Preserving Americas Natural Heritage vFall 08

7/31/2019 Preserving Americas Natural Heritage vFall 08

1/59

Environment AmericaResearch & Policy Center

Lessons from States Efforts to Fund Open Space Protection

Preserving AmericasNatural Heritage


2/59


3/59

Preserving AmericasNatural Heritage

Lessons from States Efforts

to Fund Open Space Protection

Written by:

David Masur,PennEnvironment

Research & Policy Center

Tony Dutzik, Sarah Payne,Travis Madsen, Timothy Telleen-Lawton,

Frontier Group

Environment AmericaResearch & Policy Center

Fall 2008


4/59

Acknowledgments

Environment America Research & Policy Center wishes to acknowledge the many sta o our sisterorganizations across the country or their contributions to this report, including: Christopher Phelpso Environment Connecticut, Pam Kiely o Environment Colorado, Mark Ferrulo o Environ-ment Florida, Jennette Gayer o Environment Georgia, Max Muller o Environment Illinois, BradHeavner o Environment Maryland, Danielle Korpalski o Environment Michigan, Erika Staa o

Environment New Hampshire, Doug OMalley o Environment New Jersey, Elizabeth Ouzts andMargaret Hartzell o Environment North Carolina, Matt Auten o Environment Rhode Island, LukeMetzger o Environment Texas, and Dan Kohler o Wisconsin Environment. Thanks also to JohnRumpler o Environment America or his guidance and insightul comments, Phineas Baxandall oU.S. PIRG or his review o the drat, the sta o Public Interest GRFX or their design assistance,and Susan Rakov o Frontier Group or her editorial assistance.

Environment America Research & Policy Center thanks PennEnvironment Research & PolicyCenter or enabling us to distribute the material in this report to a national audience. EnvironmentAmerica Research & Policy Center also thanks the William Penn Foundation or making this reportpossible. The William Penn Foundation, ounded in 1945 by Otto and Phoebe Haas, is dedicatedto improving the quality o lie in the Greater Philadelphia region through eorts that oster richcultural expression, strengthen childrens utures, and deepen connections to nature and community.

In partnership with others, the Foundation works to advance a vital, just and caring community.Learn more about the Foundation online at www.williampennoundation.org.

The authors bear responsibility or any actual errors. The recommendations are those o Environ-ment America Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those o the authorsand do not necessarily reect the views o our unders or those who provided editorial review.

Copyright 2008 Environment America Research & Policy Center

In 2007, Environment America Research & Policy Center became the new home o U.S. PIRGEducation Funds environmental work, ocusing exclusively on improving the quality o our environ-ment and our lives. Drawing on more than 30 years o experience, our proessional sta combinesindependent research, practical ideas and broad-based educational campaigns to help set the policyagenda, rame the public debate, and win real results or our environment.

Frontier Group conducts research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and moredemocratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate inormation and compelling ideas into publicpolicy debates at the local, state and ederal levels.

For more inormation about Environment America Research & Policy Center, or or additional copieso this report, please visit our Web site at www.environmentamerica.org.

Cover: The view rom Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, Kempton, PA (Credit: by Krista Mackey, istockphoto.com)Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design


5/59

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Americas Threatened Natural Areas 4Natural Treasures in Peril 4

The Preservation Challenge 5

Funding for Land Preservation:Case Studies from 15 States 7Colorado: Placing a Bet on Open Space 8Connecticut: Ambitious Goals, Intermittent Progress 10Florida: A Long-Term Commitment to Preservation 12Georgia: Signs of Progress in Standing Up to Sprawl 15Illinois: A Search for Stability in Preservation Funding 17Maryland: Dedicated Preservation Funding Raided, then Restored 19

Michigan: Public Ownership Doesnt Always Equal Protection 21New Hampshire: A Move to Dedicated Funding 24New Jersey: A History of Leadership in Preservation 26North Carolina: A Variety of Approaches to Achieving an Ambitious Goal 28Oregon: Protecting Natural Land through Planning and Purchases 31Rhode Island: Winning the End Game for Preservation 33Texas: Lack of Commitment Hampers Preservation Efforts 35Washington: Consistent Capital Funding for Open Space Preservation 38Wisconsin: A Commitment to Stewardship 40

Funding Land Preservation:

Lessons from Around the Country 42

Notes 47


6/59

4 Preserving Americas Natural Heritage


7/59

Executive Summary 1

Americas open spaces are an integralpart o our national identity. Ournatural landscapes not only provide

us with places o great beauty, but theyalso play a critical role in providing habitator wildlie along with clean water, reshair and recreational opportunities orAmericans.

With these values at stake, many states

and their taxpaying citizenshave madesignifcant investments in protecting thesebeautiul landscapes rom destructive ac-tivities. Nevertheless, Americas woods,felds, and meadows are steadily slippingaway. Sprawling, unplanned developmentand mounting pressure to drill, log, andmine Americas last remaining wildernessareas threaten the health o our environ-ment and communities and jeopardizethe natural legacy we will leave to uturegenerations.

Development covered an additional 21.6million acres o land in Americaan arealarger than the state o Mainebetween1992 and 2003. The country lost approxi-mately 34.6 million acres o agriculturalland over that same time periodlands

that are not only important or the produc-tion o ood but which also play an impor-tant role in local ecosystems.1 Despite therecent downturn in the real estate market,there is every indication that the long-termtrend toward sprawling development willresult in continued paving over o woods,pastures and other open spaces acrossAmerica.

I states want to save the special places thatremain within their borders, they need toredouble their eortsand quickly. For-tunately, the examples set by existing stateland preservation programs hold importantlessons or states as they seek to protecttheir most treasured natural areas. Thisreport profles the experiences o preser-vation programs in 15 states as they havestriven or consistent and adequate undingor open space protection.

The experiences o these states suggestthat uture state-level land preservationeorts in the United States should:

Plan or and fnance preservation overthe long-term.States in which unding or preservation is

Executive Summary


8/59


subject to the annual state budget processhave a more difcult time sustaining con-sistent and meaningul land preservationeorts. Consistent unding is importantbecause there is oten a very short windowo opportunity during which threatened

open spaces can be protected. The loss ounding at a critical moment could result inimportant natural areas being lost orever.

The most eect ive way to ensure long-term stability in unding is to adopt multi-year programs paid or with bonds backedby dedicated revenue streams. States suchas Florida, which has established 10-yearpreservation programs unded throughthe issuance o bonds, have been able tomaintain momentum or their preserva-tion programs without having those eortsinterrupted by unding cuts during periodswhen state budgets are tight.

Create a dedicated unding stream.States have created a variety o dedicatedunding streams or preservation pro-grams ranging rom real estate taxes toa percentage share o lottery revenue to adesignated portion o the states generalsales taxes. In reality, however, no source

o unding is truly dedicated orever, andlegislators in several states have divertedunding rom these sources to fll short-term budget holes.

The dedicated unding sources that ap-pear least likely to be diverted are thosethat are dedicated in the state constitutionto land preservation or are used to securerevenue bonds. Constitutional provisionsthat dedicate specifc unding sources topreservation programs are diicult to

overturn. Issuing revenue bonds securedwith a stable source o dedicated undingcan make it difcult to divert unding rompreservation activities while providingconsistent unding or preservation needsover a period o time.

In several states, dedicated sources arenot the main source o preservation und-ing, but still play a useul role in helpinga state to diversiy its unding stream orpreservation, minimizing damage in caseswhere unding rom one source temporar-

ily dries up.

Set goals and evaluate progress.Several states, including Connecticut andNorth Carolina, have set numerical goalsor the amount o land they wish to pre-serve through their open space protectionprograms. In addition, North Carolinaproduces an annual report evaluating prog-ress toward its million acre goal and thechallenges aced in achieving that target.These numerical goals enable governmentofcials, preservationists and the public toevaluate the success o a states preservationeorts, evaluate where those eorts maybe alling short, and devise strategies toaddress those shortcomings.

The quality o land protected is as impor-tant as the quantity. State programs shouldocus on protecting lands o high ecologi-cal and community value, or example, byprioritizing the protection o contiguous

parcels o open space. Washington, Floridaand other states have developed systematiccriteria by which they prioritize lands to beprotected, ensuring that the investment ostate unds delivers the maximum beneftor the environment and state residents.

Create unding mechanisms that alignwith preservation priorities.Michigan obtains some o its unds ornew state land purchases through revenuesrom logging and other extractive activi-

ties on existing taxpayer-owned landsamechanism that undermines preservationgoals. Several other states use real estatetaxes to und preservation eorts, gen-erating more revenue or preservation attimes when there is greater pressure todevelop land.


9/59

Executive Summary 3

Harness local and private-sectorresources.Several states rely on local and privateeorts to augment state land purchasesas part o their overall land preservationstrategies. States such as Georgia are

using tax credits to encourage private e-orts to preserve land, while states suchas New Hampshire, Connecticut andWisconsin oer matching grants to spurthe purchase o land by local governmentsand land trusts. Well-designed tax creditsand matching grant programs can enablestates to protect more land with less statemoney and maintain momentum towardland preservation even when state budgetsare tight.

Combine land purchases with eectiveland-use planning.Oregon has achieved great success inpreserving natural and agricultural landsthrough a combination o innovative land-use planning and purchases o importantnatural areas. Eective planning canreduce the pressure placed by sprawlingdevelopment on natural areas and playan important role in Americas overall

preservation eort.

Ensure that taxpayers lands remainprotected.When taxpayers use their hard-earneddollars to purchase orests, ields and

mountain valleys, these lands should beprotected or uture generations. But insome states, powerul industries have beenallowed to trample on publicly-owned openspaces. Lands purchased by taxpayers orpreservation should not be opened to log-ging, mining, drilling or other destructiveactivities.

Seek public support.Citizens across the country support landpreservation. When preservation undinginitiatives make it to the ballot either atthe local or state level they requentlyreceive overwhelming support. The adop-tion o preservation unding reerendumsmakes it less likely that lawmakers willchoose to override the will o the votersby diverting unding and it helps nurturethe civic constituency needed to maintaina long-term commitment to protecting thecountrys natural resources.


10/59


Natural Treasures in Peril

Americas open spaces orm an integralpart o our national heritage. Ournatural places are valued ar beyond

their inherent beauty they provide cleanwater, resh air, habitat or wildlie, and awide variety o recreational opportunities.

But Americas open lands are steadily slipping

away. Sprawling, unplanned development andmounting pressure to drill, log, and mineAmericas last remaining wilderness areasthreaten the health o our environment andcommunities and jeopardize the naturallegacy we will leave to uture generations.

Between 1992 and 2003, a total o 21.6million acresan area larger than the stateo Mainewas developed in the UnitedStates, converted rom orests and feldsto strip malls, housing developments, big-box stores and other orms o urban andsuburban development.2 At the same time,America lost 34.6 million acres o cropand pasture landlands that are not onlyimportant or the production o ood butwhich also play an important role in localecosystems.3

The loss o natural land has many impactson the environment and our communities.Habitat loss is the main threat to survivalor 85 percent o the nations hundreds oendangered species.4 Sprawling develop-ment patterns, which oten leaprog parcelso undeveloped land, oten ragment largeareas o habitat, making it harder or wild-lie to secure the ood, water and shelterneeded to survive. The loss o open space

can damage water quality, as rainwater thathad once fltered into the ground insteadows o o roos and paved suraces direct-ly into waterways carrying with it largeamounts o pollutants and sediment.

Natural areas also provide America withan important part o our national charac-ter. Sprawling development patterns nowthreaten important natural landscapesacross the United States some o whichare unique in the world.

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Theheart o Pennsylvania Dutch Country,Lancaster County is the home o some othe worlds most productive unirrigatedarmland and unique cultural traditions.Lancaster Countys open armlands also

Americas Threatened Natural Areas


11/59

Americas Threatened Natural Areas 5

ulfll an important ecological unction,providing important transition zonesor orest wildlie, and acting as a bueragainst the impact o development. Sprawl-ing development rom the Philadelphiaarea, however, threatens to change both

the natural and cultural character o Lan-caster County orever. By 2005, LancasterCounty was losing 1,000 acres o armlandto development each year.5

The Flor ida Everglades Home tomangrove trees, tall sawgrass, Americancrocodiles, and Florida panthers, the Ev-erglades are known around the world ortheir unique ecology yet some 50 percento their total area has already been lost.6Despite ederal and state eorts to restorethe Everglades to their natural condition,booming development in South Floridacontinues to put pressure on the Evergladesecosystem endangering both this unique-ly valuable ecological treasure and the 68ederally endangered or threatened plantand animal species that call it home.7

The Colorado Rockies The mountains,orests, and open ranges o ColoradosRocky Mountains evoke images o pristine,

rugged wilderness and productive arm andranchland. But continuing sprawl alongColorados Front Range rom Puebloto Denver to Fort Collins, coupled withintensiying pressure to extract naturalresources such as oil, natural gas and tim-ber, threaten the natural character o theRockies. Sprawling development patternshave begun creeping up the oothills o theRockies, ragmenting habitat or wildlieand increasing the amount o wildlands inclose contact with human development.

This expanding wild-urban interaceoten pits the needs o human communities(or example, protection rom fre) againstthose o wild ecosystems, and can havedamaging eects on orests and wildlie. Inaddition, Colorado ranchland surround-ing the Rockies is rapidly disappearing:

1.26 million acres o agricultural land, or690 acres per day, were lost between 1997and 2002 alone.8

The Preservation ChallengeWhile America has lost millions o acres onatural lands over the past several decades,communities, non-proft organizations,and local, state and ederal governmentshave undertaken eorts to protect our mostprecious areas. Non-proft land trusts alonehad preserved 37 million acres o landanarea approximately the size o Georgiaby 2005.9 Lands preserved as local, stateand national parks and protected orestareas account or millions more acres oprotected land.

State governments have played a particu-larly important role in land conservation.In addition to direct holdings o land inthe orm o state parks and orests, stateshave played a key role in setting prioritiesor land preservation, creating policies thatencourage protection o important naturallands, and providing unding or municipal

and private-sector preservation eorts.

State governments have taken a varietyo approaches to preserving importantnatural lands and open spaces. This reportprovides snapshots o land preservationpractices in 15 states across the country.Each state aces unique preservation chal-lenges, and has developed its own serieso solutions and unding mechanisms.Some o the states highlighted in thisreport provide positive examples. Others

serve as cautionary examples whose ap-proaches other states should seek to avoid.Preservationists and government ofcials,however, can learn rom the examples oeach o these states as they strive to protectunique and valuable portions o Americasnatural heritage.


12/59



13/59

Funding for Land Preservation: 15 Case Studies 7

Across the United States, state gov-ernments have taken a variety o ap-proaches to open space preservation.

The 15 case studies that ollow tell the sto-

ries o a diverse mix o states in all regionso the country and how those states haveresponded to the threats posed to criticalnatural areas. (See Figure 1.)

Funding for Land Preservation:Case Studies from 15 States

Figure 1. States with Preservation Programs Proled in this Report


14/59


ColoradoPlacing a Bet on Open SpaceColorado unds its main preservation eort, Great Outdoors Colorado, with a constitutionally

dedicated share o proceeds rom the state lottery. The programs unding has been stable over

time, contributing to the permanent protection o more than 500,000 acres o land.

Colorado is renowned or the iconicpeaks and orests o Rocky MountainNational Park, or its Mesa Verde can-yons, and or broad expanses o ranch andarmland. But today the beauty, ecologi-cal value, and economic benefts o thesenatural assets are threatened by rampantdevelopment.

Since 1997, Colorado has lost over 1.26

million acres o agricultural land, and isprojected to lose 3.1 million more i currenttrends continue, ragmenting and disrupt-ing wildlie habitat and eating away at thestates $18 billion agriculture industry.16Protecting natural and open spaces is alsocritical to the health o the states $2.4 billion

wildlie-related recreation industry.17Created in 1992, the Great Outdoors

Colorado (GOCO) Trust Fund repre-sents the states main conservation eort.GOCO is the result o a state constitutionalamendment, adopted by voters in 1992,that dedicates 50 percent o annual lotteryproceeds to the program. However, theseunds may not exceed an ination-adjusted

cap, which was set at $50.2 million or2006.18 (Most o the remainder o Coloradolottery proceeds support Colorado stateand local parks, recreation and open spaceeorts.)19 The revenue cap or GOCO hasbeen reached in each o the last fve years,meaning that overow unds that would

The Colorado Rockies Credit: Alan Storey, under license to Shut terstock.com


15/59


have gone to the program have insteadgone to support public schools.20

The GOCO mandate divides the pro-grams grant-making activities into ourmain areas:

Wildlie resources, habitat, andheritage education;

Outdoor recreation acilities andeducation;

Land identifcation, acquisition, andmanagement;

Matching grants or local governmentconservation eorts.

GOCO administrators work withexternal experts to assess grant applica-tions, though grant unding is ultimatelydependent on decisions o the GOCOboard.

The program has unded a wide arrayo conservation eorts, ranging rom trailrestoration projects to engaging students

in the Colorado Youth Corps Association.GOCO grants have contributed to perma-nent protection or over 500,000 acres oColorado lands (including agriculturaltracts, parks, and wildlie habitat) andcreation o over 900 recreation areas.21

Five wild species have been either prevent-ed rom descending to endangered status orremoved rom the ederal endangered spe-cies list under GOCO-supported eortso the Colorado Division o Wildlie.22GOCO has urther aided in protectingthe beautiul and historic Laramie Foot-hills, which were the early pioneers frstintroduction to the Rockies.23

To date, GOCOs source o state rev-enue has been relatively secure, decliningonly during periods when lottery incomeand proceeds have allen. In recent years,however, GOCOs unding has not keptpace with rising lottery revenues due to thecap on the amount o lottery money thatcan be used or the program.


16/59


ConnecticutNew Proposal Could Meet Ambitious GoalsConnecticut has established quantitative, long-term goals or its land preservation programs.

However, the need to und the eort through the annual issuance o bonds has resulted ininconsistent unding or land preservation and has prevented the state rom achieving its open

space preservation targets.

Poorly planned development threatensConnecticuts natural heritage o his-toric armland, orested hills, sparklingrivers and sandy coast. Over the last 50years, 24 percent o Connecticuts privateorests have been consumed by develop-ment; an average o more than 23 acres is

lost each day.24Recognizing the threat, in 1997 Con-

necticut set an ambitious goal or land pres-ervation, aiming to preserve 21 percent oits area as open space by 2023. State-ownedlands were to account or 10 percent o theland area, with municipalities, non-profts

Connecticuts Housatonic River Valley Credit: J. Norman Reid, under license to Shutterstock.com

and water utilities owning the other 11percent.25

Purchases o state-owned land havebeen sufcient to keep pace with the 10percent goal and the state now owns 78percent o the land it will need to achievethe target.26 The Recreation and Natural

Heritage Trust Fund is helping the stateacquire natural land by purchasing addi-tions to state parks and orests and othernatural open spaces. From fscal year 2000through fscal year 2006, the state acquiredapproximately 34,000 acres o land.27

Land purchases by non-state entities,


17/59


however, appear not to have kept pace withtheir land preservation targets. Between2001 and 2006, non-state entities pur-chased less than hal the land they wouldhave needed to remain on pace to achievetheir land preservation targets.28

Land preservation by local govern-ments, land trusts and private landownersis encouraged through the Open Spaceand Watershed Matching Grants program,which was established in 1998. The pro-gram provides matching grants to localgroups. So ar, the program has granted$78 million to acquire over 22,000 acreso open space.29

Connecticut also works to protect agri-cultural land through its Farmland Pres-ervation Program. To date, the programhas preserved more than 30,000 acres on228 arms.30

Land preservation activities by boththe state government and its partners inmunicipal government, non-profts andthe private sector have been hampered bythe lack o a long-term, reliable undingsource. The main source o unding orthe states preservation programs is an-nual bonding (supplemented, in the caseo the Open Space and Watershed Match-

ing Grants program, by a portion o thestates $30 ee on the fling o municipalland documents).31 To receive bond und-ing, preservation programs must passtwo hurdles: they must have their bondsapproved by the Legislature annuallyand then have the bonds released by thegovernors Bond Commission. As a result,unding or preservation programs tendsto get caught up in annual budget battlesin which the programs must compete withother priorities or bond unding.

Since the late 1990s, unding or landpurchases in Connecticut has declinedsignifcantly. In its early years, the Open

Space and Watershed Matching Grantsprogram accepted two rounds o grant pro-posals annually, with a total unding levelo approximately $5 mill ion per round. In2003, however, there were no grants at all,and in the ollowing years the program has

been limited to one round o unding annu-ally. Similarly, the Recreation and NaturalHeritage Trust Fund has seen its level ounding reduced rom approximately $15million annually in its early years to $4-5million annually in recent years. Both pro-grams have seen their annual unding dra-matically reduced since their peak undinglevels o the late 1990s and early 2000satthe same time that development pressuresand land prices have increased.32

Preservation advocates are now pro-moting a long-range proposal or landpreservation in Connecticut. The plan,called Face o Connecticut, would set atarget o providing $1 billion in undingover 10 years to preservation eorts andstreamline the current process or bondunding by consolidating all preservationprograms into one bond request per year.A more limited proposal, enacted in 2007,will allow state grants to cover a greatershare o the cost o land purchases made by

municipalities and land trustsa changethat could help the non-state entitiesachieve greater success in meeting theirland preservation targets.33

Connecticuts open space preservationeorts currently suer rom a misalignmentbetween ambitious, long-range goals andcontentious, short-term unding battles.Strong programs exist but are hamperedby under-unding. By creating a long-termplan or unding land preservation andstreamlining state programs, Connecticut

can do a more eective job o ensuring thatthe states threatened natural areas andscenic landscapes remain protected.


18/59


FloridaA Long-Term Commitment to PreservationFor nearly two decades, Florida has been a national leader in preservation, saeguarding

more than 2 million acres o natural lands. The states programs have been unded through

long-term (10 year) bond issues secured with dedicated unding rom real estate transer ees.

However, the purchasing power o the states preservation dollars has declined over time and

Florida aces important decisions about the uture o its preservation eorts when the current

program expires in 2010.

Florida has long been one o the astest-growing states in the country. Between1950 and 2000, Floridas population grewby almost 500 percentwhile that o the

U.S. as a whole grew by only 86 percent.34With this massive inux o people hascome rapid development o natural and ag-ricultural land.35 In the last 50 years, morethan 8 million acres o orests and wetlandshave been developedor about 24 percento Floridas total land area.36

Floridas Everglades National Park Credit: Tomasz Szymanski, under license to Shutterstock.com

The price o this development has beensteep. Sprawling development has carvedwildlie habitat into smaller and smallerpieces divided by highways or paved over

altogether or shopping malls and ofceparksthreatening state symbols such asthe Florida panther and the Florida blackbear. Many o Floridas coastal marshesand barrier islandshome to endangeredwildlie such as manatees, wood storks andloggerhead sea turtleshave been trans-


19/59


ormed into marinas and condominiums.The Everglades a un ique ecosystemthat is home to 68 ederally endangered orthreatened plant and animal specieshasalready lost hal o its area to agriculturaland urban development and continues to

ace pressure rom South Floridas boom-ing development.37

To stem this tide, Floridians have takenaction to preserve the natural beauty andunique ecosystems that drew many othem to the state in the frst place. Sincethe late 1960s, Florida has unded strongprograms to preserve unique natural areas.The latest such eort is a program calledFlorida Forever.

Since the programs inception in July2001, Florida Forever has provided morethan $2 billion in conservation unding.38The program supports a variety o goalsincluding land acquisition (directly andthrough conservation easements), ecosys-tem restoration, water supply protection,and public lands management.39

Florida Forever is largely undedthrough a 0.7 percent documentary stamptax on real estate transers, mortgagesand other securities transactions. Futurerevenues rom the tax back bonds, which

are issued to und immediate conservationneeds. Funding can also be supplementedthrough a general appropriation by theFlorida Legislature.

Altogether, Florida Forever makes $300million available or conservation purposeseach fscal year.40 A variety o state agen-cies, including the Florida Departmento Environmental Protection and watermanagement districts across the state, re-ceive money rom the program. A council(consisting o fve state agency representa-

tives and our appointees o the governor)decides which lands will be targeted orprotection by the program. The councilevaluates, selects and prioritizes possibleprojects using science-based criteria. Thegovernor and his cabinet must then approvethe list o projects.41

Florida Forever and its predecessorprograms have been successul in preserv-ing important natural resources and theprogram enjoys broad public support. TheFlorida Department o EnvironmentalProtection touts Florida Forever as the

worlds largest land conservation buyingprogram, with more than 560,000 acrespreserved since the programs inceptionin 2001.42 Polls have consistently shownthat 75 percent o Floridians support theprogram.43

Florida Forever has been successul be-cause o several actors, including:

A consistent unding source;

Funding over a 10-year period;

Projects covering both urban andrural areas;

Diverse conservation goals, includingproviding recreational opportunitiesor the public, healthy fsheries andwildlie habitat, greenway corridors,and water supply protection;

The involvement o numerouspartners, including local governments,state agencies, water managementdistricts, non-proft organizations and

private landowners; and The use o peer-reviewed scientifc

criteria to identiy and prioritizethe most critical land and waterconservation and restoration needs,which removes potential politicizationo the land-buying process.

While Florida Forever has been success-ul, it is scheduled to expire in 2010, andthe agencies that receive unding throughthe program are already essentially out o

unds. Moreover, its achievements pale incomparison to the need at hand. Floridaspopulation is expected to double in the next50 years, reaching 36 million by 2060. Ipast patterns o development continue overthis period, Florida will lose an additional7 million acres o natural and agricultural


20/59


land to developmentmore than doublingthe current amount o urban land in thestate.44

I Florida is to prevent this irrevers-ible loss, it will need to return to thelevel o commitment envisioned in Florida

Forevers predecessor program, Preserva-tion 2000, which was initiated in 1990. In asingle decade, Preservation 2000 protected1,781,489 acres o land on behal o thepeople o Florida, or about 4 percent othe states total land area.45 While FloridaForever receives the same amount o an-nual unding as Preservation 2000$300million per yearthe purchasing powero that money has eroded over the lasttwo decades. Whereas in 1990, the stateprovided $37 (in 2007 dollars) per Floridian

per year or land conservation, today thelevel o per capita unding is only about$16 per year. At the same time, land priceshave increased rom an average o $6,000per acre in 1990 (in 2007 dollars) to nearly$30,000 per acre today.46

A coalit ion comprised o the statesleading conservation and recreation orga-nizations, the Florida Forever Coalition,is currently pursuing multiple avenues orimplementation o a successor program toFlorida Forever. The coalition is advocat-ing or a more robust program with greaterand more stable unding. Opportunitiesor passage o a successor program includethe 2008 Florida legislative session or anamendment to the Florida Constitution onthe 2010 statewide ballot.


21/59


GeorgiaSigns of Progress in Standing Up to SprawlGeorgia has historically lagged in unding land preservation eorts, even as the state has

experienced dramatic sprawl. However, the state has recently taken two initiatives to boost

land preservation, creating a tax credit or taxpayers who donate land through conservation

easements and creating a new statewide land preservation program.

The largest state east o the MississippiRiver, Georgia prides itsel on greenAppalachian spaces. Yet tremendous over-development, especially in the Atlanta

metropolitan area, is rapidly distorting thestates appearance. The state is home toeight o the top 25 astest-growing countiesin the nation.47

Georgia lacks a master plan to accom-modate the hundreds o new citizens whorelocate to the state each day. Developers

Georgias Chattahoochee National Forest Credit: Sebastien Windal, under license to Shutterstock.com

are taking advantage o lax zoning regula-tions and inadequate protections to build inan inefcient, but very proftable, manner.Similarly, many counties struggle to raise

the money to preserve orests and armlandbeore it is bought and razed by developersor strip malls, box stores, and subdivisionswith hal-acre lots.

Three metro Atlanta countiesCobb,Gwinnett and DeKalbare on track to useall their non-ederally owned armland and


22/59


habitat to accommodate projected growthby the end o 2025, according to SmartGrowth America.48 And other regionsin Georgia are also experiencing rapidgrowth: coastal Georgia expects to increaseits current population o 558,000 by over

50 percent by 2020.49To cope with these challenges, Geor-

gia has begun to take action to protectits threatened land. In 2003, Gov. SonnyPerdue created an advisory panel to makerecommendations that would lead to thedevelopment o Georgias frst statewideland conservation program.50 That processresulted in the passage o legislation in2005 to create the Georgia Land Conser-vation Program and a revolving loan undthat helps local governments fnance landacquisitions. The program was allocatedmore than $40 million in the states fscalyear 2008 budget.51

In 2006, the Georgia Legislature alsopassed a land conservation tax credit, whichallows taxpayers who donate land throughconservation easements to receive incometax credits o up to 25 percent o the value othe gited land. Under this law, individualsmay claim credits o up to $250,000, andcorporations may claim a maximum o

$500,000 against income taxes. Georgiastax credit program is new and data aboutits results are limited. However, early in-dications are that the program has been

plagued by some technical problems thathave made it more difcult and less lucrativeor taxpayers to pursue the tax credit thanshould be the case. Preservation advocatesare working with the Georgia Legislatureto fx these technical problems and improve

the tax credit to make it more attractive towould-be contributors o land.

Creating a workable tax credit programin Georgia could play an important role inencouraging land conservation. The Geor-gia program closely resembles a NorthCarolina tax credit established in 1983.52Since its creation, North Carolinas taxcredit has been responsible or protectingmore than 108,900 acres. The state has paidjust $28 million to conserve land valued at$304 million.53

Georgias work to protect land at thestatewide level has been supplemented byeorts o some local and county govern-ments. County governments in Georgiaare permitted to levy special purpose localoption sales taxes (or SPLOSTs) throughlocal reerenda, generating revenue orprojects such as conservation eorts.

While Georgia has historically lagged inland preservation eorts, the states recentmoves to adopt a conservation tax credit and

to establish a statewide land preservationprogram could provide a solid oundationor protecting precious natural lands inGeorgia amid the states rampant sprawl.


23/59


IllinoisA Search for Stability in Preservation FundingIllinois lags behind other Midwestern states in investments in land preservation. While the

states current preservation programs are supported through dedicated unding sources, those

unding sources have been subject to periodic legislative raids. In addition, the state has only

inconsistently invested in land preservation through its capital program. A long-term commit-

ment to adequate preservation unding, provided through the states capital budget, would

provide a much-needed boost to conservation eorts in Illinois.

Illinois aces major land preservation chal-lenges. More than 90 percent o Illinoisoriginal wetlands and an astonishing 99.99

percent o original Illinois prairie have al-ready been lost.54 In 2004, Illinois rankedsecond-to-last among Midwestern statesor percent area o land protected in state-owned recreation sites. The state urtherranked last among those states in numbero recreation acres per capita.55

Silver Lake Park, Illinois Credit: Laurence P. Lawhead, under license to Shutters tock.com

Illinois primarily unds preservation e-orts through two programs: the NaturalAreas Acquisition Fund (NAAF) and the

Open Spaces Land Acquisition and Devel-opment Fund (OSLAD).

Created in 1989, the NAAF providesunds or land acquisition and steward-ship projects. As o 2007, NAAF projectsincluded acquisition o more than 21,700acres o woods, prairies and wetlands and


24/59


supported other projects such as exoticspecies control, hydrological restoration instreams and wetlands, and controlled prai-rie burns.56 OSLAD, meanwhile, providesmatching grant unds or up to 50 percento the cost o projects that create outdoor

opportunities. Since its 1986 inception,OSLAD has matched over $194 millionto more than 800 local open space andrecreation area projects, including neigh-borhood parks and orest preserves.57

Illinois has also unded land preserva-tion eorts through the states capitalbudget. The most recent example was theOpen Lands Trust, which invested $200million in open space acquisition rom1999 to 2003.58

Both NAAF and OSLAD are undedthrough dedicated revenue rom the statereal estate transer tax, in which a $1 statetax is added to every $1,000 o real estatesales. This system correspondingly gen-erates more revenue at times when a loto land is changing hands and when landvalues are rising.59 Funding decreases,however, at times when the real estatemarket cools. Funding or NAAF andOSLAD may be at risk even in strong realestate markets rom the threat o continued

raids on the programs source o dedicatedunding.NAAF and OSLAD are supposed to

receive hal (15% or NAAF and 35% orOSLAD) o all revenues rom the state realestate transer tax, with the other hal go-ing to aordable housing programs. Butlegislators have not ully allocated theseunds during budget crises. In 2003, orexample, NAAF and OSLAD receivedjust 25 percent o the receipts rom the realestate sales tax, or hal o the originally

intended amount.60 Advocates won ullunding or NAAF/OSLAD ($15 millionand $34 million, respectively) in 2007 orthe frst t ime in recent years, but the earlierunding raids will have a prolonged impact,since the state has missed critical opportu-

nities to protect vulnerable open spaces andprovide recreational options to residents.Across Ill inois, lands that had providedhomes or rare plant and animal specieshave been cleared or residential and com-mercial development, in part due to the lack

o state unding or preservation.61While state unding or land preserva-

tion has uctuated, local investment inconservation eorts has remained strong.The voters o Il linoispart icularly innortheastern Illinoishave consistentlyshown their willingness to pay more intaxes i they know the money is going toprotect land and provide more parks, or-est preserves, trails and other open spaces.According to the Conservation Founda-tion, over the last 10 years, no countywideopen-space reerendum in northeasternIllinois has ailed. As recently as April2007, three counties passed open-spacereerendums: Kane County, where an $85million program met with 64 percent votersupport; Kendall County, where 68 percento voters supported a $45 million program;and McHenry County, where 57 percent ovoters backed a $73 million initiative.62

Currently, Illinois preservation advo-cates are pushing or the creation o a new

conservation program, which would beunded through revenue and general obli-gation bonds in the states capital budget.This di ers rom NAAF and OSLADunding, which is allocated annually. Thenew proposal, called iSPACE (or TheIllinois Special Places Acquisition Con-servation and Enhancement Program),would invest $100 mill ion annually toacquire critical open spaces.

Illinois only adopts new capital budgetsat irregular intervals, and the state has

not included signifcant land acquisitionunding in its capital budget since 2002.I iSPACE receives unding, however, itcould provide a critical and stable revenuesource to ramp up Illinois land preserva-tion eorts.


25/59


MarylandDedicated Preservation Funding Raided, then RestoredMaryland has a long legacy o successul preservation programs. Despite the states track re-

cord o success, in recent years legislators have diverted much o the dedicated unding rom

the real estate transer tax that had supported the states conservation eorts. Legislators

restored ull dedicated unding to preservation programs in 2006.

Maryland is home to iconic naturalplaces like the Chesapeake Bay andthe Appalachian mountains, along withunique ecological treasures includingAmericas northernmost cypress grovesand one o the largest bald eagle nesting

grounds on the Eastern seaboard.63 Overthe last several decades, however, the statehas lost large amounts o natural land.Between 1973 and 1997, the amount o de-veloped land in the state increased by nearly50 percent.64

Ma ryland ha s re sponded to rapid,

An egret in marshland. Credit: Robert H. Creigh, under license to Shutters tock.com

sprawling development by developingpioneering programs to preserve naturallands. Maryland created its frst statewideconservation program three decades ago.Program Open Space was established in1969 and has since preserved over 287,000

acres o land and created over 400 conser-vation areas and parks.65 In 1977, the stateadded a second program, the MarylandAgricu ltural Land Preservat ion Fund(MALPF). MALPF has also had strongsuccess in recent decades, preserving230,000 acres o working armland.66 A


26/59


third eort, the Rural Legacy Program,has protected over 44,129 acres.67

Program Open Space, MALPF and theRural Legacy Program are all unded bya 0.5 percent tax on the price o all realestate transers. MALPF and the Rural

Legacy Program both receive additionalunding rom general obligation bonds,and MALPF gains urther revenue roman agricultural lands transer tax.68

The ded icated unding streams orpreservation tied to real estate sales allowedMarylands land conservation programsto keep pace with development. But, inthe wake o the 2001 recession, legislatorsbegan to raid conservation unds to supportother budgetary priorities.69 Over a fve-year span beginning in 2002, the MarylandGeneral Assembly diverted more than$400 million rom conservation programsto the states general und.70 Funding orpreservation programs uctuated wildlyrom year to year. In fscal year 2006, orexample, Maryland spent only about $52.5million on preservation programs, about

one third o the $156 million spent in fscalyear 2002.71

Land preservation advocates succeededin convincing the General Assembly torestore dedicated unding in 2006, but theloss o crucial unds over the preceding fve

years let Maryland well behind in achiev-ing its preservation objectives.72 Accordingto the Partners or Open Space coalition,the preservation unding that was divertedto other uses would have been enough topreserve an additional 100,000 acres oprivately held land.73

Despite the recent uctuations in und-ing, however, Maryland has continued tomake signifcant progress in its land pres-ervation eorts. The state also took an im-portant step in November 2007 by closinga loophole in the states real estate transertax that had enabled corporations to avoidpaying the tax by placing their land in alimited liability corporation or other entity.Closing this loophole will bring in an es-timated $9.6 million in additional undingor preservation programs annually.74


27/59


MichiganPublic Ownership Doesnt Always Equal ProtectionMichigan possesses vast tracts o state-owned land. Unortunately, much o this land is not

ully protected rom logging, drilling and other orms o development. Funding or additional

land purchases is obtained, in part, by leasing existing publicly owned lands or resource

extractionan inappropriate unding mechanism that encourages urther development on

state-owned lands. Michigan has oered permanent protection rom development to a small

share o public lands. Increasing the amount o protected lands would ensure that taxpayers

receive the maximum environmental and recreational value rom state lands.

Fully one-fth o the state o Michiganbelongs to the public. But the stateswillingness to allow mining, timbering,and other industrial activities on some othis land is a reminder that public owner-ship does not necessarily equate to per-manent protection o land in its naturalcondition.

Michigans publicly owned lands include

The Porcupine Mountains in Michigans Upper Peninsula Credit: James Schaedig, under license to Shutterstock.com

irreplaceable holdings that stretch romthe wilds o Isle Royale National Park in

the remote northwest, to the majestic old-growth o Hartwick Pines State Park in theheart o the state, to the landmark DetroitRiver International Wildlie Reuge in theurban southeast.

Most public land in Michigan is man-aged by the Michigan Department o


28/59


Natural Resources (DNR). DNR works tomanage and expand public land holdings.The agency relies upon a variety o undingsources or land purchases, including:75

State park ees;

Revenues rom hunting and fshinglicenses;

Revenues rom the sale o orestproducts rom state lands;

Federal dollars rom unds such as thePittman-Robertson Fund, Wallop-Breaux Fund, and the Land and WaterConservation Fund;

Grants rom the Michigan NaturalResources Trust Fund.

The Michigan Natural Resources TrustFund was established in 1976, part o acompromise reached between conserva-tionists and oil companies over a proposalto drill or oil and gas on 500,000 acres ostate land. Using royalties paid by compa-nies extracting energy or mineral resourcesrom state-owned lands, the und oersgrants to DNR and to local governmentsor land or conservation easement acqui-

sition in areas with special public value.Local governments must contribute at least25 percent o the cost to be eligible or agrant. In a limited manner, the und alsoassists with the development o recreationacilities on state lands.76

Applications or grants are reviewed by aboard o trustees, which issues recommen-dations to the governor. The Legislaturethen grants fnal approval and appropriatesthe unds. In an average year, the undawards $20 - $25 million in grants.77 Since

its inception, the trust und has awardedmore than $500 million in grants or landacquisition.78

Michigans land conservation strategieshave successully placed more than 4.5 mil-lion acres o land under public ownership.However, many o these state lands are

available or lease by companies engagingin resource extraction, including logging,mining and oil and gas drilling.

In act, in 2006, the Michigan Legis-lature actually required DNR to considertimber sales on at least 10 percent o the

states orests every year, orcing sales togo orward unless they would be illegal orunsustainable. The law is meant to maxi-mize orest economics and orest health,but it makes no mention o other orestmanagement prioritiesincluding hunt-ing, fshing, public recreation, protectionagainst invasive species, preserving habitat,or protecting water quality.79 This mandatereduces the ability o state orests to pro-vide public value. Perversely, some o themoney resulting rom additional timbersales could be used by DNR to acquiremore orest acreage.

Moreover, by unding the MichiganNatural Resources Trust Fund with royal-ties rom mineral development, the statehas set up another perverse incentiveo-ering up valuable lands or resourceextraction to provide unding to acquiremore lands. For example, in 2006, AuroraEnergy o Traverse City proposed to drill19 new gas wells within a recently acquired,

2,500-acre portion o state orest.80

Royal-ties rom this drilling could then be used toacquire more public land, which might thenbe subject to more resource extraction.

The only public lands ully protectedrom harmul uses are those managed byDNR under the Wilderness and NaturalAreas Act. This law, signed by GovernorWilliam Milliken in 1972, enables DNR todeclare up to 10 percent o state lands aswild, wilderness or natural areas.81 Theseareas are open to the public or recreational

activities such as hunting, fshing or hik-ingbut o-limits or harmul activitieslike logging, drilling or road-building.However, to date, DNR has only protectedabout 1.1 percent o state-owned land usingthis authority.82

The history o Michigans decision-


29/59


making regarding its public lands raisestwo important issues with regard to landpreservation eorts. First , it demonstratesthat publicly owned lands are not neces-sarily always well-protected. Preservationprograms should ensure that land that is

preserved or public use is protected romdevelopment or, at the very least, man-aged in ways that account or the manyvalues produced by natural land, not just

the value provided by resource extraction.Second, Michigans system or fnancingpublic purchases o landwhich derivespart o its revenue rom resource extrac-tion activitiescreates a series o perverseincentives in which state oicials may

be tempted to increase revenue or landpurchases by permitting environmentallydestructive activities on other tracts opublic land.


30/59


New HampshireA Move to Dedicated FundingNew Hampshire invests in land preservation primarily by making matching grants to leverage

investments by local governments, non-prots and the private sector. Because the state lacked

a dedicated source o unding or grants, unding or the states grant program never reached

its originally intended levels. With the creation o a new, dedicated unding source or the pro-

gram, New Hampshire could experience greater consistency in its land preservation eorts.

New Hampshire aces many challenges

rom rapid growth, particularly sprawlrom nearby Boston. Between 1982 and1997, the amount o developed land (ex-cluding land owned by the ederal govern-ment) increased by 55 percent, while NewHampshire lost approximately 14 percento its prime armland.83

The orests and mountains o northern New Hampshire Credit: Tom Oliveira, under license to Shutterstock.com

New Hampshires population is pro-

jected to grow aster than that o any otherNew England state over the next 30 years. 84Should recent patterns o sprawling devel-opment continue, the states open lands andcoastal estuaries, as well as globally uniqueecosystems such as the Ossipee Pine Bar-rens, could ace urther degradation and


31/59


encroachment by development.New Hampshires land preservation

eorts have taken the orm o the Landand Community Heritage InvestmentProgram, or LCHIP. Founded in 2000,LCHIP typically contributes 20 percent

o unding or a given proposal, providingcritical matching unds to leverage localand private donations.85

In the past seven years, LCHIP hasgranted $18.3 million to 139 projects, und-ing approximately one out o every ourrequests. These grants have conserved morethan 200,000 acres and protected 87 histori-cal sites.86 The town o Erroll, or example,recently acquired 5,300 acres o communityorest in the Androscoggin River watershedwith LCHIP support. LCHIP has addi-tionally prioritized protecting areas such asthe remaining third o New Hampshiresoriginal pine barrensrare ecosystemswhere glacial sands flter aquier waters andprovide sanctuary to a unique combinationo plant and animal species.87

Yet the success o LCHIP has been un-dermined by uctuations in unding levelsover time. Administrative unds or theprogram come rom conservation licenseplate sales and trust und interest. But, until

recently, LCHIP had relied on allocationsrom the biennial state budget or its grantunds. Though LCHIPs creators hadoriginally recommended annual unding

o $12 million, by 2003 legislators had re-duced LCHIP unds to just $750,000, withthe level o unding remaining at this lowlevel through 2007.88

In 2007, however, the state created adedicated revenue stream or LCHIP

through a statewide $25 ee on each real es-tate deed transer. These ees, which beginin fscal year 2008, will constitute LCHIPsmain unding source.89 Estimates placeLCHIPs annual unding through theees at $6 million.90 The unding is lessthan LCHIPs recommended $12 million,but does provide dedicated year-to-yearunding (over a period o 10 years with theoption to renew).

The deed transer revenue also providessome unding exibility in response tochanges in demand or real estate, sincemore conservation income is produced attimes when there is more real estate activ-ity. A declining housing market, however,results in less money or conservation.

New Hampshires support or landpreservation has been spotty and currentlevels o unding are likely to be inadequateto keep up with the rapid pace o develop-ment in the Granite State. But the recentdecision to create a dedicated source o

unding or land acquisition is an importantstep orward and should provide a ounda-tion that New Hampshire can build uponin the uture.


32/59


New JerseyA History of Leadership in PreservationNew Jersey has been among the national leaders in land preservation programs. Its most re-

cent 10-year program used bonds secured with a portion o the states sales tax to generate

$2 billion in preservation unding. With that program now ended, however, New Jersey must

develop a new, secure, long-term unding mechanism or preservation activities.

New Jersey, already the most denselypopulated state in the country, is losingover 40 acres a day o its remaining openspaces. These green places provide wildliehabitat, stop run-o pollution rom owinginto waterways, and put the garden in theGarden State. Rutgers University predicts

that the state will reach ull build-outthe day the state runs out o landin lessthan 30 years. And one o the states biggestdevelopers thinks that it will occur evenasterin the next 15 years.91

The speed with which New Jerseyansare losing their open space has ueled e-

Fall in the New Jersey Highlands Credit: Natalia Bratslavsky, under license to Shutterstock.com

orts to protect it. As early as 1961, thestate set up the Green Acres program topurchase environmentally sensitive landand other natural and historic properties.92Between 1961 and 1995, New Jersey votersoverwhelmingly passed nine separate bondmeasures to und land acquisition and park

development, totaling $1.4 billion.In 1998, New Jersey moved to bring

stability to its preservation unding eortsthrough the Garden State PreservationTrust. The trust used a dedicated undingsourcea 0.25 percentage point portiono the sales taxto provide $98 million in


33/59


annual unding through 2029. The undswere to prov ide a dedicated und ingstream or land preservation eorts andto pay o a series o bonds that undednear-term preservation eorts. Because theunding or the program is dedicated in the

state constitution, the Legislature is barredrom diverting unds rom the programto other priorities (at least without urtheramendment to the constitution.)93 In total,the program has created $2 billion in undingor open space purchases and other preserva-tion programs over the past decade.

The $2 billion in unding over a decadestime was a signifcantly higher investmentin preservation than had been made in NewJersey up until that pointproviding moreunding or land preservation eorts thanin the previous our decades combined.94The program had a goal o preserving 1million acres o open space across NewJersey and the programs aggressive und-ing allowed the state to preserve twicethe number o acres lost, on average, todevelopment each year. However, due torising land prices, the program has allenwell short o its million-acre goal, protect-ing approximately 300,000 acres o openspace throughout New Jersey, with another

100,000 acres expected to be protected bythe end o the program. 95

The trusts main prior it ies are thepurchase o land or state and local parks,and the preservation o wildlie areas,watersheds and orests. The program alsouses conservation easements to preserveexisting armland. Potential purchases areevaluated based on the risk o loss, envi-ronmental criteria, and the possibility orcommunity use.

Nearly a decade ater the creation o the

Garden State Preservation Trust, the utureo the states preservation unding eortsis in doubt. The $2 billion in unding hasbeen spent, and beyond fscal year 2009,the $98 million in constitutionally dedi-cated revenue can only be used to pay othe bonds already issued or the program.96

The debate over long-term unding or theprogram became a lightning rod in themidst o New Jerseys recent fscal cr isis,leaving preservation advocates scramblingto put a short-term unding measure on thestatewide ballot in November 2007. The

measure creates $200 million in undingor fscal year 2009 (July 2008-June 2009).Unlike the previous bonds, the new bondsare secured by the states general revenuerather than by a specifc tax.

Confrming the strong public supportor land preservation in New Jersey, votersapproved the $200 million conservationbond on the November 2007 ballotevenas voters were rejecting another high-profle bond initiative to und stem-cellresearch. Adoption o the bond issue camenot a moment too soon, as the state begandecreasing unding levels in FY07 and thenagain in FY08, as unds rom the 1998 bondact ran low. In act, in FY08, only $159.8million was appropriated, $66.8 millionless than the average annual appropriationsince FY2000 o $226.7 million. Thereore,stop gap unding meant or FY09 will allbe appropriated in early 2009, well beorethe end o the fscal year, as the state makesan eort to catch up with the backlog o

requests let over rom FY08. With chanceso renewal o long term unding unlikelyuntil all o 2009 at the earliest, New Jerseysonce prominent Garden State PreservationTrust Fund will likely be depleted o undsor an estimated year and a hal, rom Janu-ary 2009, when stop gap unds will likely allbe appropriated, through July 2010, the starto the next fscal year.

To restore New Jerseys historic legacyas a leader on open space preservation, NewJerseys leaders must develop a new, long-

term unding mechanism or open spacepreservation as soon as possible. State envi-ronmental and conservation advocates havecalled on the Governor and the legislatureto pass a small societal benefts charge onwater users this all to head o a undinggap on the horizon.


34/59


North CarolinaA Variety of Approaches to Achieving an Ambitious GoalNorth Carolina has set an ambitious goal o protecting 1 million acres o natural land over a

decades time. While the state is thus ar alling short o achieving that goal due to inconsistent

unding, North Carolina has protected large amounts o vulnerable land through a mix o state

purchases, state grants to local governments and land trusts, and vigorous local land preservation

eorts. The Legislature did provide a signicant boost to preservation unding in 2007, and,

with continued unding at that level, North Carolina may yet achieve its million-acre target.

North Carolina takes pride in its beauti-ul natural areas, rom orested moun-tains to the wetlands and beaches o the

Atlantic coast. In the west, Great SmokyMountains National Park is the most vis-ited national park in the country, renownedor its diversity o plant and animal lie andthe remnants o Southern Appalachian cul-ture ound among its ancient mountains. Inthe east is Serenity Point at the southern

The Great Smoky Mountains Credit: Ariel Bravy, under license to Shutterstock.com

tip o Topsail Island, home to some o themost beautiul wild beaches in the stateand myriad orms o wildlie, including the

Loggerhead Sea Turtle.Over the last 20 years, North Carolinaspopulation has grown by 40 percent, andthe next two decades are projected to bringanother 30 percent increase in population.Unortunately, the amount o developedland per person has been increasing as


35/59


wellover the same 20-year period, theamount o developed land in North Caroli-na increased by 65 percent. This sprawlingdevelopment has put increasing pressure onthe states most treasured natural lands, andthat pressure is expected to only intensiy:

North Carolina is projected to lose another2 million acres o open space in the next20 years.97

But North Carolinians dont take theirnatural beauty or granted. Sensing thechallenges posed by rapid growth, in 2000the North Carolina General Assemblyset a goal o preserving 1 million acres oorests, armlands and open spaces by theend o 2009. The job o unding that ambi-tious conservation agenda is entrusted toour separate trust unds that make grantsto local conservancies, cities, non-proftsand state agencies to protect land in NorthCarolina.

The Clean Water Management TrustFund (CWMTF) ocuses on preserv-ing riparian buers, which are criticalto maintaining clean and abundantwater supplies. By law, the trust undis fnanced with $100 million indirect appropriations annually romthe General Assembly. However, it is

periodically underunded: in 2006,CWMTF was appropriated just $62million. CWMTF is the programresponsible or protecting the mostacreage in North Carolina to date.Since its creation in 1996, the CleanWater Management Trust Fund hasawarded more than $711 million andprotected over 391,000 acres, includ-ing 4,277 miles o riparian buer.98

The Natural Heritage Trust Fund

preserves historic and cultural heri-tage sites by granting state agenciesthe much-needed unds to acquireimportant properties. Since 1988, theund has awarded more than $194 mil-lion to help protect over 251,000 acreso land.99

The Parks and Recreation TrustFund makes grants to local and stateparks or land acquisition and acilityrestoration. It receives approximately$40 million each year through a por-tion o the states real estate transer

tax. In its frst 10 years, the und spent$93 million to acquire nearly 30,000acres.100

The Agricultural Development andFarmland Preservation Trust Fundworks to protect North Carolinasamily arms through conservationeasements, agreements to keep landin agricultural use, and the promo-tion o sustainable development andagricultural practices. Since it started

acquiring conservation easements in1998, the und has used $2.65 millionto preserve 4,700 acres o land on 33arms.101

The our trust unds are supported by amix o revenue sources including generalappropriations, the states real estate trans-er tax and bonds. Moreover, each dollarspent by these our trust unds leveragesan additional $1.30 rom state, local andederal programs, enabling the trust undsto preserve even more land or every statedollar invested.102

In addition to the statewide unds, localbond measures are helping the state in itseorts to reach the million-acre goal anddemonstrate the popularity o investingin open space: between 2000 and 2004,13 o 14 local reerenda or such measurespassed with an average o 64 percent othe vote.103 In October 2007, or example,Raleigh voters supported an $86.6 millionbond or park and recreation projects such

as greenways and park expansion with 71percent approval.But while support or land preservation

in North Carolina has resulted in consis-tent unding or the states largest landconservation eorts, unding has thus arallen short o what is needed to achieve


36/59


the million-acre goal. Between 1999 andthe end o 2005, just over 400,000 acreso land had been preserved, alling shorto the pace necessary to meet the million-acre target.104 As o 2005, the Clean WaterManagement Trust Fund had only enough

money to und one out o every eight grantrequests it received.105 In 2004 alone, theund allocated $62 million in appropria-tionsbut received $350 million in grantrequests.106

In 2007, the North Carolina Legislatureincreased unding or land preservation

projects in the state, targeting $128 mil-lion to the Natural Heritage Trust Fund,the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, theAgricultural Development and FarmlandPreservation Trust Fund, and public beachaccess projects.107 The investment, while

short o the unding level requested bypreservation advocates, was a signifcantincrease over recent appropriations. Bycontinuing to und preservation programsat the new, higher level, North Carolinamay invest enough resources to meet themillion-acre goal.


37/59


OregonProtecting Natural Landthrough Planning

and PurchasesOregon has used a combination o aggressive

land-use planning and purchases o vulner-

able and important natural lands to preserve

its unique character. Oregons primary means

o unding land preservation is through a

dedicated share o state lottery revenue. In

the Portland region, which includes one o

every three Oregonians, residents have also

supported two bond initiatives that have

unded protection o critical natural areas.

economic development; and set aside orestand armlands or preservation.

Oregons land-use measures have helpedcontain sprawling development and pre-

vent the loss o armland and orest land.According to Oregons latest progressreport:

More than 99 percent o armlandoutside o urban growth boundar-ies zoned or exclusive arm use in1987 retains that zoning.108 Similarly,more than 99 percent o land zoned in1987 or orest or mixed orest/armuse remains zoned or those uses.109Rates o armland loss are signifcantly

higher across the United States thanin Oregon.110

More than 97 percent o orestlandsthat existed in Oregon in 1974 remainopen or watershed management,wildlie habitat, recreation, and otherorest values.111

From the rugged orests on the Oregoncoast to the rolling hills and vineyards othe Willamette Valley, and on to the alpinelakes o the Wallowa Mountains, Oregon is

a state defned by awe-inspiring landscapes.For decades, Oregonians have kept it thatwaythrough smart land use planning toprotect open spaces, arms, and orests, andinvestments in natural places.

Oregons primary means o protectingnatural lands rom encroaching develop-ment is its longstanding land-use planningprogram.

Concerned about what then-GovernorTom McCall called sagebrush subdivi-sions [and] coastal condo mania, the

Oregon Legislature created a system ocomprehensive planning in 1973. Thesystem requires cities, counties and thestate to cooperate in creating master plans.These plans set bou ndaries or urbangrowth; designated lands within the urbanboundary or residential, recreational and

Oregons Mount HoodCredit: Jeanne Hatch, under license to Shutterstock.com


38/59


While land-use planning has playedan important role in protecting naturallands, Oregon has also invested signifcantamounts o public unds in protecting par-ticularly important or vulnerable pieces oland, as well as in expanding recreational

opportunities or Oregonians.In 1998, Oregon voters approved a ballot

measure that set aside 15 percent o all lot-tery revenues or restoring salmon habitatand supporting state parks. In fscal year2007, the lottery generated $45 millionor the Oregon State Park system and $45million or salmon habitat restoration andwatershed protection projects.112

Lottery unding enabled the stateto open its frst new state park in threedecades. In June 2007, Oregon ofcialsdedicated Stub Steward Memorial StatePark, a 1,600-acre park located 30 mileswest o Portland on land ormerly ownedby a timber company.113 The park is situ-ated next to a hiking trail that has beenbuilt on a ormer timber company railroadbed, which was also acquired with lotteryproceeds.

Lottery unding also enabled the OregonWatershed Enhancement Board (OWEB)to purchase a conservation easement on

the Klamath Valley Ranch, an 11,400-acreproperty surrounded by south-central Or-egons Fremont National Forest. The ranchhosts nine miles o streams, eight tributarycreeks, a lake and grassy wetlands. Theranch is home to more than 185 species obirds, fsh and mammals, including baldeagles and red-band trout. OWEB urtherteamed up with the Trust or Public Land,the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation

Service, the National Fish and WildlieFoundation, and the landowners to preventsubdivision o the ranch.114

On a smaller scale, Oregon also operatesprograms or habitat acquisition (includingthe State Wildlie Fund and the Non-

Game Wildlie Fund) using revenue romthe sale o upland bird stamps (which arerequired or hunters), along with donationsand grants to the program, and some gen-eral revenue.115

In addition to these statewide programs,Portland Metro (the regional governmentor the Portland metropolitan area, whichrepresents more than one out o every threeOregonians) has also supported land acqui-sition eorts through measures approvedvia public reerendum. In 1995, Portlandmetropolitan voters approved a $135.6million bond measure, which resulted inthe protection o more than 8,000 acreso open space and 74 miles o river andstream rontage, while also supportingnumerous local parks projects.116 Portlandmetropolitan area voters approved a $227million bond measure in 2006 to pick upwhere the earlier program let o. Thenew Natural Areas, Parks and Trails bondmeasure will protect an estimated 3,500 to

4,500 acres o natural land in 27 specifcallydesignated areas.117

The desire to preserve arms, orests andother natural areas has been a driving orcein Oregons public policy or more thanthree decades. By adding public investmentin open space acquisition to the states suc-cessul land-use planning eorts, Oregonis succeeding in preserving many naturalareas or generations to come.


39/59


Rhode IslandWinning the End Game for PreservationRhode Island unds its open space acquisition programs through periodic bond issues, which

are approved by the Legislature, the governor and Rhode Island voters approximately every

two to our years. Rhode Island has succeeded in using state unding to leverage additional

preservation unding rom local governments, the ederal government, oundations and others.

But unding or preservation has not been sucient to keep up with accelerating sprawl.

In national land conservation circles,Rhode Island and New Jersey arecalled end game states, according to ScottWol, executive director o Grow SmartRhode Island, quoted in the Providence

Journal.118 These northeastern states areapproaching build-outthe point wherethere will be no more natural land availableor development.

Rhode Islands state o near-completedevelopment has added urgency to thestates eorts to preserve its remaining

The coast o Newport, Rhode Island Credit: Mary Terriberry, under license to Shutterstock.com

pristine and ecologically valuable lands.Since individuals and amilies own 60percent o Rhode Islands orest land,conservation unding is an essential toolthat is needed to preserve critical natural

areas.119

Rhode Island procures unding orconservation eorts through open spacebonds that are included in the state bud-get, typically every two to our years. Thebonds must be approved by the Legislatureas part o the budget process. Once passed,


40/59


the bond measures must be approved by thegovernor, and then signed o by RhodeIsland voters on a statewide ballot. I ap-proved, the state then appropriates unds inuture years to repay the debt over time.

Voters endorsed the last bond issue in

2004 with 71 percent support. It generated$70 million or conservation, including $53million or programs to protect naturalareas, arms, shorelines, and water supplies;plus $18 million or playgrounds, parks,trails and greenways.120

The state supplements bond undingwith ederal dol lars , matching grantsrom oundations, and bonds issued bylocal governments with the approval olocal voters. As a result, the state typicallyleverages about $3 o additional money orevery dollar o state bond unding thatsmade available.121

Funding goes toward our state-runprograms:

The State Land Acquisition Programand Forest Legacy Program acquireproperty or outdoor recreation andecological preservation.

The Local Grants Program awardsunding to local governments ornon-proft organizations or landconservation or recreation purposes.

The Agricultural Land PreservationProgram purchases armlanddevelopment rights, ensuring that

agriculture will remain a part oRhode Islands uture.

Since 1985, Rhode Island has protectedapproximately 29,000 acres o land throughdirect purchase, establishment o conserva-tion easements, or purchase o developmentrights.122

Rhode Islands approach to preservationhas several distinct strengths and weak-nesses.

First, preservation dollars are not vul-nerable to diversion or other purposes.Once voters approve an open space bondmeasure, the money is dedicated to pres-ervation. Second, Rhode Island has skill-ully stretched its conservation dollars byworking with non-proft organizations,

local governments, private oundationsand the ederal government as additionalunding sources.

However, the act that Rhode Islanddoes not provide a dedicated, permanentsource o unding or its open space pro-grams is a major weakness. Open spacepreservation must compete against all othe other priorities in any given bond cycle.The short (2-4 year) unding cycle orRhode Islands open space bonds providesless stability in unding than states that

und preservation programs on 5-10 yearcycles. Moreover, Rhode Islands undingor land preservation has ailed to keep upwith the accelerating pace o sprawl in theOcean State.


41/59


TexasLack of Commitment Hampers Preservation EffortsTexas has historically done little to ensure permanent protection or threatened natural lands.

Funding or state land purchases, grants or the development o local parks, and the purchase

o conservation easements has been minimal, and dedicated sources o revenue intended

to support parks and wildlie have continually been threatened. However, Texas policy-makers

have recently discussed measures to increase unding or critical investments in land preserva-

tion and recreation in the state.

San Antonio, Americas seventh largestcity, is rapidly sprawling to the northand west. Wide-open lands where cattle

once grazed are now paved with endlessmiles o roads, lined with tract housing,and dotted with malls and big-box shop-ping centers.123

San Antonios sprawl is encroaching onits sole source o waterthe recharge zoneor the Edwards Aquier. Development is

An old Texas arm Credit: Jim Parkin, under license to Shutterstock.com

interering with water supply by divert-ing rainall into surace runo and awayrom the aquierwhile at the same time

increasing the amount o oil, ertilizer andother pollution reaching the undergroundwater supply.124

To protect an important area o theaquier recharge zone, the Texas Parksand Wildlie Departmentwith assis-tance rom the non-proft Trust or Public


42/59


Landestablished the Government Can-yon State Natural Area, an 8,000-acrepreserve located 20 minutes outside o thecity.125 In addition to protecting part o SanAntonios water supply, the area providesland or public recreation and habitat or

two ederally endangered bird species.126Government Canyon is an example o

the development pressures acing manyimportant natural areas in Texas, and othe potential or preservation eorts toprotect those areas. However, GovernmentCanyon is an exception to Texas lack ocommitment to land preservation.

Texas lack o publicly owned landdates back to beore its inclusion in theUnited States. During the 19 th century,the Republic o Texas sold the vast major-ity o its public lands to private interests inorder to fnance its government. Today, 94percent o Texas is privately ownedaroutranking every other state in privateland ownership. Only 2 percent o Texasland area is both owned by and accessibleto the public.127

State unding or conservation eorts ismeager, leaving most o the responsibilityor land conservation to private landown-ers, the ederal government, local govern-

ments and non-proft organizations.128

The Texas Parks and Wildlie Depart-ment (TPW) is one o the primary stateagencies involved in land conservationeorts. However, Texas underunds TPWto the point where the agency struggles tooperate and maintain existing parks andconservation programs, much less expandits holdings.

Since 1993, Texas has unded TPWthrough a tax on sporting goods. Althoughthis tax produces on the order o $100

million in revenues per year, legislatorscapped the unding or TPW at $32 mil-lion per yearunadjusted or ination.129Moreover, this unding is not secure. In2005, legislators appropriated only $15.5million or TPW. As a result, the depart-ment laid o many o its sta, indefnitely

delayed major repairs to park acilities, andcompletely closed some parks and camp-grounds. Texas spends less on operatingand maintaining state parks, per capita,than all but one other state in the coun-try.130 In 2006, TPW was operating with

a maintenance and repair backlog o morethan $450 million.131

Texas occasionally seeks voter approvalo bond measures to provide supplementaryunding or preservation and recreationalprograms. For example, voters approved$101 million or repairs in the park systemin 2001. In 2007, voters approved a bondmeasure that included $27 million in bondsor state park repairs. Even this unding,however, is not guaranteed. Legislatorsmust still appropriate money or the debtservice on bonds through the biennialbudget process and, in that way, can reduceor eliminate bond unding or a particularyeareven ater the unding has been ap-proved by voters.

To supplement the work o TPW, theTexas Legislature established the TexasFarm and Ranch Lands Conservation Pro-gram in 2005. The program enables Texasto purchase conservation easements romwilling landowners in order to prevent the

development o rural lands with outstand-ing ecological or cultural value. However,the Legislature has not appropriated und-ing or this program to date.

Funding shortalls at TPW aect theability o local governments to protectopen space as well. Historically, TPW hasdevoted just over one-third o its revenuesrom the sporting goods tax to providegrants to local governments or the ac-quisition and development o local parkacilities.132 However, since 1993, TPW

has had to reject more than 60 percent oapplications (or a total o $185 million inununded requests), because o a lack ounding.133

Despite the states history o preserva-tion unding shortalls, Texans remainbroadly supportive o land preservation


43/59


eorts, with more than three-quarterso Texans supporting increased undingor parks and open space preservation.134Reecting this popular support, decision-makers are beginning to engage in discus-sions regarding ways the state can improve

its preservation eorts.In 2007, the Legislature considered a

proposal to remove the cap on the sport-ing goods tax and allow all o the revenuesto go to the state park system. While theLegislature did triple unding or the parksor the 2008 iscal year (using generalrevenue), they chose to merely study theconcept o liting the cap on the sportinggoods tax in 2008.

In 2005, TPW published a comprehen-sive plan to guide its uture operation.135Meeting the goals laid out in the report

would require the acquisition o nearly 2million acres o open space by 2030 anddoubling the acreage o private land underwi ldl ie management plans.136 Achiev-ing this goal would require a substantialincrease in unding. The TPW compre-

hensive plan emphasizes the importanceo alternative unding sourcesincludingprivate donations, corporate partnerships,oundation grants, and other private mar-ket solutions.137 But without a substantialpublic investment in land preservationaninvestment that has historically been lack-ing in the Lone Star Stateit will be dif-cult or Texas to meet its burgeoning needsor the preservation o important naturalareas and the provision o recreational op-portunities to its residents.


44/59


WashingtonConsistent Capital Funding for Open Space Preservation

Washington State provides unding or its primary land preservation grant program through

biennial bond issues. While unding levels have fuctuated over time, the state has approved

preservation bonds every two years since 1990. Washington undertakes a rigorous process or

evaluating the projects that receive state unding and both the governor and Legislature are

presented with a specic slate o preservation projects to approve and und.

Just 30 miles north o Spokane, Wash-ington, lie 940 pristine acres o criticalriparian habitat along the West BranchLittle Spokane River. Visitors to the area

fnd remarkably diverse habitats includingstreams, emergent wetlands, lakes, beaverponds, cottonwood galleries, aspen grovesand mixed conierous orests. Moose, elk,black bears, and cougars thrive in the area.138

Th is year, thank s to the Washing-ton Wildlie and Recreation Program

Olympic National Park, Washington Credit: Natalia Bratslavsky, under license to Shutterstock.com

(WWRP), the states primary open-spacepreservation program, the natural wonderso the area will be protected. The WWRPgranted over $3.6 million to the states De-

partment o Fish and Wildlie to preserve940 acres around the waterway. The acqui-sition was part o a program that will spend$100 million over the next two years toprotect the most valuable wildlie habitat,outdoor recreation areas, and armland inthe state rom development. The budget,


45/59

Funding for Land Preservation: 15 C

Documents

Preserving Americas Natural Heritage vFall 08