streams, greenways, bike trails,
32 walking paths, or other linear connections to facilitate wildlife migration and recreation
33 in core areas. Core areas will have uses appropriate for each site.
34 5. Optimal use of bond funds to maximize their impact by seeking matching grants, by
35 accepting donations of land, and by seeking partners to help acquire and manage open
36 space.
37 (Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space Report)
38 Parcel selection process:
39 The Open Space Subcommittee was charged initially with compiling an inventory of existing park land
40 and open spaces. "The inventory was compiled through the use of tax records, the watershed acquisition
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 129
-------
1 database, park and recreation records and with the assistance of staff members from the City of
2 Greensboro, the City of High Point, The Town of Jamestown, and the Town of Gibsonville."
3 Parcels included in the inventory met one of three criteria: (1) owned by a government entity or local land
4 conservancy; (2) consisted of undeveloped open space or recreationally developed park land; or (3)
5 recorded conservation easement on property (including a Water Quality Conservation Easements or
6 private easements).
7 Parcels can be selected through two routes: (1) a nomination process whereby citizens refer properties for
8 review by the Open Space Committee or (2) a proactive selection process that pursues acquisition in
9 targeted areas.
10 The Open Space Committee selected 9 target areas using several information sources (described in more
11 detail below). The Committee originally sought large areas of undeveloped hardwoods and stream
12 corridors of importance. These target areas have changed overtime as the Committee finds that the
13 community is not interested in these areas or some other factors arise.
14 The Committee intentionally did not select the target areas prior to the bond measure because they wanted
15 to avoid speculation. There had seen speculation in the Haw River area after the State announced plans to
16 preserve the area. (Source: Readling)
17 Prioritization criteria:
18 The following types of land [shall] be considered for acquisition and preservation under this program:
19 • Lands identified in the Natural Areas Inventory...and Riparian Corridor Conservation Design for
20 the Upper Haw River, Mears Fork and Benaja Creek
21 • Suitable properties adjacent to existing parks and open space lands
22 • Wetlands, meadows and mature forests
23 • Creek, stream and river corridors, particularly along planned trail routes
24 • Groundwater recharge areas
25 • Buffers for drinking water supply lakes and streams
26 • Buffers for agricultural land
27 • Corridors connecting parks, open spaces, schools, and neighborhoods
28 • Sites of geologic or historic importance
29 • Sites providing recreational or educational potential
30 • Sites providing significant plant or wildlife habitat
31 • Sites providing significant water quality protection
32 • Additional sites as indicated on the open space target areas map
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 130
-------
1 (Source: Guilford County Open Space Program)
2 The criteria used to analyze nominated parcels are listed in greater detail in the Guilford County Open
3 Space Report in Appendix 4 (Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space Report)
4 Decision-making process:
5 The open space program is supported by the equivalent of one full-time staff person [within the Property
6 Management Department].
7 A citizen advisory board (the Guilford County Open Space committee) provides leadership and oversight
8 for the program as a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The committee "consists of
9 nine voting members, one of whom also serves on the Guilford County Parks & Recreation Commission.
10 Members serve a three-year term and are appointed by the Parks & Recreation Commission." The
11 members represent a diversity of backgrounds.
12 The Open Space committee works with the County staff to evaluate and recommend potential land
13 acquisitions based on established criteria and priorities. The committee acts as a screening body, but does
14 not have the power to approve the purchase of land or development rights. The Subcommittee looks at
15 whether or not there are willing sellers and whether or not the project meets the established environmental
16 and biological criteria, and to make sure that the parcel fits in with the existing plans. The Subcommittee
17 and Staff use maps, surveys and appraisals to analyze the property, and provide recommendations to the
18 Parks & Recreation Commission. The Parks & Recreation Commission looks at the cost and other
19 criteria of interest to them and then provides recommendations to the County Commissioners (elected
20 officials).
21 Acquisition or preservation of a land parcel can be carried out through fee-simple purchase, full donations
22 or bargain sales. The bond money cannot be used for long-term maintenance of a property since interest is
23 paid on bond money. Long-term maintenance or stewardship is on the table as an issue to start thinking
24 about, but there is no operating budget to pay for it. The program plans to start acquiring land and then
25 move forward with determining how to fund and maintain the land.
26 (Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space Report,)
27 Ultimate decision maker:
28 The ultimate decision makers are the County Commissioners Through 2008, the Board of County
29 Commissioners has been supportive of open space projects except for one farmland preservation project
30 seeking funds for a conservation easement. The Board has specified fee simple purchases to be made with
31 open space bond funds.
32 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
33 The following information was consulted to come up with 9 target areas: (1) the original open space plan;
34 (2) regional and statewide program information such as the NC One Naturally Program, which asked
35 regions to identify (through public input at public meetings) areas where they have interest in
36 preservation; (3) 15-year old Natural Heritage Inventory; and (4) color aerials.
37 Priority map:
38 Several maps are consulted during the decision-making process:
39 • Guilford County Master Parks and Recreation Plan, July 1991
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 131
-------
1 • Natural Area Inventory of Guilford County (1991)
2 • Open Space Program Target Areas Map
3 Partnerships:
4 The open space plan will be implemented in cooperation between Guilford County and its municipalities,
5 adjoining counties, the Soil and Water Conservation District, the Piedmont Land Conservancy, the
6 Guilford County School District, and other interested groups such as the Haw River Assembly to identify,
7 plan, fund and carry out open space acquisition and preservation projects.
8 Additional funding will be sought from the following sources, though values are subject to change:
9 • NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund ($100 million/year statewide)
10 • NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund ($6 million/year statewide)
11 • NC Farmland Preservation Program ($500,000 in initial funding)
12 • NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund ($18 million/year statewide)
13 • NC Water Resource Development Grants ($750,000/year statewide)
14 • NC Wetland Restoration Grants ($9 million in initial funding)
15 • Conservation Tax Credits (equal to up to 25 percent of the fair market value of donated interests, up
16 to a maximum allowable credit of $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations)
17 Available and expended funding:
18 $ 10 million is available
19 Acres protected:
20 Through 2008, the County has purchased 196 acres of land through the Open Space Program, and has 530
21 acres of pending projects. (Source: 2009 Guilford County Open Space Report)
22 Sources:
23 Guilford County Open Space Program,
24 http://gcms0004.co.guilford.nc.us/webapps/parks/default.asp?Go=Showapage&Pagename=OpenSpace
25 Guilford County Open Space Report, May 2009.
26 http://www.co.guilford.nc.us/government/openspace/FinalMay09.pdf
27 Readling, Anna, Guilford County Open Space Program, Personal communication with Susan Asam, ICF
28 Consulting, November 17, 2005.
29 POINT OF CONTACT:
30 Alex Ashton, Guilford County Open Space Program, Phone: (336) 641-3762. Email:
31 rashton@co.guilford.nc.us.
32
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 132
-------
1
2 2004NY-01 Nassau Open Space, Clean Water
3 Environmental Program
4
5 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
6 Mission statement:
7 The Long Island Regional Planning Board has called for the preservation of 45,000 of Long Island's
8 remaining 90,000 acres of unprotected open space. Nassau County established a dedicated fund for open
9 space preservation, water quality protection, and parks improvement. The Trust Fund represents the first
10 time Nassau County will have a program with dedicated funding for preserving open space and protecting
11 the environment. (Source: Nassau County Environmental Bond Act Program)
12 Program goals:
13 The "... $50 million Open Space, Clean Water Environmental Program to protect Nassau County's
14 drinking water, preserve open space and remaining farmland, protect bays and harbors, and enhance, as
15 well as add new parks and recreational facilities... in four areas: open space and parkland acquisition,
16 parkland improvement, storm water quality improvement and brownfield remediation."
17 The four areas covered by the bond referendum sought to achieve wider voter support for the referendum
18 by impacting more sections of the county. Open space largely exists in the NE quadrant of the County
19 only, so most acquisitions will take place there. Brownfield remediation, however, will occur largely in
20 the central part of the County.
21 The initial legislation crafted by environmentalists and citizen groups called for an explicit subdivision of
22 funds, with 60-70 percent set aside for open space acquisition. The County legislature struck down those
23 provisions, however, preferring to leave the funding portions flexible.
24 (Source: Nassau County Environmental Bond Act Program, Maher)
25 Parcel selection process:
26 Anyone can nominate a property or project for funding, including private citizens, land preservation,
27 environmental and civic organizations, and public officials. The nomination form includes a description
28 of the property or project, reason for recommendation, and whether or not supplemental funding is
29 available. Three public meetings were held in town at the end of February 2005 to explain the nomination
30 process and solicit nominations. 260 nominations were submitted in April 2005. 216 of these nominations
31 were evaluated (once the overlapping nominees had been eliminated). (Source: Maher)
32 Prioritization criteria:
33 The criteria for each of the four major project areas appear below and are more fully explained on the
34 project web site.
35 Open Space Acquisition Evaluation Criteria:
36 • Significant physical or natural features (including buffer for freshwater or tidal wetlands, deep
37 flow aquifer recharge area, fish and wildlife habitat, area with threatened or special species of
38 concern)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 133
-------
1 • Environmental impairment (including erosion or sedimentation, habitat degradation, water supply
2 contamination, surface or groundwater quality degradation, flooding, species loss or threat)
3 • Natural resource value
4 • Public resource value (if project is implemented)
5 • Area of benefit (neighborhood, village, city, region...)
6 • Supplemental funding sources
7 • Status of proposed acquisition
8 • Consistency with plans and policies
9 • Level of maintenance required
10 • Maintenance responsibility
11 • Urgency
12 Parkland Improvement/Restoration Evaluation Criteria:
13 • Significant physical or natural features
14 • Environmental or community value
15 • Natural areas or scenic resources
16 • Public resources value
17 • Urgency
18 • Area of benefit
19 • Level of maintenance
20 • Maintenance responsibility
21 • Population density in vicinity
22 • Number of parks in proximity
23 • Current use of the park
24 • Supplemental funding source
25 Storm water Project Evaluation Criteria
26 • Impairment to be addressed
27 • Improvement anticipated by project
28 • Owner of project property
29 • Maintenance responsibility
30 • Level of maintenance required
31 • Area of benefit
32 • Supplemental funding source
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 134
-------
1 • Consistency with plans and policies
2 • Waterfront revitalization etc.
3 Brownfield Project Evaluation Criteria:
4 • Significant physical features of property
5 • Financial aspects of property
6 • Impairment to be addressed by project
7 • Resource value of project
8 • Supplemental funding sources
9 • Current property ownership
10 • Environmental information pertaining to property
11 • Consistency with plans and policies
12 "Note: In the evaluation process, consideration will also be given to other factors, among which are:
13 geographic location, urgency, timing of property acquisition and timing of project implementation. A list
14 of properties/projects will be prepared for each program category after consideration of the evaluation
15 criteria described above, consistency with County policies and the requirements of the law which created
16 the Environmental Program, and assessment of what combination of projects best meets the goals of the
17 program."
18 (Source: Nassau County Environmental Bond Act Program)
19 Information and criteria are considered qualitatively. The criteria were originally intended to form the
20 basis of a quantitative scoring system (and had points assigned to them), but this approach was abandoned
21 when the Committee members began to evaluate projects and felt it was restrictive rather than helpful.
22 Members of the Committee have a lot of experience and local knowledge that they bring to the table, so
23 they do not feel the need for extensive data analysis.
24 Projects are considered much more favorably if they have secured an additional funding source (from a
25 municipality, a foundation, etc.) and if they have been well thought out. Other important criteria include
26 the ability of the project to get results quickly, the cost effectiveness of the project, and its general
27 feasibility. The County prefers to purchase development rights, which are worth about 90 percent of the
28 purchase price in Nassau County (as opposed to about 50 percent in other parts of the country). Owning
29 the property becomes a long-term burden on the County. If the County is planning to purchase the
30 property, it wants to know that there is a long-term maintenance plan in place.
31 The criteria help to assign projects to three groups: A (highly ranked); B (need more information); and C
32 (lower priority). The property owners of projects that fell into Groups A and B were contacted to see if
33 they were interested in selling the property or development rights. If the owners were not interested, the
34 projects were set aside.
35 (Source: Maher)
36 Decision-making process:
37 The Open Space Advisory Committee recommends a list of properties and/or projects for each program
38 category after reviewing all nominations and considering what projects and/or combinations of projects
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 135
-------
1 best meet the goals of the Nassau County Environmental Program. The Open Space Advisory Committee
2 was established by the County legislature and includes civic and environmental leaders, a representative
3 from the planning commission, a representative from the Open Space and Parks Advisory Committee, and
4 the minority and majority leaders from the County legislature (who dropped out early in the process out
5 of concern about being involved in controversial decisions down the line). The Open Space Advisory
6 Committee reaches decisions through consensus and has not yet had a problem with conflicting priorities.
7 The Open Space Advisory Committee applies the evaluation criteria listed herein and considers other
8 factors, such as geographic location, urgency, and technical and financial feasibility, when developing the
9 lists. The list of recommendations is a $50 million package that goes to the County Executive, who then
10 submits recommendations to the planning commission and the Open Space and Parks Advisory
11 Committee (a citizen committee with some overlapping members from the Open Space Advisory
12 Committee), who then provides recommendations to the County legislature (19 members). The $50
13 million package intentionally includes too many projects for the available funding, based on a hope that
14 costs will be shared and a concern that not all projects may be supported by the legislature.
15 Climate change has not been explicitly considered, but it is in the back of peoples' minds that land
16 protection is one part of a response to climate change.
17 (Source: Maher)
is Ultimate decision maker:
19 The 19-member County legislature makes the final decisions on what projects to fund.
20 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
21 Information is generally provided by the applicant. The County used Google Earth to identify large plots
22 of open space and the advisory committee visited all of the plots they recommended. The New York Open
23 Space plan was updated in the winter of 2004. The County mapped out open space projects with merit for
24 this update, and consulted that map when evaluating nominations. A great deal of local knowledge on the
25 part of the advisory committee members also went into the evaluation process. Additionally, County staff
26 met with nominators, provided their input, and developed cost estimates for many of the projects.
27 (Source: Maher)
28 Priority map:
29 The New York Open Space plan was updated in the winter of 2004. The County mapped out open space
30 projects with merit, and consulted that map when evaluating nominations.
31 Partnerships:
32 Funding partnerships are encouraged by the selection criteria. The County hopes to be able to leverage its
33 funds with funding from other municipalities, state funding, foundation money, and through deals with
34 landowners. The County will partner with landowners who are willing to set aside conservation
35 easements for some portion of their property. They have intentionally been very inclusive when mapping
36 out open space plots to ensure that landowners can get federal tax credits (which require properties
37 receiving the credit to be listed in an open space plan). The County also encourages local municipalities to
3 8 set up arrangements with developers to preserve half of a plot of land and confine development to the
39 remaining half of the plot. The County has worked with Westbury Gardens, The Nature Conservancy, and
40 other organizations in the past. (Source: Maher)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 136
-------
i Available and expended funding:
2 $50 million became available in 2004, of which $38 million was used to acquire property for protection of
3 open space. The County ran another bond referendum in 2006 for an additional $100 million, which was
4 overwhelmingly approved by voters. The bond money can only be spent on capital improvements or
5 purchase of land or development rights; it cannot be spent on long-term maintenance.
6 Acres protected:
7 No acres have been protected yet, since none of the funding decisions have been made.
s Sources:
9 Maher, Tom, Nassau County, Personal communication with Susan Asam, ICF Consulting, November 21,
10 2005.
11 Nassau County Environmental Bond Act Program, http://www.co.nassau.ny.us/EBA/index.htmL accessed
12 on September 7, 2005.
13 POINT OF CONTACT:
14 Tom Maher, Nassau County, Phone: (516) 571-1250. Email: tmaher(gjnassaucountyny.gov.
15
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 137
-------
i 2004NY-02 Orange County Open Space Program*
2
3 RESEARCH NOTES AND FINDINGS
4 Mission statement:
5 The Orange County Open Space Fund is available to help protect water resources, agriculture, recreation,
6 landforms and landmarks, and biological diversity.
7 All municipalities within Orange County may apply for matching funds from the Orange County Open
8 Space Program. Three municipalities have funding set aside for open space protection. (Source: Dobbins).
9 Program goals:
10 Program goals are laid out in detail in the Orange County Open Space Plan. Essentially, the goal is to
11 protect 5 major resource areas (listed in rank order of importance): (1) water resources (e.g., existing
12 reservoirs and watersheds, wellhead areas); (2) agriculture; (3) recreation (as it relates to water resources
13 or trails; not for general parks or ballfields); (4) significant land forms and landscapes; and (5)
14 biodiversity (important habitats). The goals were set at the outset of the program. (Source: Jones)
is Parcel selection process:
16 Complete applications will be submitted to the Orange County Planning Board and the Majority and
17 Minority Leaders of the County Legislature with a report recommending actions to be taken on the
18 Application.
19 The Orange County Open Space Fund will provide matching support for fee simple or development rights
20 purchase price, up to fifty percent (50%) of the total appraised value. Applicants may include
21 governmental entities, non-governmental organizations, or individual property owners. (Source: Orange
22 County Department of Planning)
23 "The County Planning Board with the Majority and Minority Leaders of the County Legislature will
24 review the applications and submit a report with funding recommendations for all eligible and complete
25 applications. This report will be submitted to the Commissioner of Planning for technical review."
26 "The County Executive will review applications that contain positive funding recommendations and will
27 submit a legislative request to approve funding for the recommended projects. All funding will require the
28 approval of the Orange County Executive and Legislature."
29 Applications were considered in two cycles each year (with spring and fall deadlines).
30 If appropriate, the Orange County Legislature will serve as Lead Agency under the New York State
31 Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
32 A stewardship/monitoring plan is required for consideration of a property. The County does not want to
33 own or manage a property directly but is required to have a real estate interest in each property due to the
34 nature of the funds, which were bonded, that are used. This has resulted in the County either coholding
35 conservation easements or having a third party right to enforce the easement. For fee simple transactions,
36 the County has placed a restrictive covenant on the property. (Source: Dobbins)
37 Applicants are required to include maps, but the County provides suggestions about where they could go
38 to get the appropriate maps (including the County in-house GIS staff).
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 138
-------
1 The County may solicit technical information after an application is submitted if there is a need for more
2 information. There has not been a need to do that yet. Municipalities have been doing a great job of
3 putting together their applications, perhaps due to their experience in preparing these types of applications
4 for state and federal funding.
5 The members of the Orange County Planning Board are appointed by the County Executive (who tries to
6 maintain a level of diversity on the Board). Currently, there is a former regional director of EPA, 2
7 lawyers, an environmental consultant, a representative from the business community, a contractor who
8 does restoration work, a member of the local agricultural preservation board, etc.
9 The voting body that makes decisions on applications includes: the 9 members of the appointed Board; 3
10 alternates who can sit in if a Board member is absent; the head of the Republicans in the County
11 legislature; and the head of the Democrats in the County legislature.
12 Board members and two County legislators review the applications separately and then discuss. Two to
13 three weeks before they meet, each member of the Board receives a full set of applications to review and
14 rank. They then discuss priorities at the meeting. The Department of Planning adds up the rankings and
15 gives Board members a tally sheet showing which projects were ranked highest most frequently, etc. The
16 scoring sheets based on the prioritization criteria listed below are used as a guide, but are not relied upon
17 heavily. A good majority typically agrees on clear winners (top 3) and then it breaks down from there as
18 to what people think are the highest priorities.
19 There is not a lot of additional analysis when funding is approved by the Orange County Executive and
20 Legislature. The Executive generally takes the recommendations of the Board. For example, in one
21 particular round the Board recommended 4 projects, which slightly exceeded the amount of available
22 funding. The County Executive decided to fully fund 3 of the programs and drop the 4th.
23 There are 2 application deadlines yearly (generally, spring and fall), and the review schedule is set around
24 these deadlines.
25 (Source: Jones, Dobbins)
26 Prioritization criteria:
27 "Applications for open space funding must fall within one or more of the five resource categories outlined
28 in the Orange County Open Space Plan and the goals of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan."
29 Water resources (25 points total); eligible areas to consider include:
30 • Water supply watershed properties
31 • Wellhead protection lands 5 00-15 00 ft radius
32 • New water supply properties
33 • Properties adjacent to DEC priority water body list
34 • Participates in water quality stewardship program (e.g. CREP, etc.)
35 Agriculture (25 points total); eligible areas to consider include:
36 • Prime agricultural soils
37 • Other agricultural soils
38 • Active agriculture
39 • We 11-maintained buildings and accessories
40 Recreation (20 points total); eligible areas to consider include:
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 139
-------
1 • Trail corridors and linkages
2 • Municipal parks
3 • Buffers to existing parks
4 • Nature Preserves
5 • Management includes public access
6 • Public access to stream/lake shoreline
7 Landforms and landmarks (20 points total); eligible areas to consider include:
8 • Scenic byway corridors
9 • Lands supporting National/State Historic sites or National/State Historic Districts
10 • Scenic area of County significance
11 • Other official historic or cultural recognition
12 Biological diversity (20 points); eligible areas to consider include:
13 • Presence of rare species
14 • Presence of valuable habitats
15 • Participates in forest management or biological stewardship program
16 • Bordering priority aquatic systems
17 Supplemental criteria; eligible areas to consider include:
18 • Includes municipal financial support (10 points)
19 • Property is adjacent to presently protected open space land (10 points)
20 • TDR banking in support of municipalities with TDR laws (10 points)
21 • High development potential or imminent land use conversion (20 points)
22 • Fund request is less than 50% by county (10 points)
23 • Economic value to community and region (10 points)
24 • Located in a Priority Growth Area (10 points)
25 Total Possible Points: 405
26 (Source: Attachment B: Orange County Open Space Plan: Project Evaluation Criteria, a non-binding aid
27 to assist applicants)
28 The Planning Board assigns the rankings for the projects (see above). The Department of Planning does
29 the initial check for completeness of applications. They can notify applicants if something is missing and
30 give them a week to complete their application. Three of the Department of Planning staff rank and
31 compare their rankings internally. They provide that information to the Planning Board. There is
32 sometimes consensus all around (staff and Board members) about the top projects, but not always.
33 Projects get scored over a range, but the sub-criteria are not clearly defined. Board members apply their
34 own scale as they think appropriate. The Department of Planning is working on making the rankings more
35 precise. The hope is that the evaluation process will rely more heavily on the rankings in the future, which
36 will make it easier for the Board to defend their decisions if questioned. The intent of the rankings was to
37 get applicants to think more globally when considering property protection (i.e., an agriculture set aside
38 might be good for water protection as well). Some applicants are more savvy then others about including
39 multiple resource benefits in their applications.
40 Climate change has not been a point of discussion.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 140
-------
1 The public was involved in the development of the open space plan and decisions about how funds were
2 to be raised (through selling bonds). Planning Board deliberations are closed to the public, but Board
3 members are appointed representatives of the public. The general public can participate in public hearings
4 that are held before a project is funded and can submit written comments.
5 (Source: Jones)
6 Decision-making process:
7 Applications are reviewed by the Orange County Department of Planning for eligibility, completeness,
8 and consistency with the Orange County Open Space Plan.
9 The County requires each non-municipality application to get resolution from the municipality to move
10 forward on a property acquisition to ensure that nothing else has been proposed for the parcel. The
11 County also checks to make sure that the application is compatible with both local (municipal) and
12 County comprehensive plans for open space protection and economic development plans. (Source: Jones)
is Ultimate decision maker:
14 The County Executive will review applications that contain positive funding recommendations and will
15 submit a legislative request to approve funding for the recommended projects. The Legislative has the
16 final say (through a vote) on whether to fund the projects, but their vote has always been unanimously in
17 favor. (Source: Dobbins)
is Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
19 Information is reported by the applicant.
20 Information sources include: (1) protected open space maps, including private open space, municipal
21 parks, water supply lands, county parkland, state lands, state-funded PDR farms, and Federally-owned
22 lands, including a category of temporary protection (West Point Military Academy, County-owned
23 Reservoir Lands, NYS DEC Term Easements 480[a]); and (2) existing land use maps, including public
24 watershed and wellhead protection areas, open space, agricultural lands, developed lands, and priority
25 growth areas.
26 Identifying priorities within the water resources area involved consulting existing data from the NY State
27 Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC), Orange County Water Authority, and local water
28 studies. Identifying particular goals within the last resource area involved the expertise of local scientists,
29 information from the NY DEC, and input from environmental and scientific groups such as the Wildlife
30 Conservation Group and Scenic Hudson. (Source: Jones)
31 Priority map:
32 Yes; Map 16: Open Space Resources indicates "Open Space Resource Value" (moderate, high, highest).
33 Partnerships:
34 The County will match open space investments "dollar-for-dollar" by municipalities. Partnerships are
35 worth extra points on the Attachment B worksheet.
36 The County is more focused on working to get municipalities to partner with each other than partnering
37 with other entities. If two municipalities work together, they can protect resources that go beyond political
38 boundaries. (Source: Jones)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 141
-------
i Available and expended funding:
2 $3.5 million was spent in the first year of the program. The County Executive has allocated $3.5 million
3 for next year. Funding was at one or two million for the next two rounds Fall 2007 was the last
4 competitive round. The program is currently on hold due to economic conditions, but funding is
5 anticipated to be spent again in the future.
6 There were no upper limits to funding in the first round of applications. An upper bound was discussed
7 initially, but no one wanted to jeopardize the sale of an important property. The County might limit how
8 much they are willing to spend on a project, but there is no set limit. There is an unwritten policy that the
9 County wants to award money to as many applicants as possible rather than funding one big project.
10 (Source: Jones, Dobbins)
11 Acres protected:
12 2,285 acres have been protected through the Orange County Open Space Program, which included several
13 large farms and some small parcels (e.g., well sites with only a few acres of land). An additional 710
14 acres will be protected once the real estate closings have occurred for those parcels. (Source: Dobbins)
15 There have not been any assessments of the public benefit associated with setting aside open space in
16 Orange County. Most of the applications coming in concern the protection of agricultural land, which
17 provides a benefit to the farm as well as open space benefits.
18 (Source: Jones)
19 Sources:
20 Dobbins, Kelly, Orange County Open Space Program, Personal Communication with Emily Rowan, ICF
21 Consulting, June 25th, 2009.
22 Jones, Rich, Orange County Open Space Program, Personal Communication with Susan Asam, ICF
23 Consulting, November 9, 2005.
24 Orange County Department of Planning, www.orangecountygov.com/planning. accessed July 2005.
25 POINT OF CONTACT:
26 Kelly Dobbins, Orange County Open Space Program, Phone: (845)-615-3847. Email:
27 KDobbins(g),co.orange.ny.us.
28
29
30
31
32
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 142
-------
i IX. Appendix C: Write-Ups of Tier 3 Programs
2 Background information on the 34 programs researched with published sources. Note that these case
3 studies follow an initial write-up format, which was changed after we began conducting telephone
4 interviews with program staff.
5 Table of Contents
6 1996CA-01 Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act 144
7 1996CA-02 Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree-Planting, Senior and Youth
8 Recreation, Beaches and Wildlife Protection 148
9 1996CA-03 Open Space, Recreational Playfields, and Creek Restoration Assessment District. 150
10 1996CT-02 Farmington Reservoir 152
11 1996FL-01 Safe Neighborhood Parks Act 154
12 1996MA-01-15 Cape Cod Open Space Land Acquisition Program 157
13 1996OH-01 Bath Nature Preserve Program 160
14 1999CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program 162
15 2000CA-01 Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water and Coastal Protection Act 165
16 2000CA-02 Safe Drinking Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Control Bond 167
17 2000FL-03 Blueprint 2000 & Beyond Program 169
18 2000FL-05 Seminole County Trails and Greenways 172
19 2000IL-01 Lake County Forest Preserve District 174
20 2000ME-01 Freeport Conservation Commission 176
21 2000NJ-01 Open Space Trust Fund 179
22 2000OH-01 Clean Ohio Green Space Conservation Program 182
23 2000RI-01 Open Space and Recreation and Clean Water Bonds 185
24 2004AZ-02 McMillan Mesa Open Space Land Acquisition 187
25 2004AZ-03 Regional Open Space - Observatory Mesa Land Acquisition 189
26 2004AZ-04 Neighborhood Open Space and Flagstaff Urban Trail System (PUTS) 191
27 2004CO-02 Tax for Open Space 193
28 2004CT-01 Purchase of the Southington Drive-In 195
29 2004 FL-02 Pasco County Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management Program 197
30 2004FL-03 Waterfront Access and Waterfront Preservation Bonds 200
31 2004MA-01 Program to Purchase Hillcrest Country Club 203
32 2004MI-03 Recreational Authority of Traverse City and Garfield Township 205
33 2004MO-01 Rolla, Missouri - Stormwater and Park Land Program 208
34 2004NJ-02 Open Space Trust Fund 210
35 2004NY-03 Webster Open Space 212
36 2004PA-01 Nockamixon Township Open Space Program 215
37 2004RI-01 Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection Bond 217
38 2004UT-01 Corner Canyon Program 219
39 2004WA-01 Parks and Recreational Sidewalks Utility Tax Fund 221
40 2004WA-02 Acquisition of Gig Harbor Waterfront Open Space and Land to Restore Eddon
41 Boatyard 223
42
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 143
-------
i 1996CA-01 Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: California
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 63%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: Proposition 204 authorizes the state to sell $995 million of general
8 obligation bonds for the purposes of restoration and improvement to the
9 San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (hereafter,
10 referred to as "the Bay-Delta"), wastewater treatment and water supply
11 and conservation, and local flood control and prevention. (Source:
12 California Secretary of State)
13 Prioritization Type: Top-down; the California Department of Water Resources and the State
14 Water Resources Control Board set priorities.
15 Mission statement:
16 "In enacting this measure, the people of California declare all of the following to be the objectives of this
17 act:
18 (a) To provide a safe, clean, affordable, and sufficient water supply to meet the needs of California
19 residents, farms, and businesses.
20 (b) To develop lasting water solutions that balance the needs of the state's economy and its environment.
21 (c) To restore ecological health for native fish and wildlife, and their natural habitats, including wetlands.
22 (d) To protect the integrity of the state's water supply system from catastrophic failure due to earthquakes
23 and flooding.
24 (e) To protect drinking water quality.
25 (f) To protect the quality of life in our communities by ensuring recreational opportunities and
26 maintaining parks, trees, and plants."
27 (Source: Proposition 204 text)
28 Program goals:
29 "This act provides for a bond issue of $995,000,000 to provide funds to ensure safe drinking water,
30 increase water supplies, clean up pollution in rivers, streams, lakes, bays, and coastal areas, protect life
31 and property from flooding, and protect fish and wildlife and makes changes in the Water Conservation
32 and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986 and the Clean Water and Water Reclamation Bond Law of 1988 to
33 further these goals." (Source: California Secretary of State)
34
35 Parcel selection process:
36 The California Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board (hereafter,
37 referred to as "the Board") will have the job of setting priorities on many of the projects. Some of the
38 funds have specific destinations; the rest will come in the form of grants, many to local water suppliers.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 144
-------
1 Funding was divided as follows at the outset:
2 $390 million for the Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program as defined by CALFED, the joint state
3 and federal coalition that is carrying out the historic 1994 Accord to "fix" the Bay-Delta,
4 $193 million for the Delta Improvement Program in the Bay-Delta watershed,
5 $235 million for the Clean Water and Recycling Program to improve water quality and promote water
6 recycling and reuse,
7 $117 million for projects statewide that enhance water supplies and improve water management and
8 demand management, including $10 million for Lake Tahoe, and
9 $60 million for flood control and prevention.
10 (Sources: California Biodiversity News, Graebner)
11 Prioritization criteria:
12 The measure does not outline prioritization criteria for most of the programs, but does specify what
13 programs the State can fund with this money and some program-specific details such as what percentage
14 can be spent on program administration. In some instances, expenditure of bond funds is contingent on
15 actions by the state or federal government (e.g., completion of environmental review of projects, entry
16 into a cost-sharing agreement for funding projects, etc.).
17 The measure does identify prioritization criteria for some of the sub-programs falling under the larger
18 Clean Water and Water Recycling Program.
19 For example, the measure identifies the following four eligibility criteria for Clean Water Loans and
20 Grants:
21 (1) Necessary to prevent water pollution or to reclaim water.
22 (2) Eligible for funds from the State Revolving Fund Loan Account or federal assistance.
23 (3) Certified by the board as entitled to priority over other eligible projects.
24 (4) Complies with applicable water quality standards, policies, and plans.
25 (Source: Proposition 204 text: Chapter 5, Article 2, §78610)
26 The measure identifies similar eligibility criteria for the Water Recycling Program. Projects in this
27 program must meet "applicable reclamation criteria and water reclamation requirements" and comply
28 "with applicable water quality standards, policies, and plans." In making loans available to public
29 agencies, the Board should consider "whether the project is cost-effective or necessary to protect water
30 quality." (Source: Proposition 204 text: Chapter 5, Article 3, §78620 and §78622)
31 Under the Drainage Management program, the measure states that, "Priority shall be given to funding
32 source reduction projects and programs." (Source: Proposition 204 text: Chapter 5, Article 4, §78644)
33 The Seawater Intrusion Control program outlines the following criteria for funding:
34 (A) Necessary to protect groundwater that is (i) within a basin that is subject to a local groundwater
35 management plan for which a review is completed pursuant to the California Environmental
36 Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 145
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
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)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 146
-------
i Sources:
2 California Biodiversity News, Prop. 204: Water Bond Will Improve Biodiversity,
3 http://ceres.ca.gov/biodiv/newsletter/v4n2/prop204.html. accessed on June 28. 2005.
4 California Secretary of State, Vote 96, Proposition 204, http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/204.htm.
5 accessed on June 28, 2005.
6 Graebner, Lynn. "A cure for the Delta blues?" Business Journal-Sacramento, Sacramento, CA. December
7 12, 1996.
8 Legislative Analyst's Office, http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis 2000/resources/res 2 cc anlOO.htm.
9 accessed on June 28, 2005.
10 Proposition 204 text, http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/204text.htm. accessed on June 28, 2005.
11
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 147
-------
i 1996CA-02 Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention,
2 Tree-Planting, Senior and Youth Recreation,
3 Beaches and Wildlife Protection
4
5 Jurisdiction Name, State: Los Angeles County, California
6 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
7 Percent of Vote Obtained: 65%
8 Funding Mechanism: Other - Benefit Assessment
9 Ballot Measure Description: Proposition A, Safe Neighborhood Parks Act, 20-year assessment for
10 parks, beaches, water quality, open space, and recreation
11 Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the measure set aside funds for specific uses, but also included a
12 provision allowing cities in Los Angeles County and community-based
13 organizations to apply for grant money.
14 Mission statement:
15 Proposition A was passed to provide funding for neighborhood parks, gang prevention, tree planting,
16 recreation, beaches and wildlife protection. (Source: Jimenez and Aidem)
17 Program goals:
18 The program seeks to provide funding to support parks, beaches, water quality, open space, at risk youth
19 centers, and recreation.
20 Parcel selection process:
21 "At the county level, 80 percent of the money received each year goes to specified projects (those projects
22 that had been hammered out during the process of negotiation over the ballot initiative language); the rest
23 is split between administration for the district and a per parcel allocation to cities to fund maintenance of
24 projects, and a small pot for a competitive grants program." (Source: Pincetl)
25 Of the money set aside for parkland acquisitions, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a State
26 agency, is responsible for selecting specific parcels for protection. (Source: Noxon)
27 Prioritization criteria:
28 Not available.
29 Decision-making process:
30 About 80 percent of the funding was allocated to specific projects during negotiations over the ballot
31 initiative language. The remaining 20 percent of funds was dedicated to administration costs, allocated to
32 cities for maintenance, and set aside for a small competitive grants program. Community-based
33 organizations can submit grant applications for the competitive grants program. Decisions appear to be
34 made at the county level.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 148
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
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
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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. "Nonprofits and park provision in Los Angeles: An exploration of the rise of
governance approaches to the provision of local services," Social Science Quarterly, December 2003, vol.
84 no. 4.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 149
-------
i 1996CA-03 Open Space, Recreational Playfields, and Creek
2 Restoration Assessment District
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Albany, California
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 64%
7 Funding Mechanism: Other - Benefit Assessment
8 Ballot Measure Description: Measure R, establishment of an assessment district for open space
9 Prioritization Type: Top-down; parcel selection decisions are made by the City of Albany.
10 Mission statement:
11 The measure taxes property owners to raise funds for building ball fields, restoring creeks, and purchasing
12 and maintaining undeveloped land on Albany Hill as open space. (Source: Lochner)
is Program goals:
14 The program aims to provide funding for open space, playfields, and creek restoration.
is Parcel selection process:
16 The parcels of open space targeted at the passing of the measure included: "11 acres on the southwest
17 slope owned by Golden Gate Development Co., four acres between Taft and Jackson streets owned by
18 Landvest Co., about two acres at the end of Madison Street owned by Ralph Willis, and several smaller
19 lots." (Source: Lochner (b))
20 Prioritization criteria:
21 The use of these funds is restricted to the original allocation: 50 percent for open space on Albany Hill, 25
22 percent for the acquisition, development and maintenance of playfields and 25 percent for creek
23 restoration. (Source: City of Albany)
24 Decision-making process:
25 Not available.
26 Ultimate decision maker:
27 City of Albany.
28 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
29 Not available.
30 Data Sources:
31 "X" if used:
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 150
-------
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 151
-------
i 1996CT-02 Farmington Reservoir
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Farmington, Connecticut
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 71%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond to protect land for hiking and passive recreation
8 Prioritization Type: Top-down; the town voted for the purchase of the Farmington Reservoir
9 property.
10 Mission statement:
11 Not available.
12 Program goals:
13 "To purchase 52 acres of open space, including the former Farmington Reservoir and surrounding land.
14 The parcel has been set aside for passive recreation such as walking and bird watching." (Source:
15 Greenwood)
16 Parcel selection process:
17 Not available.
18 Prioritization criteria:
19 Not available.
20 Decision-making process:
21 Referendum.
22 Ultimate decision maker:
23 Voters in Farmington, Connecticut.
24 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
25 Not available.
26 Data Sources:
27 "X" if used:
28
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 152
-------
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
2 Priority map:
3 No.
4 Partnerships:
5 "In partnership with the Farmington Land Trust, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) helped the town of
6 Farmington acquire 53 wooded acres, including a 15-acre spring-fed reservoir that had once supplied
7 drinking water to town residents. This project is part of TPL's Connecticut Watershed Initiative, a
8 statewide effort to protect land surrounding active drinking water supplies as well as former and potential
9 sources of clean drinking water." (Source: TPL Web site)
10 Available and expended funding:
11 $875,000
12 Acres protected:
13 52 acres
14 Sources:
15 Greenwood, Michael. "Town Council Boosts Land Budget Proposal," The Hartford Courant, February
16 12, 1998.
17 Trust for Public Land, http://www.tpl.org/tier3 cd.cfm?content item id=1144&folderid=261. accessed
18 on August 5, 2005
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 153
-------
i 1996FL-01 Safe Neighborhood Parks Act
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Miami-Bade County, Florida
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 67%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond to improve neighborhood and regional parks and acquire
8 recreational areas, beaches and natural lands
9 Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the ordinance includes a list of projects to be completed with the
10 funds, but a smaller portion of funds is allocated on the basis of
11 competitive grants.
12 Mission statement:
13 "OSNP [Office of Safe Neighborhood Parks] is a department of Miami-Bade County created to serve as
14 staff support to the Safe Neighborhood Parks Citizens' Oversight Committee and administer the bond
15 program consistent with the Ordinance and the Administrative Rules." (Source: Office of Safe
16 Neighborhood Parks)
17 Program goals:
18 "The purpose of the SNP Bond Program is to:
19 • Restore and improve neighborhood and regional parks throughout the County, thus improving the
20 overall quality of life for its citizenry
21 • Provide safe places for children to play and alternatives to gangs and gang activities
22 • Increase recreational opportunities for senior citizens
23 • Provide pleasant places for all residents to enjoy relief from congestion and urban stress
24 • Improve, restore, expand and enhance safety of parks, open spaces and recreation lands and facilities,
25 therefore reducing crime and increasing the attractiveness of the County as a place to live and locate
26 businesses
27 • Maintain sound economic conditions and a high standard of livability in the County by increasing
28 property values, economic activity, employment opportunities and tourism throughout the County
29 • Ensure the protection of beach, park, recreation and natural areas vital to the quality of life in the
30 County"
31 (Source: Office of Safe Neighborhood Parks)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 154
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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) #A
list of the 136 projects was not available in the bond ordinance text.#
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 (13) 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)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
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)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 155
-------
i Available and expended funding:
2 $200 million general obligation bond. During the first five years of the program, $21.6 million was spent
3 on park land acquisition. (Source: Florida's County Land Preservation Programs)
4 Acres protected:
5 Not available.
6 Sources:
7 Trust for Public Land, Conservation Finance Case Studies,
8 http://www.tpl.org/tier3 cdl.cfm?content item id=943&folderid=707. accessed on July 21, 2005.
9 Miami-Bade County, Department of Environmental Resources Management,
10 http://www.miamidade.gov/derm/land/eel_program.asp. accessed on July 26. 2005.
11 Miami-Bade County Office of Safe Neighborhood Parks,
12 http://www.miamidade.gov/SNPTrust/about us.asp, accessed on July 28. 2005.
13 Miami-Bade County, Parks and Recreation Bepartment, http://www.miamidade.gov/parks/Safel996.asp.
14 accessed on July 21, 2005.
15 Florida's County Land Preservation Programs,
16 http://www.tpl.org/content documents/fl county survey report.pdf. accessed on July 21. 2005.
17
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 156
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1996MA-01-15
Jurisdiction Name, State:
7 Year Ballot Measure Passed:
10
11
12
13
Percent of Vote Obtained:
Funding Mechanism:
Ballot Measure Description:
Cape Cod Open Space Land Acquisition
Program
Barnstable, Bourne, Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Eastham, Falmouth,
Harwich, Mashpee, Orleans, Provincetown, Sandwich, Truro, Wellfleet,
Yarmouth (Barnstable County, Cape Cod, Massachusetts)
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
varied by jurisdiction
3% surcharge on real estate property tax bills, per 1998 referendum
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
Bottom-up; the town's open space committee makes recommendations to
the town council.
Prioritization Type:
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.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 157
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
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
• 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.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 158
-------
i Acres protected:
2 These Land Bank purchases have resulted in 3,273 acres protected.
3 Sources:
4 Cape Cod Land Bank, http://www.capecodcommission.org/landbank/home.htm. accessed on August 2,
5 2005
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 159
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1996OH-01
Bath Nature Preserve Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Bath Township, Ohio
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1996
Percent of Vote Obtained: 75%
Funding Mechanism: Bond
Ballot Measure Description: Bond to purchase land for open space and watershed protection
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).
Prioritization Type:
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
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
26
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 160
-------
i Priority map:
2 No.
3 Partnerships:
4 Not available.
5 Available and expended funding:
6 The 404 acres for the Nature Preserve were purchased in October 1997 for $2,894,958 at four percent
7 interest. The Township expects to finish payment in 2017. No funding for purchasing additional lands
8 remains. (Source: Bath Township, Summit County, Single Audit; Bath Parks)
9 An earlier newspaper article noted an agreement between Bath Trustees and John Chlebina, who
10 purchased the entire Firestone Estate, for Bath to purchase 370 acres of the estate for $3.3 million.
11 (Source: Beacon Journal)
12 Acres protected:
13 Approximately 400 acres for the Bath Nature Preserve. (Source: City History of Bath)
14 Sources:
15 City History of Bath, http://www.drelocation.com/ohio/summitco/bath.htm, accessed online July 19,
16 2005.
17 Bath Parks, Bath Nature Preserve and Trailhead,
18 http://www.bathtownship.org/parks/BNP%20map/bnplit.pdf. accessed online July 19, 2005.
19 Bath Township, Summit County. Single Audit.
20 http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/Reports/2004/Bath Township 03-Summit.pdf. accessed
21 online July 19, 2005.
22 "Parcels for Parks." Beacon Journal, September 17, 1997.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 161
-------
i 1999CO-01 Open Space Sales Tax Program
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Adams County, Colorado
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 1999
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 62%
6 Funding Mechanism: Sales tax
7 Ballot Measure Description: 7-year, .20% countywide sales tax to preserve open space
8 Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; advisory committee makes recommendations on grant
9 applications submitted for consideration.
10 Mission statement:
11 No formal mission statement.
12 Program goals:
13 "To preserve open space in order to limit sprawl, to preserve farmland, to protect wildlife areas, wetlands,
14 rivers, and streams, and for creating, improving and maintaining parks and recreation facilities." (Source:
15 Resolution 99-1)
16 Parcel selection process:
17 The Open Space Advisory Board (OSAB) consist of seven members, four of whom are residents of
18 unincorporated Adams County and three of whom are residents of cities or towns located in Adams
19 County.
20 The OSAB meets quarterly to review grant applications and recommend projects for funding to the Board
21 of County Commissioners (BOCC). (Source: Resolution 99-1)
22 Prioritization criteria:
23 The OSAB makes funding recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners based on a set of
24 criteria. The criteria are:
25 Project funding and quality of leverage summary,
26 Partnerships,
27 Community support information,
28 Project budget
29 Estimated project time line
30 Proposed grant fund use(s)
31 Long-term maintenance,
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 162
-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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).
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)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 163
-------
i Available and expended funding:
2 $38.5 million is expected over the seven-year program, assuming $5.5 million per year. 68 percent of
3 revenues are earmarked for Open Space grants. 30 percent is returned to the local jurisdiction in which it
4 was collected. Two percent is for administrative costs. (Source: Resolution 99-1)
5 Approximately $17.9 million has been spent over four years. (Source: Open Space Report)
6 #Although this program was not subject to a vote in one of the three years selected to focus on for this
7 portion of the research, it is included because it is the predecessor to CO2004-01.#
8 Acres protected:
9 2,983 acres protected since 2000.
10 Sources:
11 Open Space Sales Tax Program, http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/index.htmL
12 accessed on June 28, 2005.
13 Resolution 99-1, http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/resolution.html. accessed
14 on June 28, 2005.
15 Open Space Grant Guidelines,
16 http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/grant info.html. accessed on June 28. 2005.
17 Funded Open Space Projects,
18 http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/funded_projects.html. accessed on June 28.
19 2005.
20 Open Space Report,
21 http://www.co.adams.co.us/services/department/open space/2004 Open Space Report.pdf. accessed on
22 June 28, 2005.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 164
-------
i 2000CA-01 Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water and Coastal
2 Protection Act
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: California
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 63%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Proposition 12, Safe Neighborhoods, Clean Water and Coastal Protection
9 Act
10 Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the State determines what projects will be funded in most cases
11 and how much grant money will be given to local governments. Local
12 governments can decide which projects to fund with available grant
13 money.
14 Mission statement:
15 Proposition 12 "provides for a bond issue of two billion one hundred million dollars ($2,100,000,000) to
16 provide funds to protect land around lakes, rivers, and streams and the coast to improve water quality and
17 ensure clean drinking water; to protect forests and plant trees to improve air quality; to preserve open
18 space and farmland threatened by unplanned development; to protect wildlife habitats; and to repair and
19 improve the safety of state and neighborhood parks." (Source: Voter Guide)
20 Program goals:
21 Program goals include protection of land around lakes, rivers, and streams and the coast to improve water
22 quality and ensure clean drinking water; protection of forests and plant trees to improve air quality;
23 preservation of open space and farmland threatened by unplanned development; protection of wildlife
24 habitats; and repair and improved safety of state and neighborhood parks. (Source: Voter Guide)
25 Parcel selection process:
26 Not available.
27 Prioritization criteria:
28 At the time of its passing, the state planned to spend about $940 million of the bond money on grants to
29 local agencies for local recreational, cultural, and natural areas. The state would then use the remaining
30 $1.16 billion for recreational, cultural, and natural areas of statewide significance. (Source: League of
31 Women Voters)
32 Decision-making process:
33 All funds must be appropriated by the legislature through the budget process. (Source: Trust for Public
34 Land)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 165
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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&folderid=1365.
accessed on August 5, 2005.
Voter Guide, http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/VoterGuide/pdf/12.pdf. accessed on August 5, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 166
-------
i 2000CA-02 Safe Drinking Water, Watershed Protection, and
2 Flood Control Bond
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: California
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 65%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Proposition 13, Safe Drinking Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood
9 Control Bond
10 Prioritization Type: Hybrid; the State determined from the outset how most of the bond
11 money would be allocated, but there is also a grant component to the
12 measure.
13 Mission statement:
14 "This act provides... funds for a safe drinking water, water quality, flood protection, and water reliability
15 program." (Source: Voter Guide)
16 Program goals:
17 The program aims to improve the safety, quality, and reliability of water supplies, as well as to improve
18 flood protection. (Source: Voter Guide)
19 Parcel selection process:
20 The funding was split out as follows from the outset:
21 • $292 million for flood protection;
22 • $70 million for safe drinking water facilities;
23 • $468 million for watershed protection;
24 • $355 million for clean water and water recycling;
25 • $155 million for water conservation; and
26 • $630 million for water supply reliability.
27 The bond measure further identifies specific parcels of land and habitat to be protected within
28 these broad funding categories. (Source: Voter Guide)
29 Prioritization criteria:
30 Not available.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 167
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
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
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 168
-------
i 2000FL-03 Blueprint 2000 & Beyond Program
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Leon County, Florida
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 60%
6 Funding Mechanism: One cent sales tax
7 Ballot Measure Description: 20-year, one-cent, sales tax renewal for traffic relief, clean lakes, and to
8 protect and expand parks.
9 Prioritization Type: Unknown, but believed to be Top-Down
10 Mission statement (Note if verbatim):
11 "To implement the Blueprint 2000 program in a timely and cost effective manner, utilizing sound but
12 innovative business practices, while keeping the citizenry informed and involved." (Source: Blueprint
13 2000 Website)
14 Program goals (Note if verbatim):
15 "Preserve, protect, and enhance the community's quality of life through the implementation of holistic and
16 coordinated planning, transportation, water quality, environmental and green space projects consistent
17 with the Blueprint 2000 philosophy." (Source: Blueprint 2000 Website)
18 Parcel selection process:
19 Details on the selection process are not available; however, below is a description of the organizations
20 that are potentially involved:
21 The Intergovernmental Agency (IA) is a separate governing body, comprised of the combined City and
22 County Commissioners. The City and County created the IA to govern the project management structure
23 for the project planning and construction of the Blueprint projects. The IA is to convene every other
24 month to consider major program changes, contracts, and change orders that exceed the authority of the
25 Intergovernmental Management Committee (IMC).
26 Reporting to the IA is the IMC, composed of the City Manager and County Administrator. The IMC is
27 charged with monitoring the operations of the Blueprint program; implementing the annual financial and
28 performance audit; recommending an annual operating budget; recommending approval of long-term and
29 short-term work plans; recommending the issuance of requests for proposals; and considering for
30 approval all purchasing, contracts, and change orders up to 20 percent of project costs.
31 The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was established to serve in an advisory capacity to the Blueprint
32 2000 Intergovernmental Agency and ensure that the original vision presented to the voters and described
33 in the Interlocal Agreement would be implemented. The CAC convened in November 2001;
34 representatives consist of:
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 169
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
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
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 170
-------
1 resource management is the basis of the proposed sales tax extension with 80 percent of future sales tax
2 proceeds being committed to Blueprint 2000 projects View a list of all projects. The remaining 20 percent
3 would be split 10 percent each to the County and the City for other high priority sales tax eligible
4 projects.
5 Available and expended funding:
6 Blueprint 2000 will receive approximately $600 million dollars over the 15-year period, which is about 80
7 percent of every dollar collected by the additional one-cent sales tax at a projected 4.5 percent growth
8 rate.
9 Acres protected:
10 Not available.
11 Sources:
12 Blueprint 2000, http://www.blueprint2000.org/. accessed July 26, 2005.
13
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 171
-------
i 2000FL-05 Seminole County Trails and Greenways
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Seminole County, Florida
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 58%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue to acquire and improve natural/environmental lands, trails,
8 greenways and blueways.
9 Prioritization Type: Top-down; lands are chosen to fit the requirements of specific trail
10 projects.
11 Mission statement:
12 The bond is intended to fund the development of a network of urban and wilderness trails throughout the
13 County and provide additional funds for the acquisition of Natural Lands.
14 Program goals:
15 Create an interconnected system of urban trails that will be over 50 miles long as well as connections to
16 schools, parks, shopping and neighborhoods.
17 Parcel selection process:
18 Lands are chosen based on the following projects:
19 Advance the construction of the Cross Seminole Trail, a 14-mile urban trail, and complete the four-mile
20 connection from this trail to the Seminole Wekiva Trail, another 14-mile urban trail located west of 1-4.
21 The goal of the program is to create a 20-mile network of wilderness trails, including a section of the
22 Florida National Scenic Trail, a 1,300-mile wilderness path, which runs from the panhandle to the
23 Everglades.
24 Prioritization criteria:
25 Not available.
26 Decision-making process:
27 Not available.
28 Ultimate decision maker:
29 County Staff/Board of County Commissioners
30 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
31 Not available.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 172
-------
i Data Sources:
2 "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
4 Priority map:
5 Not available.
6 Partnerships:
7 None mentioned.
s Available and expended funding:
9 $25 million.
10 Acres protected:
11 Not available.
12 Sources:
13 Seminole County Public Works, Trails and Greenways Program website,
14 http://www.visitseminole.com/pw/trails/referendum.asp. accessed August 2005.
15 1000 Friends of Florida Organization, article on Florida Land Acquisition covering many counties,
16 http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/Natural Resources/Land Acquisition.asp, accessed August 2005.
17
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 173
-------
i 2000IL-01 Lake County Forest Preserve District
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Lake County Forest Preserve District, Illinois (component of Lake
4 County)
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 67%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue for land acquisition, habitat restoration, trail improvement
9 Prioritization Type: Unknown; insufficient published information available to make
10 determination.
11 Mission statement:
12 Forest Preserve District mission statement: "To preserve a dynamic and unique system of diverse natural
13 and cultural resources, and to develop innovative education, recreation and cultural opportunities of
14 regional value, while exercising environmental and fiscal responsibility." (Source: Lake County Forest
15 Preserve District)
16 Program goals:
17 "... requirements include protecting natural areas for wildlife habitat, preserving wetlands, prairies and
18 forests, providing trails, greenways, river and lake access, protecting against flooding, expanding existing
19 Preserves and creating new sites." (Source: Lake County Forest Preserve District)
20 Parcel selection process:
21 Not available.
22 Prioritization criteria:
23 Not available.
24 Decision-making process:
25 Not available.
26 Ultimate decision maker:
27 Not available.
28 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
29 Not available.
30 Data Sources:
31 "X" if used:
Local biological surveys Any EPA water quality information
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 174
-------
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
i Priority map:
2 Unknown.
3 Partnerships:
4 The District has worked with CorLands, a nonprofit organization affiliated with the Openlands Project, to
5 purchase land. (Source: Corlands)
6 Available and expended funding:
7 The bond measure passed in 2000 is for $85 million. Fund balance in Land Acquisition Fund was $15.7
8 million on June 30, 2004, after spending $20.7 million in the preceding year on land acquisition. The
9 District took in approximately $48 million in property taxes; however, it was not clear what portion of
10 this funded land acquisition as opposed to other District activities. (Source: Annual Report, FY 2003-04)
11 For the FY 2005-06 budget, land acquisition is budgeted at $5.4 million. One article reported that the
12 balance remaining for land acquisition was $9.1 million in February 2005. (Source: Zawislak) In an
13 interview in April 2005, Executive Director Tom Hahn said that most of the proceeds from the 2000 bond
14 measure have been spent. (Source: Lissau)
15 Acres protected:
16 In 2001, at least two major parcels were acquired, for a total of 858 acres. (Source: Chicago Wilderness
17 Magazine) In FY 2003-04, 583 acres were protected, which included both a new preserved and additional
18 parcels in existing reserves. (Source: Annual Report, FY 2003-04) The District controls a total of
19 approximately 25,000 acres.
20 Sources:
21 "Lake County Acquires Two New Forest Preserves." Chicago Wilderness Magazine, Summer 2001.
22 http://chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/summer2001/news/lakecountv.html. accessed on July 20. 2005.
23 Lake County Forest Preserve District, http://www.lcfpd.org. accessed on July 20, 2005.
24 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, FY 2003-04.
25 Annual Budget, Executive Summary, FY 2005-06.
26 CorLands, http://www.corlands.org/index.html. accessed July 20, 2005.
27 Lissau, Russell. "Forest preserve to lower expenses." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL), April 26,
28 2005.
29 Zawislak, Mick. "Forest preserve district assessing future land needs." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights,
30 IL), February 12, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 175
-------
i 2000ME-01 Free port Conservation Commission
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Freeport, Maine
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 63%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue to fund town land bank for acquisition of open space, wildlife
8 habitat, and farmland preservation
9 Prioritization Type: Top-down. The process is not clear but potential land to be purchased
10 appears to be identified by the Commission/Town Council.
11 Mission statement:
12 Not available.
13 Program goals:
14 Not available.
is Parcel selection process:
16 Not available.
17 Prioritization criteria:
18 Land to be acquired must be within the municipality, and may be any of the following types of land:
19 ocean, harbor, river, stream, lake or pond frontage and adjoining backlands; fresh or saltwater marshes,
20 estuaries, flood plains and adjoining uplands; islands; land for future active or passive public outdoor
21 recreational use, including hiking trails, bicycle paths, green belts and high elevations with a view;
22 aquifers, aquifer recharge areas and other ecologically fragile or significant property; properties with
23 unique historical or geological characteristics or otherwise important to the community's cultural welfare;
24 woods or forestland suitable for a town forest or usable by deer as a wintering yard; farmland or wildlife
25 habitat; open spaces which help to shape the settlement pattern of the community by promoting the
26 village concept and discouraging sprawl; or vacant parcels of land, vacant buildings and properties or
27 buildings and properties in significant disrepair which may be reclaimed for the purpose of establishing
28 natural areas for open space or park land. (Source: Town of Freeport) #Unable to confirm from source
29 whether this language was developed specifically for this bond measured
30 Decision-making process:
31 All expenditures authorized by the Commission must be approved by the Town Council through the
32 budgetary process. (Source: Town of Freeport)
33 Ultimate decision maker:
34 Town Council.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 176
-------
i Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
2 Not available.
3 Data Sources:
4 "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
6 Priority map:
7 No.
8 Partnerships:
9 Acquisition of two adjacent properties (99 acres), including the former Florida Lake Campground, was
10 funded through a State Land for Maine's Future grant, a Casco Bay Important Habitats grant, and through
11 the expenditure of funds from the Freeport Open Space Bond. (Source: Florida Lake Management Plan)
12 Freeport's Conservation Commission partnered with Hedgehog Mountain Fund, L.L. Bean, Inc., and the
13 Davis Conservation Foundation to acquire the 96 acres surrounding Hedgehog Mountain. (Source:
14 Hedgehog Mountain Management Plan)
15 Available and expended funding:
16 One source suggests that approximately $220,000 was spent to purchase the 96 acres near Hedgehog
17 Mountain. Money for this acquisition was also provided by the Hedgehog Mountain Fund, L.L. Bean,
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 177
-------
1 Inc., and the Davis Conservation Foundation. Not sure of the exact amount spent by the Freeport
2 Conservation Commission Open Space Bond. (Source: Bell; Hedgehog Mountain Management Plan)
3 Acres protected:
4 195 total acres. This bond measure helped protect 99 acres surrounding Florida Lake. Additional property
5 in this area was protected through land donations and the use of other funds. (Source: Florida Lake
6 Management Plan) 96 acres were purchased to protect a large forested tract of land near Hedgehog
7 Mountain, between the recycling center and 42 acres of land designated for athletic fields. (Source: Bell)
s Sources:
9 Town of Freeport. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 35: Conservation Commission,
10 http://www.freeportmaine.com/codes/allordinances.html. accessed on July 19, 2005. #No date available
11 to confirm this was developed in response to the bond measure passed in 2000. #
12 Town of Freeport Conservation Commission. 2004. Florida Lake Management Plan,
13 www.freeportmaine.com/boardcommittee.docs/Florida%20Lake%20Management%20Plan.doc. accessed
14 on July 19, 2005.
15 Town of Freeport Conservation Commission. 2004. Hedgehog Mountain Management Plan.
16 http://www.freeportmaine.com/boardcommittee.docs/boardcommitteedocsindex.html. accessed on July
17 19, and August 24, 2005.
18 Bell, Tom. "Land Deal Would Expand Freeport Park: On Tuesday, the Town Council Will Discuss a
19 Proposal to Buy 92-acre Lot." Portland Press Herald, November 11, 2000.
20
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 178
-------
i 2000NJ-01 Open Space Trust Fund
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Brick Township, New Jersey
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 76%
6 Funding Mechanism: Property tax
7 Ballot Measure Description: Property tax increase to create a dedicated fund to purchase property and
8 easements for recreation and water quality protection
9 Prioritization Type: Unknown; insufficient published information available to make
10 determination.
11 Mission statement:
12 None identified.
is Program goals:
14 Although not directly tied to this program, the township noted the following regarding open space
15 preservation in general:
16 "By purchasing open space the Township has prevented the construction of over eight hundred (800)
17 housing units, including approximately six hundred (600) single family homes. Based on the national
18 average of 2.1 children per household, we estimate that over one thousand two hundred (1,200) children
19 will not be attending Brick Township's schools as a result of our Open Space Preservation Program.
20 Those additional thousand students would have increased enrollment, increased class size, and most
21 important to the taxpayers of Brick, increased the school tax by approximately $6.43 million dollars
22 annually, or 14.38 cents a year on the school's tax rate each year, every year, forever." (Source: Brick
23 Township)
24 In an interview before the vote took place, the mayor was quoted as saying:
25 "By placing this issue on the ballot, we are asking Brick Township's taxpayers whether they think it's in
26 their best interest to continue to fund open space preservation to slow down development and avoid the
27 inevitable larger tax increases that come with the building of new residential developments, due to
28 additional children in our schools and additional municipal services being needed." (Source: Natoli)
29 Parcel selection process:
30 Not available.
31 Prioritization criteria:
32 Not available.
33 Decision-making process:
34 Not available.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 179
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
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 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 NJ 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.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 180
-------
1 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Open Space Database,
2 http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/openspace.htm. accessed July 15, 2005.
3 Rizzo, Nina. "Brick moves to preserve more land." Asbury Park Press, May 10, 2001
4
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 181
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
2000OH-01
Clean Ohio Green Space Conservation Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Ohio
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
Percent of Vote Obtained:
Funding Mechanism:
Ballot Measure Description:
Prioritization Type:
57%
Bond
$400 million, constitutional amendment to authorize the State to issue
bonds for environmental conservation including land acquisition
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 at
http://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.)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 182
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
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 Natural Heritage, etc.
None mentioned
None used
20
21
22
23
24
25
Priority map:
No.
Partnerships:
Specific information not available but partnerships are encouraged. (Source: Green Space Conservation
Program)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 183
-------
i Available and expended funding:
2 Annual funds available for the Clean Ohio Conservation Program are $37.5 million. The funding must be
3 approved each year by the Ohio legislature. Over 300 projects have been approved, although funding has
4 not been disbursed or completely disbursed for all projects. (Source: Green Space Conservation Program)
5 Acres protected:
6 Not available.
7 Sources:
8 Clean Ohio, http://clean.ohio.gov/. accessed on July 19, 2005.
9 Ohio General Assembly. House Bill 385. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=124 HB 385.
10 accessed on July 19, 2005.
11 Green Space Conservation Program. "Funded Projects," "Sample Methodology," and "Round 2
12 Funding." http: //www .pwc. state. oh .us/clean ohio .htm, accessed on July 19, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 184
-------
i 2000RI-01 Open Space and Recreation and Clean Water
2 Bonds
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Rhode Island
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2000
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 73%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Bond issue for acquisition of open space, ground-water protection, and
9 public recreation facilities
10 Prioritization Type: Top-down; the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
11 (DEM) manages the program and spending.
12 Mission statement:
13 No formal mission statement.
14 Program goals:
15 "Rhode Island is rapidly losing land for parks, farmland, wildlife habitat and land that supports our
16 drinking water. Open spaces that are important to our heritage and environment can be saved if we act
17 today. Governor Almond has proposed for the November 2000 ballot a $34 million bond issue to acquire
18 and protect important land over the next ten years.
19 Under Open Space 2000 the Governor has called for accelerating the state's land protection program by
20 proposing a $34 million bond issue for November, and with the funds acquire an additional 35,000 acres
21 by 2010."
22 Parcel selection process:
23 Not available.
24 Prioritization criteria:
25 Not available.
26 Decision-making process:
27 Not available.
28 Ultimate decision maker:
29 Rhode Island DEM.
30 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
31 Not available.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 185
-------
i Data Sources:
2 "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
4 Priority map:
5 No.
6 Partnerships:
7 Municipal and private land trusts and The Nature Conservancy.
s Available and expended funding:
9 $34 million.
10 Acres protected:
11 Within the Statewide Open Space Protection program, 87 properties and over 6,462 acres have been
12 protected throughout the State in the four years since the 2000 Open Space and Recreation Bond was
13 passed. An additional 1,100 acres of farmland have been protected.
14 Other open space projects have been funded, but acreage is not available. For example, in 2002, 19
15 proposals for DEM's Local Open Space Grants were funded with $5.7 million. In 2004, DEM received 46
16 applications for Open Space Grants for the $3.5 million in funds that remain from the 2000 Bond.
17 Sources:
18 Rhode Island DEM, http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/landacq/rios2000.htm. accessed
19 on August 3, 2005.
20 Rhode Island DEM, http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/pdf/bondques.pdf. accessed on
21 August3,2005.
22 Rhode Island DEM, http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/pdf/land2003.pdf. accessed on
23 August3,2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 186
-------
i 2004AZ-02 McMillan Mesa Open Space Land Acquisition
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Flagstaff, Arizona
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 53%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for wildlife, meadows, and greenways
8 Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; priority land was identified by the City Council based on a
9 public process including focus groups, public meetings, surveys, etc.
10 Ultimately, the City Council makes decisions about project
11 implementation and prioritization of projects is based on specific criteria
12 as listed below.
13 Mission statement:
14 The purpose of the bond is "to provide for the preservation and public use of portions of land in the City
15 as open space." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
16 Program goals:
17 The bond measure would enable, "the acquisition of up to approximately 110 acres on McMillan Mesa
18 consisting of open meadows, wildlife habitat, buffers, and viewsheds, located south of Forest/Cedar
19 Avenue and Buffalo Park, generally extending west from Gemini to Turquoise and Ponderosa Parkway."
20 (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
21 Parcel selection process:
22 This land parcel was selected based on citizen input through city boards and commissions, a bond
23 advisory task force, public meetings, community surveys and focus groups, and public comments during
24 city council meetings. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
25 Prioritization criteria:
26 Criteria for project implementation include: land availability and acquisition negotiations; environmental
27 permitting processes; utility relocations; weather; and design and construction lead time. (Source: City of
28 Flagstaff (b))
29 Decision-making process:
30 Project implementation will be determined by the City Council with public input. (Source: City of
31 Flagstaff (b))
32 Ultimate decision maker:
33 City Council.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 187
-------
i Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
2 Not available.
3 Data Sources:
4 "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
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
16
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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:
13 Total anticipated revenue: $10.1 million to be spent from the years 2005 to 2014.
14 Acres protected:
15 The measure is anticipated to protect up to 110 acres.
Sources:
17 City of Flagstaff (a), Information Pamphlet for City of Flagstaff, Arizona, General Election and Bond
18 Authorization Special Election, May 18, 2004,
19 http://www.flagstaff.az.gOv/documents/Bond%20Program/Publicitv%20Pamphlet%20for%20Mav2004.p
df, 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.
McMillan Mesa Workshop Series, http://www.mcmillanmesa.net/. accessed on August 4, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 188
-------
i 2004AZ-03 Regional Open Space - Observatory Mesa Land
2 Acquisition
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Flagstaff, Arizona
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 56%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for wildlife
9 Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; the land parcel was selected based on citizen input through
10 city boards and commissions, a bond advisory task force, public
11 meetings, community surveys and focus groups, and public comments
12 during city council meetings.
is Mission statement:
14 The purpose of the measure is "to provide permanent natural open spaces for the public use." (Source:
15 City of Flagstaff (a))
16 Program goals:
17 The bond measure would enable, "the acquisition of up to approximately 480 acres of Arizona State Trust
18 lands for wildlife habitat protection and conservation of observatory viewing quality, which is located
19 within the city limits along the urban/wildland interface on the western edge of the City on Observatory
20 Mesa." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
21 Parcel selection process:
22 This land parcel was selected based on citizen input through city boards and commissions, a bond
23 advisory task force, public meetings, community surveys and focus groups, and public comments during
24 city council meetings. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
25 Prioritization criteria:
26 Criteria for project implementation include: land availability and acquisition negotiations; environmental
27 permitting processes; utility relocations; weather; and design and construction lead time. (Source: City of
28 Flagstaff (b))
29 Decision-making process:
30 Project implementation will be determined by the City Council with public input. (Source: City of
31 Flagstaff (b))
32 Ultimate decision maker:
33 City Council.
34 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
35 Not available.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 189
-------
i Data Sources:
2 "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
3
4
Priority map:
No
Partnerships:
6 The City plans to coordinate with the Arizona Preserve Initiative or State Trust land reform matching
7 grants. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
s Available and expended funding:
9 Total anticipated revenue is $5.5 million to be spent by 2013 or sooner. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
10 Acres protected:
11 The measure is anticipated to protect up to 480 acres.
12 Sources:
13 City of Flagstaff (a), Information Pamphlet for City of Flagstaff, Arizona, General Election and Bond
14 Authorization Special Election, May 18, 2004,
15 http://www.flagstaff.az.gOv/documents/Bond%20Program/Publicitv%20Pamphlet%20for%20Mav2004.p
16 df, accessed on July 19,2005.
17 City of Flagstaff (b), Our Town, Our Future: May 18, 2004 City Bond Election presentation,
18 http://www.flagstaffaz.gov/documents/Bond%20Program/Bond_Election4.ppt, accessed on July 19,
19 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 190
-------
i 2004AZ-04 Neighborhood Open Space and Flagstaff Urban
2 Trail System (PUTS)
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Flagstaff, Arizona
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 59%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for neighborhood open space, trails, greenways, wildlife, scenic
9 areas, and geologic features
10 Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; the land parcel was selected based on citizen input through
11 city boards and commissions, a bond advisory task force, public
12 meetings, community surveys and focus groups, and public comments
13 during city council meetings.
14 Mission statement:
15 The purpose of the bond is "to provide neighborhood open spaces and land for the Flagstaff Urban Trail
16 System." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
17 Program goals:
18 The bond measure would enable, "the acquisition of up to approximately 550 acres of open space lands in
19 and around the City's neighborhoods consisting of wildlife habitat, geological features, riparian and
20 scenic areas, and buffers spread throughout the City and for the connection of neighborhoods, parks,
21 schools, employment, shopping and other areas with approximately 50 miles of the Flagstaff Urban Trails
22 System." (Source: City of Flagstaff (a))
23 Parcel selection process:
24 This land parcel was selected based on citizen input through city boards and commissions, a bond
25 advisory task force, public meetings, community surveys and focus groups, and public comments during
26 city council meetings. (Source: City of Flagstaff (b))
27 Prioritization criteria:
28 Criteria for project implementation include: land availability and acquisition negotiations; environmental
29 permitting processes; utility relocations; weather; and design and construction lead time. (Source: City of
30 Flagstaff (b))
31 Decision-making process:
32 Project implementation will be determined by the City Council with public input. (Source: City of
33 Flagstaff (b))
34 Ultimate decision maker:
35 City Council
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 191
-------
i Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
2 Not available.
3 Data Sources:
4 "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
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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
16 Authorization Special Election, May 18, 2004,
17 http://www.flagstaff.az.gOv/documents/Bond%20Program/Publicitv%20Pamphlet%20for%20Mav2004.p
18 df, accessed on July 19, 2005.
19 City of Flagstaff (b), Our Town, Our Future: May 18, 2004 City Bond Election presentation,
20 http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/documents/Bond%20Program/Bond Election4.ppt. accessed on July 19,
21 2005.
22
23
24
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 192
-------
i 2004CO-02 Tax for Open Space
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Erie, Colorado
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
5 Per cent of Vote Obtained: 64%
6 Funding Mechanism: Property tax
7 Ballot Measure Description: Ballot Issue 2A, 10-year, 4 mill property tax levy for open space
8 Prioritization Type: Bottom-up; program expenditures first submitted to a citizen advisory
9 board for recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
10 Mission statement:
11 No formal mission statement.
12 Program goals:
13 All proceeds of the increased property tax are to be used to:
14 • "Create hiking, biking, and walking trails throughout town to connect neighborhoods and the regional
15 trail network;
16 • Purchase natural areas to separate Erie from other communities;
17 • Preserve wildlife habitat;
18 • Protect natural areas along Coal Creek and Boulder Creek; and
19 • Conserve scenic landscapes and views."
20 (Source: Rocky Mountain News.)
21 Parcel selection process:
22 Not available.
23 Prioritization criteria:
24 Not available.
25 Decision-making process:
26 Not available.
27 Ultimate decision maker:
28 Board of Trustees.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 193
-------
i Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
2 Not available.
3 Data Sources:
4 "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
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 194
-------
i 2004CT-01 Purchase of the Southington Drive-In
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Southington, Connecticut
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 68%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond to acquire land for recreation and sewage treatment purposes
8 Prioritization Type: Top-down; the public knew at the time of the vote which property was
9 going to be acquired by the town.
10 Mission statement:
11 Not available.
12 Program goals:
13 To acquire the 40-acre plot of land, including about 23 acres of wetlands, known as "the Southington
14 drive-in property." To be used "for recreational, sewage treatment plant property access and other
15 municipal purposes." (Sources: New Britain Herald; Southington Election Department)
16 Parcel selection process:
17 Not available.
18 Prioritization criteria:
19 Not available.
20 Decision-making process:
21 Property owner Peter G. Perakos closed the drive-in in 2003 and offered the land for sale. In July, Arthur
22 B. Estrada & Associates of North Haven appraised the land for the town at $975,000.
23 Developer Anthony Denorfia then entered into an agreement with Perakos in January to buy the property
24 for $1.5 million. However, Denorfia decided to step aside if the referendum passed. (Source: Pukalo)
25 Ultimate decision maker:
26 Voters in the Town of Southington.
27 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
28 Not available.
29 Data Sources:
30 "X" if used:
Local biological surveys Any EPA water quality information
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 195
-------
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
2 Priority map:
3 No.
4 Partnerships:
5 No.
6 Available and expended funding:
7 $1.61 million.
8 Acres protected:
9 40 acres.
10 Sources:
11 Southington Elections Department, http://registrars.southington.org/elections/referendum4-27-
12 20Q4.shtml. accessed on August 4, 2005
13 Cornell, Scott. "Town to buy drive-in site." New Britain Herald, April 28, 2004.
14 http://www.newbritainherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid= 11398523&BRD= 1641 &PAG=461 &dept id= 1
15 0110&rfi=6. accessed on August 4. 2005.
16 Pukalo, Mark. "Residents OK Purchase Of Drive-In Property." The Hartford Courant, April 28, 2004.
17 http://www.geocities.com/rochfordpaul/southington.htmL accessed on August 4. 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 196
-------
i 2004 FL-02 Pasco County Environmental Lands Acquisition
2 and Management Program
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Pasco County, Florida
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 52%
7 Funding Mechanism: Sales tax
8 Ballot Measure Description: Penny Sales Tax: 10-year, 1 cent sales tax increase for environmentally
9 significant lands, recreation, public safety, schools, city projects
10 Prioritization Type: Bottom up; individuals can nominate parcels for consideration.
11 Mission statement:
12 The purpose of the Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management Program (ELAMP) is to acquire
13 lands and conservation easements in order to: protect natural communities including uplands and
14 wetlands, connect natural linkages, conserve viable populations of native plants and animals, protect
15 habitat for listed species, protect water resources and wetland systems, protect unique natural resources,
16 enhance resource-based recreational opportunities, and expand environmental education opportunities
17 with Pasco County.
18 Program goals:
19 Pasco County has earmarked a quarter of its allocation from the Penny for Pasco — an estimated $36.3
20 million over 10 years — to protecting environmentally sensitive lands. The County Commission has
21 already adopted the Environmental Lands Acquisition and Management Program or ELAMP to help
22 coordinate this challenging task.
23 Parcel selection process:
24 Under this program, individuals can nominate a piece of property for consideration. Nominations will be
25 evaluated by the Environmental Lands Acquisition Selection Committee (ELASC). The Environmental
26 Lands Acquisition Selection Committee was appointed by the Pasco County Board of County
27 Commissioners to help in the selection process. This eleven-member committee consists of individuals
28 with the following affiliations:
29 Vice president and senior ecologist with Biological Research Associates;
30 Owner of Little Everglades Ranch;
31 Senior environmental scientist and professional associate with HDR Engineering;
32 Senior environmental analyst at Tampa Bay Water;
33 Environmental program director at Southwest Florida Water Management District;
34 Professional nature photographer;
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 197
-------
1 Environmental science professor at Saint Leo University;
2 Senior environmental scientist with Scheda Ecological Associates, Inc.;
3 Vice president of environmental services with Florida Design Consultants;
4 Executive director of Pascowildlife, Inc.;
5 There is one vacancy in the Real Estate/Business/Finance category.
6 The ELASC is already meeting monthly, and is currently accepting nominations of lands to be considered
7 for possible purchase of fee title or conservation easements by Pasco County. Anyone, other than
8 members of the ELASC and the Board of County Commissioners, may nominate a parcel for
9 consideration in the ELAMP. Nominated parcels will be reviewed in the order they are received. All
10 information submitted will become the property of Pasco County and will be public record. The County is
11 not responsible for any costs or expenses relating to the filing of an application.
12 Applicants are encouraged to submit applications for projects that meet the objectives of the ELAMP (i.e.,
13 protect natural communities including uplands and wetlands, connect natural linkages, conserve viable
14 populations of native plants and animals, protect habitat for listed species, protect water resources and
15 wetland systems, protect unique natural resources, enhance resource-based recreational opportunities, and
16 expand environmental education opportunities with Pasco County).
17 Prioritization criteria:
18 Prioritization criteria are not readily available. Other than the aforementioned objectives of the ELAMP,
19 no criteria are specifically identified on the ELAMP website or related sources.
20 Decision-making process:
21 The 11-member ELASC panel will meet every quarter to rank properties that have been nominated for
22 conservation. The ranking process is not described in program documentation on the Internet; however, a
23 job posting for an Environmental Lands Program Coordinator in Pasco County indicates that ranking may
24 involve GIS mapping insofar as the job announcement requires familiarity with GIS. The makeup of the
25 ELASC was very closely watched and carefully crafted to ensure that the committee would consist of at
26 least five members with strong science backgrounds.
27 Ultimate decision maker:
28 The ELASC panel will advise the County Commission, which will make all final purchasing decisions.
29 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
30 Not available (see notes in decision-making process above).
31 Data sources:
32 "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
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 198
-------
National Wetlands Inventory
i Priority map:
2 Not clear whether mapping is used to assist in ranking and prioritizing parcels.
3 Partnerships:
4 Not available.
5 Available and expended funding:
6 The Program will use 25 percent of the County's 45 percent of the Penny for Pasco proceeds and
7 matching funds, if available, from federal, state, municipal, private non-profit, and Water Management
8 District land acquisition funding sources. An estimated $36.3 million over 10 years is expected to be
9 allocated for this program from Penny for Pasco funds.
10 Acres protected:
11 None yet.
12 Sources:
13 ELAMP, www.pascocountyfl.net/elamp/elamp.html; accessed on August 3 and 23, 2005.
14 County job postings, http://pascocountyfl.net/personnel/pos/0405025 .htm: Accessed August 23, 2005.
15 2004 Pasco County annual report, http://www.pascocountyfl.net/2004PCAR.pdf: Accessed August 3,
16 2005.
17
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 199
-------
i 2004FL-03 Waterfront Access and Waterfront Preservation
2 Bonds
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Palm Beach County, Florida
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 68%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Bond to acquire property to protect, preserve and expand public access to
9 bodies of water and working waterfronts
10 Prioritization Type: Not yet determined; program is still being developed.
11 Mission statement:
12 Not available.
is Program goals:
14 ".. .protect, preserve and expand public access to freshwater and saltwater bodies of water and preserve
15 working waterfronts thereon by financing the cost of acquisition of real property and interests therein and
16 of certain capital improvements..." (Source: Ballot measure text)
17 Parcel selection process:
18 As the bond measure passed less than a year before this writing, it seems the details have not yet been
19 worked out. According to the minutes summary from a March 1, 2005 County Board of Commissioners
20 meeting:
21 "Staff has identified 3 categories of projects that are the focus of this program: 1) Boat ramps and public
22 waterfront recreational areas; 2) Marinas and boat yards which are in danger of being converted to other
23 uses such as condominiums resulting in the loss of marine industry jobs and a negative financial impact to
24 the local economy; and 3) Waterfront redevelopment projects within municipalities. Since passage of the
25 bond issue, Staff has been meeting with numerous property owners interested in participating in this
26 program. In addition, Staff has met with and received information from numerous community
27 redevelopment agencies seeking funding assistance for their waterfront oriented redevelopment projects.
28 The number of potential projects and the projected costs associated therewith, far exceeds available
29 funding and Staff resources available to implement these projects. Therefore, Board direction regarding
30 allocation of funds to the 3 categories of projects and prioritization of projects within and amongst the
31 categories is requested. Staff has developed lists of potential projects within each of these categories, as
32 well as suggested criteria for establishing priorities for acquisition."
33 (Source: Board of County Commissioners minutes summary and discussion) #The project lists and
34 criteria were not included in the board minutes. #
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 200
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
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
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
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)
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. Available at
http://www.pbcountyclerk.com/minutes/pdf/030105.pdf (summary) and http://minutes.co.palm-
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 201
-------
1 beach.fl.us/minutes/viewframes.jsp?pid=64+2+DL4+libp29+Clerk+Research%3Blibp%3BPBC_Titlel9+
2 16+P2WZNNM60UOTC551 (discussion), accessed on July 29, 2005.
3 Becker, Lori. "No room at the ramp." Palm Beach Post, July 3, 2005.
4 Text of bond measure, http://pbcelections.org/Sample%20Ballots/2004 GEN ENG.pdf. accessed on July
5 29,2005.
6 Poole, Deana. "Higher Taxes Backed To Keep Marinas In Public's Reach." Palm Beach Post, November
7 3,2004.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 202
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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
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
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 203
-------
i Priority map:
2 No.
3 Partnerships:
4 Leicester had some significant assistance from the Trust for Public Lands in negotiating and acquiring the
5 Hillcrest Country Club.
6 Available and expended funding:
7 $3.8 million to acquire the entire Hillcrest Country Club Property (over 310 acres), only part of which is
8 being protected for watershed/water supply purposes.
9 Acres protected:
10 Over 200 acres have been protected for watershed/water supply land and will provide
11 opportunities for passive recreation compatible with watershed protection. The remaining
12 portion of the property has been protected for recreational uses.
13 Sources:
14 Leicester Town Annual Report, 2004,
15 http://www.ci.leicester.ma.us/annualreport/2004AnnualTownReport.pdf accessed in August 2005.
16 Massachusetts American Planning Association Newsletter, May 2004:
17 http://www.massapa.org/newsletters/mav 2004.pdf accessed in August 2005.
18
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 204
-------
i 2004MI-03 Recreational Authority of Traverse City and
2 Garfield Township
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Traverse City and Garfield Township, Michigan
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 80%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for the acquisition of open space and wildlife habitat
9 Prioritization Type: Top-down; parcels to be preserved were identified prior to passage of the
10 bond. Traverse City and Garfield Township created a joint Recreational
11 Authority to facilitate purchase of the properties.
12 Mission statement:
13 Not available.
14 Program goals:
15 To preserve open space and wildlife habitat.
16 Parcel selection process:
17 Parcels were identified prior to passage of the bond. The properties identified for purchase include a 56-
18 acre parcel with three historic barns; a bayfront building that will be demolished and turned into open
19 space; and 108 acres of field, forests, and wetlands, adjacent to a ski area. (Source: People and Land;
20 Ganter)
21 The importance of the properties as described by Friends for Recreational Lands in Garfield Township &
22 Traverse City is included below. All three of the properties are adjacent to existing publicly-owned "park"
23 properties. They all have existing trails that connect to larger trail systems on the adjacent public
24 properties. The Smith/Barney (bayfront) property is the last privately held parcel along 9,500-feet of West
25 Bay frontage. The Hickory Meadows property and the Barns property have both been used by the public
26 for decades. But now, both are likely to be developed in the near future, should this opportunity to
27 purchase them for public use fail. Both serve as habitat for wildlife, offer plenty of room for passive
28 public recreation in quiet areas, and yet are very close to where we live and work. (Source: Friends for
29 Recreational Lands)
30 Prioritization criteria:
31 Not applicable.
32 Decision-making process:
33 In June 2003, Garfield Township and the City of Traverse formed a Recreational Authority as a way of
34 funding the public purchase of three prime properties in the area. The Recreational Authority determined
35 that prudent planning must include both an acquisition bond (to buy the properties) and an operating
36 millage (to cover maintenance, insurance, legal fees, community planning). The Grand Traverse Regional
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 205
-------
1 Land Conservancy secured purchase agreements to reserve the properties pending the outcome of the
2 November 2, 2004 election. (Source: Ganter)
3 Ultimate decision maker:
4 Land to be acquired was decided in advance.
5 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
6 Not applicable.
7 Data Sources:
8 "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
10 Priority map:
11 No.
12 Partnerships:
13 This bond measure was on the ballot with an associated property tax measure and both had to be passed in
14 order for Traverse City and Garfield Township to be able to purchase and maintain the specified
15 properties. Both measures passed and the City and Township are working together through the joint
16 Recreational Authority.
17 Available and expended funding:
18 The bond measure passed for $6.65 million.
19 The associated property tax measure (20-year, . 1 mill property tax increase) passed for an expected total
20 of $2.5 million, which will be used to cover maintenance, insurance, legal fees, and community planning.
21 Acres protected:
22 Approximately 165 acres.
23 Sources:
24 People and Land. "Land Use Issues Gain Higher Profile in Election 2004." PAL Update, Oct/Nov 2004.
25 http://www.peopleandland.org/Newsletters/PALUpdateOctNov04.pdf. accessed July 20. 2005.
26 Ganter, E. "The Open Space & Natural Area Proposals." Northern Express: Northern Michigan's
27 Largest Newsweekly. Accessed online July 20, 2005:
28 http://www.northernexpress.com/editorial/features.asp?id=733. accessed July 20, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 206
-------
1 Friends for Recreational Lands in Garfield Township & Traverse City. "Frequently Asked Questions:
2 What is so important about these properties." Accessed online July 20, 2005:
3 http://www.yesopenspace.org/answers.htmltfpurchase2. accessed July 20. 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 207
-------
i 2004MO-01 Rolla, Missouri - Stormwater and Park Land
2 Program
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Rolla, Missouri
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 66%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: $3 million total, $0.8 million for open space, Bond for stormwater
9 control and land acquisition
10 Prioritization Type: Unknown; insufficient published information available to make
11 determination.
12 Mission statement:
13 Not available.
14 Program goals:
15 Not available.
16 Parcel selection process:
17 Number of acres (120) was decided in advance. Information on whether the location of the 120 acres was
18 decided in advance was not available. (Source: Penprase)
19 Prioritization criteria:
20 Not available.
21 Decision-making process:
22 Not available.
23 Ultimate decision maker:
24 Not available.
25 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
26 Not available.
27 Data Sources:
28 "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
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 208
-------
National Wetlands Inventory
2 Priority map:
3 No.
4 Partnerships:
5 Not available.
6 Available and expended funding:
7 $800,000 for land acquisition (Source: LandVote)
8 Acres protected:
9 The proposition included a plan to purchase 120 acres of land for combination stormwater retention
10 basins and park land. (Source: Penprase)
11 Sources:
12 Penprase, Mike. "Voters in four Ozarks towns approve sewer, water proposals." Springfield News-
13 Leader, April 7, 2004.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 209
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2004NJ-02
Open Space Trust Fund
Jurisdiction Name, State: Carteret Borough, New Jersey
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 57%
Funding Mechanism: Property tax
Ballot Measure Description: 2 cents per $100 property tax for acquisition and/or improvement for
lands, parks and water.
Unknown; insufficient published information available to make
determination.
Prioritization Type:
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:
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
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 210
-------
1
2 Priority map:
3 Unknown.
4 Partnerships:
5 New Jersey counties and municipalities with open space trust funds or other dedicated sources of funding
6 for open space preservation can apply for state Green Acres grants under more favorable terms than local
7 governments without such funding (matching funds of 50 percent, rather than the usual 25 percent, and a
8 streamlined application process).
9 Available and expended funding:
10 Carteret's Open Space Trust Fund began in 2000. From 2002-04, the township spent $500,000 from the
11 Open Space Trust fund, along with $1.5 million from Middlesex County and $1.9 million in state grants.
12 (Source: Maskaly, October 23, 2004) The increased funding from the 2000 tax level of one cent was
13 expected to raise annual revenues from $100,000 to $300,000. (Source: Maskaly, July 24, 2004)
14 Acres protected:
15 While expenditure details were not given, the article implied that most funds from 2002-04 had been
16 spent on park improvement. (Source: Maskaly (a)) Before the measure passed, "[Carteret Mayor] Reiman
17 said if voters approve the measure, the extra revenue will be used to make improvements at the Little
18 League baseball fields and the Waterfront Park." (Source: Maskaly (b)) Another group wanted funds to
19 build a soccer field. (Source: Maskaly (c)) The NJ Department of Environmental Protection's web site of
20 land acquired showed that most of land acquired by the Borough was either parks or athletic playing
21 fields. (Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Open Space Database.) The
22 Borough is also involved in an effort, funded largely by a state grant, to restore the industrial Arthur Kills
23 waterfront to a park. (Source: Walsh)
24 Sources:
25 Maskaly, Michelle (a). "Carteret Presses For Open-Space-Fund Fiike." The Home News Tribune, October
26 23,2004.
27 Maskaly, Michelle (b). "Carteret would hike open-space tax $24 a year." The Home News Tribune, July
28 24,2004.
29 Maskaly, Michelle (c). "New soccer teams takes shape Carteret program is upbeat." The Home News
30 Tribune, November 15, 2004.
31 Walsh, Diane C. "Towns and Agencies Receive Open Space Money; County Gets $20M Share Of Anti-
32 Sprawl Funds." Newark Star-Ledger, June 29, 2003
33 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Open Space Database,
34 http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/openspace.htm. accessed July 18, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 211
-------
i 2004NY-03 Webster Open Space
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Webster, NY
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
5 Percent of Vote Obtained: 52%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: Bond for open space, wildlife, trails, farmland, easements
8 Prioritization Type: Bottom up; predetermined.
9 Mission statement:
10 None available.
11 Program goals:
12 Acquire specific properties to protect open space and block development.
is Parcel selection process:
14 The 2003 plan proposes to preserve permanently from development properties of 11 different owners
15 located in various areas throughout Webster. Collectively just more than 900 acres would be saved from
16 development.
17 Many properties are grouped together in small clusters that result in saving one large area.
18 "Most everyone will remember that in April 2002 a much larger open space plan was proposed - for an
19 amount of $22 million to preserve anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 acres. That proposal was defeated by a
20 margin of about 60 to 40%. Exit polls after that vote, however, showed that support for some kind of
21 preservation of open space - something on a more economical scale and a plan that was specific
22 concerning properties to be preserved.
23 The Town Board worked with Open Space Committee Chair Larry Peckham and the John Behan
24 consulting firm on the revised plan." (Source: Webster Open Space Plan)
25 Prioritization criteria:
26 Not available. #Larry Peckham and John Behan could probably clarify the process.#
27 Decision-making process:
28 A municipal committee identified specific parcels and submitted a request for bond funding to voters.
29 Ultimate decision maker:
30 Webster voters authorized debt funding; town board actually approves spending the money.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 212
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
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
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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 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).
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 213
-------
i Sources:
2 Town of Webster Comprehensive Plan, www.ci.webster.ny.us/properties/comp_plan.htm. accessed
3 August 19, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 214
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2004PA-01
Nockamixon Township Open Space Program
Jurisdiction Name, State: Nockamixon Township, Pennsylvania
Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
Percent of Vote Obtained: 60%
Funding Mechanism: Income tax
Ballot Measure Description: $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
Unknown; insufficient published information available to make
determination
Prioritization Type:
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)
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
None mentioned
None used
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 215
-------
2 Priority map:
3 No.
4 Partnerships:
5 Not available.
6 Available and expended funding:
7 Estimated annual revenue is $180,000 (Source: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission)
8 Another estimate of annual revenue due to the tax increase is $190,000. (Source: Moultrie)
9 Acres protected:
10 Not available.
11 Sources:
12 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Local Funding Programs, May 2005.
13 http://www.dvrpc.org/planning/environmental/openspace/local.htm. accessed on July 19, 2005.
14 Moultrie, Dalondo. "Voters in Bucks County, Pa., township back higher income tax for land." The
15 Morning Call, November 3, 2004.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 216
-------
i 2004RI-01 Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed
2 Protection Bond
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Rhode Island
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 70.8%
7 Funding Mechanism: Bond
8 Ballot Measure Description: Question 8, Statewide environmental bond for open space preservation
9 and acquisition, wetlands protection, greenway expansion, and anti-
10 pollution projects
11 Prioritization Type: Top-down; the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
12 (DEM) manages the program and spending.
is Mission statement:
14 No formal mission statement.
is Program goals:
16 "The Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection Bond, will fund strategic investments in
17 land, water and recreation:
18 Preserve thousands of acres per year to expand and link our parks and other recreation facilities, and
19 preserve farmland and habitat
20 Restore eelgrass, salt marshes and other important natural habitats
21 Clean up Narragansett Bay and RT s waterways
22 Reduce stormwater pollution in cities and towns
23 Reduce nutrient pollutants from wastewater treatment plants."
24 (Source: Rhode Island DEM Fact Sheet on Question 8)
25 Parcel selection process:
26 Not available.
27 Prioritization criteria:
28 Not available.
29 Decision-making process:
30 Not available.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 217
-------
i Ultimate decision maker:
2 Rhode Island DEM.
3 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
4 Not available.
5 Data Sources:
6 "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
8 Priority map:
9 No.
10 Partnerships:
11 Municipal and private land trusts and The Nature Conservancy.
12 Available and expended funding:
13 $70 million projected to be available.
14 Acres protected:
15 Not available.
16 Sources:
17 Rhode Island DEM, http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/landacq/index.htm. accessed on
18 August3,2005
19 Rhode Island DEM, http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/plandev/pdf/bondques.pdf, accessed on
20 Augusts, 2005.
21 Rhode Island DEM, Fact Sheet on Question 8: Open Space, Recreation, Bay and Watershed Protection
22 Bond. No date.
23
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 218
-------
i 2004UT-01 Corner Canyon Program
2
3 Jurisdiction Name, State: Draper, Utah
4 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
5 Per cent of Vote Obtained: 59%
6 Funding Mechanism: Bond
7 Ballot Measure Description: $7 million bond for watershed protection
8 Prioritization Type: Top-down; the land to be purchased was determined in advance of
9 development of the bond measure.
10 Mission statement:
11 Not available.
12 Program goals:
13 To protect Corner Canyon, a 1,035-acre property nestled in the foothills below the Lone Peak Wilderness
14 Area. The Canyon is a source of the City's drinking water. (Source: Lampe 2005)
15 Parcel selection process:
16 The parcel was identified before the development of the bond measure.
17 Using passage of the $7 million bond issue to leverage other funds, the Trusty for Public Lands (TPL) and
18 the City of Draper are currently negotiating to purchase the entire 1,035-acre property for public
19 protection. (Source: Lampe)
20 Prioritization criteria:
21 Not available.
22 Decision-making process:
23 Not available.
24 Ultimate decision maker:
25 Not available.
26 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
27 Not applicable.
28 Data Sources:
29 "X" if used:
Local biological surveys
Natural Heritage data (Nature Serve, TNC)
Any EPA water quality information
Other (list)
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 219
-------
National Hydrography database
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
X
None mentioned
None used
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
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&folder_id=675. accessed on July
19,2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 220
-------
i 2004WA-01 Parks and Recreational Sidewalks Utility Tax
2 Fund
3
4 Jurisdiction Name, State: Olympia, Washington
5 Year Ballot Measure Passed: 2004
6 Percent of Vote Obtained: 57%
7 Funding Mechanism: Other - utility tax
8 Ballot Measure Description: 3% utility tax increase for parks, open space, and sidewalks
9 Prioritization Type: Top down; the City will determine how to spend tax revenues.
10 Mission statement:
11 The tax was passed for, "the purpose of acquiring and making improvements to parks, wildlife habitat,
12 natural areas, open space, hiking and biking trails, walking paths, and recreation sidewalks." (Source:
13 City of Olympia)
14 Program goals:
15 "Initially, most of the money would be used for land acquisition for future parks and trails; once the
16 property has been secured, [park] development would begin." (Source: Walk Olympia)
17 Parcel selection process:
18 Two-thirds of the money will be used for park acquisition and development. It will fund three new
19 community parks, 10 new neighborhood parks, more than 500 acres of open space acquisition, and
20 construction often new hiking trails through that open space. The other third of the money will be spent
21 on sidewalk construction and maintenance. The money will primarily be spent on sidewalks within a half-
22 mile of parks, school playgrounds, trails, and other recreational destinations to meet the goal of enhancing
23 recreational walking. (Sources: Walk Olympia; Active Living Leadership)
24 Prioritization criteria:
25 Not available.
26 Decision-making process:
27 Not available.
28 Ultimate decision maker:
29 City of Olympia.
30 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
31 Not available.
32 Data Sources:
33 "X" if used:
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 221
-------
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
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.usA accessed on July 20, 2005.
Walk Olympia, http://www.walkolympia.org/wst_page5.php. accessed on July 19, 2005.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 222
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
18
20
22
24
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
Prioritization Type:
boatyard for historical, cultural, and recreational purposes
Top down; parcel was identified before vote
Mission statement:
12 "This proposition authorizes the City to acquire waterfront space and land and initiate restoration of the
13 Eddon boatyard for historical, cultural, educational and recreational purposes." (Source: City of Gig
14 Harbor)
is Program goals:
16 The primary program goal is to acquire of waterfront open space and land, commonly known as Eddon
17 boatworks. (Source: City of Gig Harbor)
Parcel selection process:
19 Parcel selected based on its historical value.
Prioritization criteria:
21 Not available.
Decision-making process:
23 Not available.
Ultimate decision maker:
25 City Council.
26 Information used to apply prioritization criteria:
27 Not available.
28 Data Sources:
29 "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
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 223
-------
EPA reach files (GIS stream data)
National Wetlands Inventory
None used
i Priority map:
2 No.
3 Partnerships:
4 Friends of Eddon Boatworks are working in partnership with the City of Gig Harbor.
5 Available and expended funding:
6 $3.5 million.
7 Acres protected:
8 1.3 acres are slated to be protected.
9 Sources:
10 City of Gig Harbor,
11 http://www.piercecountvwa.org/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/archives/gen2004/vp/gig.pdf. accessed on
12 August 4, 2005.
13
14
15
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 224
-------
i X. Appendix D: Regional Maps
2 This section includes eight regional maps—four that break down the information from Figure 1 by region,
3 and another four for Figure 2.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009 Page 225
-------
1
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Figure 3
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals (Northeast)
N
A
60 160
320
430
—i Miles
-.'- Slate Prograrrs
Local Programs i&ty. County. Special Area!
i-i WtlfereJ aid or ANdlifc Programs
u with Expfcrt Evaluation Criteria
H lAMentad! VtMife
• VWeniwI
~ WBdlrfe
Other
Figure 4
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals (Southeast)
I1!
A
Stale Pioprar
Local Pr^grar
4*nd>'0
i (City. CwjfUy. Spcwal^ca)
480
—> Miles
rtflh EiplOI E vokralion Cm
H Waterifiwt * WWIife
^H UUal«r*lw
-------
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Figure 6
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals (Central)
II
A
State Proijiame
Local Program* i.Ctty, County. Special Aiea)
Wetland ana or WiMMe Pronrams
wNh Erpw* Evaluation Cmcm
•• VMtcrthetl £
^H VWrlorshcd
[ I VMUEfe
OttlH
. I.-,. -I...
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Program Goals (West)
IX
A
780
—i Miles
* Stale Program!
Lc-tal Programs (City. County. Spectf */•»)
n tttlland KM* w Wkffin PrngniM
J y,*hErp*«Ey9lu*ttiWiCrt«ft«
^H VVKf rsl-rtd 5 VUVdlitt
!
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 227
-------
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria (Northeast)
1
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Figure 7
Figure 8
i N
A
100 200
600
=1 Miles
Programs
Local Programs fC*y. County. Special Ar»aj
V*llaod aod'or VWcrWe Programs
v,prih Espteil Evaluallon Citena
I ] »• 2.000.000
iH| S2.000.001 - 10.000.000
^H 510.000.001 - 1.200.000.000
Hotc; Piograms in land Vote wHiwrt wrt»rvatkn funding
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria (Southeast)
n
A
State Programs
local Program? (City. Cannfy. Speo
Wstiand and'!* Wildlife Programs
w«|] EKpAcfl Evaluation Crptena
i M- 2.000.000
^| S2.000.iXi1 - 10.000.000
^H 310,000.001- 1.200.000.000
Male Program* m Land Vole MOttoa fianui
tshrnait* ant ntx sht*n on this map.
"CFJOOSISOTSSt+DOT
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 228
-------
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 9
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria (Central)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A
150 300
600
900
—i Miles
ft S&te Programs
Local Program* (Clly. County. Special Aiea t
Wstland and'or YdtfMe Programs
wtlh E«(*o1 Evaluation Ctitera
SO • 2.000.000
§H S2.000.00I -10.000.000
•• $10.000001-1.200.000.000
Hot*: Programs in Land Vcl« without corw*rvatton Rinding
**llmates ate not shown on Iha map
1996, 2000, and 2004 Land Protection Programs: Funding Levels and Explicit Evaluation Criteria (West)
Figure 10
N
A.
Local Pfcgrams |C*v Cctmiy. Special Area;
Wetland andr'w WMSle Prograrm
vrth EnplicH Evaluation Criteria
"1 EO-2.0CO.OCO
H 52000.001 • 10.000.000
^H 510000.001 - 1.200.000.000
Mote' Programs m Land Vote vrihoul cortservalum tundng
vttfnilfi arv nol shov/n on Ihn map.
Land Protection Programs Appendices DRAFT 11/17/2009
Page 229
------- |