Agricultural Preservation Precedent Studies

Prepared for the Jordan Area Visioning Alliance (JAVA)

by Greg Schweser

Community Growth Options (U-CGO) University of Minnesota

January 2009

This project was supported by a grant from the Community Growth Options (U-CGO) program, a joint project of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) and the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, with funding from the McKnight Foundation. The content of this report is the responsibility of the author and is not necessarily endorsed by U-CGO, CURA, the Humphrey Institute, the University of Minnesota, or the McKnight Foundation. Visit U- CGO online at www.cura.umn.edu/cgo.php

© 2009 by The Regents of the University of Minnesota. This publication may be reproduced in its entirety (except photographs or other materials reprinted herein with permission from other sources) in print or electronic form, for noncommercial educational, government, or nonprofit use.

For information regarding commercial reprints or reproduction of portions of this publication, contact the CURA editor at the address below.

Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) University of Minnesota 330 HHH Center 301—19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

Phone: (612) 625-1551 Fax: (612) 626-0273 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.cura.umn.edu

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 5

How Metropolitan Growth Affects Farming ...... 5 The Plight of the Small Family Farm ...... 6 Farm Policy ...... 7 Farmland Protection Strategies ...... 8 Precedent Studies ...... 9

Town of Dunn (Dane County), Wisconsin...... 11

Development Patterns ...... 11 Agricultural Facts ...... 12 Agricultural Infrastructure ...... 14 Agricultural Taxation ...... 14 Infrastructure ...... 15 Purchase of Development Rights Program...... 17 How the Program Works ...... 18 Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA)...... 19 Conclusion ...... 19

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania ...... 21

Development Patterns ...... 21 Infrastructure ...... 24 Agricultural Facts ...... 24 Agricultural Infrastructure ...... 25 Use Value Taxation ...... 26 Agricultural Protection Programs ...... 26 Growth Boundaries...... 26 Agricultural Zoning...... 26 Purchase and Transfer of Development Rights ...... 27 Conclusion ...... 29

Montgomery County, Maryland ...... 31

Development Patterns ...... 31 Agricultural Facts ...... 31 Agricultural Infrastructure ...... 35 Agricultural Taxation ...... 36 Infrastructure ...... 36 Agricultural Preservation...... 37 How It Works ...... 38 Other Farmland Protection Tools ...... 38 Current Issues with TDR...... 39 Conclusion ...... 40

Puget Sound Region, Washington...... 41

Development Patterns ...... 42 Agricultural Facts ...... 45

Agricultural Infrastructure ...... 50 Agricultural Taxation ...... 50 Infrastructure ...... 51 Local Food Networks ...... 51 From the Heart of Washington ...... 51 Cascade Harvest Coalition ...... 51 Northwest Agricultural Business Center ...... 52 Growing Washington...... 54 Conclusion ...... 54

Woodbury County, Iowa ...... 57

Development Patterns ...... 57 Agricultural Facts ...... 57 Agricultural Infrastructure ...... 61 Agricultural Taxation ...... 61 Infrastructure ...... 61 Local Agriculture Policies ...... 61 Conclusion ...... 64

Conclusion ...... 65

Next Steps...... 66

Bibliography ...... 69

Appendix A: American Farmland Trust Farmland Protection Toolbox Appendix B: Statistical Charts and Graphs Appendix C: Dane County (WI) Population Change, 2000–2004 Appendix D: Town of Dunn Future Land Use Plan Appendix E: Protected Lands, Town of Dunn Appendix F: Eastern Lancaster County Future Land Use Appendix G: Preserved Farms, East Donegal Township, Lancaster County, PA Appendix H: Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board Farmland Ranking System Appendix I: Scott County Long-Term Service Areas and Planning Areas

Introduction

n the past decades, agricultural land has fallen victim to expanding development on the urban fringe. The American Farmland Trust reports that farmland tends to be I desirable for development because it is flat, well drained, and relatively cheap. As a result, farmland and prime farmland loss accelerated 51 percent faster in the 1990s than in the 1980s. Between 1992 and 1997, more than six million acres of agricultural land was converted to developed uses (American Farmland Trust, 2007).

Throughout American history, metropolitan areas tended to develop near areas where good farmland was plentiful. Now that our cities are expanding ever further, that resource is diminishing. Approximately 16 percent of the nation’s prime farmland is located on the metropolitan fringe, producing about a quarter of the nation’s food (Daniels, 1999). Furthermore, counties adjacent to metropolitan counties contain another fifth of the nation’s prime farmland, producing one-third of the nation’s total farm output (Daniels, 1999).

The nation as a whole is not in danger of running out of farmland any time soon. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (2003) reported that in 2003, there were almost 368 million acres of cropland—a decrease of 13 million acres or 3.4 percent from 1992. At this rate, it would take almost 300 years to deplete our cropland supply. However, the farmland lost to urban development may disproportionately affect prime and “unique” farmland or areas that grow specialty crops and dairy products (Gillham, 2002). Many of the areas producing specialty crops—including 80 percent of the nation’s fruits, about 70 percent of the nation’s vegetables, and more than 50 percent of the nation’s dairy products—are near expanding urbanized areas (Gillham, 2002). Loss of farmland not only affects prime agricultural land, it also diminishes scenic open space that is often prized by urban and rural residents alike.

How Metropolitan Growth Affects Farming

As development spreads into agricultural areas, the difficulty of sustaining farming as a viable business venture increases. Heimlich and Anderson (2001) highlight several of the negative impacts on farming from urbanization:

• complaints from suburban neighbors about farm odors and chemical sprayings • conflicts between growers and new suburban neighbors over early morning noise • increased traffic, hindering farmers’ ability to move equipment along rural routes used as commuter roads • increased real estate taxes as land prices rise to reflect the potential for non-farm development • increased pressure on farmers from water and land-use restrictions • deteriorating crop yields from urban smog, theft, and vandalism

Although most states have implemented so-called right to farm laws to protect farmers from nuisance complaints related to standard farming practices, the laws vary from state to state and may not always protect farmers from the continued stress and conflicts that arise. Some states, for example, do not protect a farmer from nuisance suits that stem from a change in operation such as switching from raising crops to livestock (Daniels, 1999). Additionally, right to farm laws may not run with the land and could be repealed if

5 agricultural land is sold or rezoned (Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, 2005).

Increasing land values and land speculation can also affect the long-term prospects of farming on the metropolitan fringe. The impermanence syndrome explains how higher land values affect long-term business decisions farmers make regarding farm investments. As land values increase, long-term investments in new machinery, technology, infrastructure, and land decrease as farmers assume they will not remain in farming in the long term (Lopes, Adelaja, and Andrews, 1988). Additionally, farmers may be aware of their increasing land values and may actively curtail farming operations as they seek developers to purchase their land.

As development accelerates in areas where there is a relative lack of infrastructure, tax rates may increase to pay for needed services such as roads, sewers, and schools. This may pose a significant burden on farmers, as special assessments are often levied based on the amount of land owned rather than the basis of how much a landowner uses the services (Berry, 1978). Preferential assessment or use value assessments that levy taxes based on the agricultural value of land rather than the land market value may enable farmers to pay less property tax than they would otherwise, but if property tax rates increase to meet demand for new services, farmers would still be subjected to increased taxes. As farmers often own many acres of land, even small incremental tax increases could have a crippling effect on a farmer’s bottom line.

Farmers may face additional pressures as county or municipal zoning changes affect the eligibility of lands enrolled in agricultural protection programs. In the Twin Cities metropolitan area, for example, lands enrolled in the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserve Program receive property tax credits and protections from restrictive ordinances or regulations by agreeing to limit the land’s use to agriculture (Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2007). The intent of this law is to grant a sense of security to farmers that they will be able to continue farming their land without interference from urban pressures. Changes in zoning in response to regular comprehensive plan updates, however, can abruptly make farmers ineligible for such benefits and protections, thereby immediately increasing the costs and risks associated with farming metropolitan land (State of Minnesota, 2008).

As forces combine to diminish agriculture in a given area, the necessary agricultural infrastructure is also likely to decrease. Farm supply stores that provide grain, fertilizers, and equipment are likely to react to changing market demand and close or relocate to areas that are closer to their customer base, causing straggling farmers to travel further distances to obtain needed supplies. Roads that farmers utilize are widened to accommodate increased populations, making them more difficult or hazardous for agricultural vehicles. Grain silos or processing plants may close down or relocate. These changes in infrastructure compound to make farming more costly and difficult to sustain.

The Plight of the Small Family Farm

The increased costs and uncertainties related to urban expansion create yet more stress on small family farmers. During the past several decades, family farms have struggled in the wake of the green revolution as the application of industrialism to farming has transformed agriculture. Although advances in machinery, plant and animal genetics, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides have greatly increased crop yields, large economies of scale are required for an operation to efficiently utilize those technologies (Daniels and

Bowers, 1997). Furthermore, increased productivity has pushed down commodity prices significantly over time, making it harder for small farmers to sustain themselves without adopting new technology and increasing the amount of land they farm (Ikerd, 2002). Although low commodity prices are often made up through federal subsidy programs, small farms are at a disadvantage relative to larger farms as subsidies are based on crop volumes, fallow land, or amount of milk produced (Daniels and Bowers, 1997). To keep up, small farmers would have to take on increased risk and debt. As smaller farms fail, their land is often taken over by larger operations seeking to increase their economies of scale.

Although low commodity and livestock prices pose inordinate challenges for small farmers, proximity to metropolitan areas may provide some—perhaps unforeseen— advantages for the small farmer, including access to larger pools of labor, greater access to employment opportunities for off-farm employment, access to specialized markets, and increased marketing opportunities like farmers markets (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). Although large farms must grow monocultures to effectively take advantage of economies of scale, smaller farms may be more able to plant specialized and diverse crops for local markets. When analyzing output (dollar value per acre) rather than yields (bushels per acre), Rosset (1999) found an inverse relationship between farm size and output per acre, with small farms in the United States of 27 acres or less producing more than ten times the dollar amount per acre than large farms. This is attributed to specialization of high-value crops like flowers and vegetables.

Farm Policy

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 is the most recent farm bill. This bill replaced the 2002 farm bill and encompasses a wide variety of issues from commodity price and income support to food stamps. The overall cost of the new bill is expected to exceed $289 billion. Broken down by provisions, nutrition receives the greatest funding ($188.9 billion), followed by commodities ($41.6 billion), conservation ($24.1 billion), crop insurance ($21.9 billion), other provisions ($8.7 billion), and disaster assistance ($3.8 billion) (American Farmland Trust, 2008). According to an article by David Herszenhorn in the May 20, 2008 edition of the New York Times, critics decry the taxpayer subsidies given to wealthy owners of farmland. The bill sets a limit of $750,000 in farm income and $500,000 in non-farm income for subsidy payment eligibility. Another $5 billion per year of additional direct payments are disbursed based on acreage, regardless of market conditions.

Despite these shortcomings, there are several provisions that supporters claim are substantial improvements. Herszenhorn notes that aid for fruit and vegetable growers has been included for the first time, as well as subsidies for ethanol made from prairie grass and other plant matter. The American Farmland Trust (2008) praises, among other provisions, the support for specialty crops and local agriculture. New programs will seek to promote farmers markets, allow schools to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables from local farmers, enable local prioritized financing for locally produced agricultural products, and lift barriers on interstate shipments of state-inspected meat.

Organic growers will also find support in sections of the new farm bill. There will be an organic certification cost-share program that reimburses farmers up to 75 percent, with a maximum payment of $750 for organic certification. In addition to assisting with certification, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program will provide up to $20,000 per year over six years for financial and technical support for organic conversion (Organic Farmers Action Network, 2008).

In short, although subsidy payments to large farms will continue under the new farm bill, some avenues have opened up to create opportunities for smaller farmers. Specialty farms—which may be well-suited for metropolitan farming—have made inroads with the 2008 farm bill. Because a new farm bill is crafted about every five years, there may be an opportunity for small farms to strengthen their position in the future.

Farmland Protection Strategies

The Farmland Information Center and the American Farmland Trust (2008) published “The Farmland Protection Toolbox Fact Sheet” (see Appendix A), which reviews several different farmland protection methods. A brief, selective summary of agricultural protection methods included in this publication follows.

• Agricultural Districts—Agricultural district programs allow farmers to form special areas where agriculture is encouraged and protected. In exchange for enrollment in these programs, farmers receive special benefits. Such benefits could include protection from eminent domain, limits on infrastructure construction, eligibility for conservation easement programs, differential assessment, or right of first refusal (i.e. when a local agency has the right to match a developer’s offer on agricultural land).

• Agricultural Protection Zoning—Generally, agricultural zoning is intended to prevent non-farm development in areas designated for agriculture. This is often achieved through large-lot minimum zoning of residential development of between 1 unit per 20 acres in the eastern United States to 1 unit per 640 acres in the west. Agricultural protection zoning can be used to conserve a critical mass of farmland needed to prevent fragmentation. Zoning designations, however, are not permanent. Successful petitions to “upzone” land for development can result in farmland conversion.

• Cluster Zoning—Cluster zoning groups developable parcels on small adjacent lots, preserving the remaining area as open space. A 40-acre parcel, for example, could be clustered into eight adjacent 1-acre parcels, creating one 32-acre open space parcel. Conversely, a typical subdivision might simply divide the same 40-acre parcel into eight 5 acre parcels. Cluster zoning is often used to preserve open space, but is less likely to preserve viable agriculture because protected spaces may be too small or on fragmented lands less suitable for farming. Cluster developments could also create conflicts by placing residential units in close proximity to agricultural operations.

• Growth Management Laws—Growth management laws are intended to control the timing and phasing of urban growth. One of the tools used to achieve this is the urban growth boundary (UGB). Strict urban growth boundaries delineate lines around an urban area, inside of which infrastructure and development will be allowed. Outside of growth boundaries, urban development is strictly discouraged or not allowed. Oregon has utilized UGBs since 1972, and the state of Washington began implementing similar boundaries in the 1990s. Such programs may be effective, but can also be politically volatile as they often face intense opposition from property rights groups.

• Right to Farm Laws—These laws are intended to promote the viability of farming by reducing the ability of non-farm neighbors from bringing nuisance complaints

against farmers. Each state has its own right to farm law that grants different protections to existing farmers. Such protections could range from the ability to continue using generally accepted agricultural production methods to requiring notice on deeds within agricultural areas that new owners may be subject to noise, dust, odors, and other inconveniences due to farming and ranching operations. Although such laws might provide some protection to existing farmers, they may not be effective in preserving an agricultural land base.

• Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)—A PDR program (also known as a purchase of conservation easement program, or PACE) enables farmers to sell their rights to develop their property to a government agency or a private conservation organization or land trust. After such a sale, a restriction is placed on the deed to the land. Ownership of the land remains with the original landowner and the land can continue to be farmed. The purchasing agency or organization usually pays the difference between the value of the land for agriculture and the market value. Farmers might use this additional income to increase the vitality of their farm by, for example, reinvesting in the farm operation, paying off loans, or purchasing more land to farm. Although development is no longer allowed on the land, farmland with a conservation easement retains its value for agriculture. Such land is more affordable for subsequent farmers as the cost of development potential has been removed (Daniels, 2004).

• Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)—TDR programs enable farmers to transfer the right to develop their land to areas that are more appropriate for development. A local government will designate sending zones (areas where farming will be protected) and receiving zones (areas where growth is encouraged). A farmer who has land in a sending zone can sell development rights to a developer, who can use those rights to build in a receiving zone at a higher density than would normally be allowed. After such a sale, a permanent conservation easement is placed on the deed to the parcels of land that had their development rights transferred. TDRs have been used as compensation for loss of equity caused by the development restrictions created when land is downzoned or placed in an agricultural protection zone. Financing for a TDR program is often provided by developers on the private market, thus removing the fiscal burden from government agencies. Occasionally municipalities will set up TDR banks ‘primed’ with public funds. Development rights in this scenario are purchased and sold to developers at a later date. Proceeds from sales can be used to purchase more development rights for resale. Transfer of development right programs can be very complex and only a few jurisdictions have used them successfully. They must be carefully designed to achieve their goals.

Precedent Studies

Heimlich and Anderson (2001) divide farms into three categories—recreational farms, adaptive farms, and traditional farms—based on sales volumes and degree of high-value product specialization. Adaptive farms (farms that specialize in high-value products and have sales of more than $10,000 or $500 per acre) may be better equipped to withstand the pressures of urbanization and survive on the urban fringe. Recreational farms (farms with sales less than $10,000) and traditional farms (farms that do not fall under the other two categories) near metropolitan areas have not fared as well over time and have gone out of business at much higher rates.

Where adaptive farms are able to thrive, they may be able to benefit metropolitan areas economically, culturally, and socially. Small, specialized farms can provide employment opportunities for laborers as well as spin-off value-added or secondary businesses. Metropolitan farmland also provides scenic open space—a resource often prized in its own right by urban residents. Finally, the presence of farmland contributes to the rural character and sense of connection to the landscape that is often highly valued by residents of suburban or rural areas.

Increased development pressure decreases farmland viability through a variety of factors including increasing rents, taxes, and factors related to land fragmentation and the impermanence syndrome. Additionally, as factory farming has become a dominant means of increasing profit margin, smaller farms are squeezed by low commodity prices. For these reasons, it is logical that sustaining farmland through protection programs should ultimately seek to address these specific concerns. Agricultural protection efforts on the urban fringe may be more successful if they focus both on the ability to preserve land for farming and on economic development efforts that seek to make farming more profitable and thus more sustainable in urban land markets.

The remainder of this report analyzes five different areas or regions in the United States that have used or adopted programs that seek either to increase the economic stability and viability of farming or to permanently remove farmland from the development market. All of the programs analyzed seek to ensure long-term or permanent agricultural preservation and have either served as trailblazers or enjoyed high degrees of successes in their efforts thus far. Context is provided for each case study, including information pertaining to existing agricultural statistics regarding crops and livestock, agricultural market values, selected operational costs, number of farms, and farm sizes.1 Historical data are provided to allow analysis of agricultural trends related to changes in population. Analysis is provided of existing development patterns, preferential assessments, infrastructure, and agricultural infrastructure to provide additional context for understanding these agricultural programs.

1 Throughout this report, agricultural census data is analyzed over a period of fifteen years, from 1987 to 2002. There are some problems with these data. First, 1987 and 1992 data sets were collected by the U.S. Census Department, whereas 1997 and 2002 data were collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These agencies used different data collection and weighting methods, meaning the data from different census years are not entirely comparable. Furthermore, in 2002, the USDA reweighted some of its own previous estimations from 1997, creating two different sets of values for the same figures. In this report, 1987 and 1992 data were collected from the U.S. Census figures, and 1997 and 2002 data were collected from the 2002 USDA figures. As these data are not comparable, trends over time should be viewed as generalizations at best, and should not be interpreted as absolute changes over time. Nonetheless, the results presented here should suffice as general background information pertaining to each case study.

Dunn Township (Dane County), Wisconsin

he Town of Dunn instituted the state of Wisconsin’s first purchase of development rights (PDR) program, which has been effective in staving off encroaching T development on the periphery of the town borders. By using a land evaluation site assessment system and partnering with other conservation organizations, Dunn has established a town growth boundary of sorts by protecting lands on the periphery of the township near areas of expanding growth. Dunn’s accomplishments are particularly noteworthy due to its close proximity—less than 10 miles—to the regional urban center of Madison. Despite increasing regional population and expanding development in neighboring cities and villages, Dunn has managed to maintain its bucolic rural character.

Fast-growing Dane County had a U.S. Census projected population of 476,785 in 2007, up from 367,085 in 1990. The city of Madison is the center of this county and is home to the state capital, several state and federal offices, and the University of Wisconsin. Dane County contains and is surrounded by some of the state’s best agricultural land, ranking second in the state in the value of products sold by farmers (Paulson, 1997).

Development Patterns

Dane County is located in south central Wisconsin and contains the capital city of Madison. In the western portion of the county, the ubiquitous farmlands of the Midwest begin to give way to the hills of the glacial driftless area with its forested and relatively rugged terrain. Although Madison is the largest city in the county, there are also several other smaller cities and villages that could be considered exurban areas under the urban influence of Madison. Four of these cities and villages (McFarland, Oregon, Fitchburg, and Stoughton) lay adjacent to the Town of Dunn and continue to exert growth pressures on the town. Two state highways located within the Town of Dunn connect these places and other areas further south to Madison. Nearby Interstate 90 is located about six miles east of Dunn and intersects Interstate 94, which is located about seven miles to the north.

The number of new parcels created in Dane County increased in townships (30 percent) and decreased in villages (-40 percent), small cities (-38 percent), and in Madison (-18 percent) between 2003 and 2004. If this trend continues, increasing stress will likely be placed on agricultural properties as new development extends into the countryside. Meanwhile, agricultural lands have increased in value, both for continued agricultural production and non-agricultural use. In 2004, 242 new lots were created on 1,588 acres that were rezoned from exclusive agricultural (A-1) (Dane County, Wisconsin, 2005).

The Population Change 2000–2004 map released by Dane County (see Appendix B) indicates that the Town of Dunn has seen an increase in population of between 0 and 50 residents despite its location adjacent to the fast-growing communities of Fitchburg and McFarland.

The Town of Dunn has remained a predominately agricultural township. Although there are areas with small subdivisions within the town, the majority of urban development in the area exists outside of town borders (e.g., the Village of Oregon) or in areas where development exists contiguous to neighboring cities and an existing highway interchange

Clustered development (north of intersection) and preserved agricultural land in the Town of Dunn (e.g., the Village of McFarland). Throughout Dunn, dwelling units are sparse and are spread out as farmsteads or located in clusters around intersections, buffered by trees.

Agricultural Facts

Because agricultural census figures are available on a county level and not at the township level, Dane County figures will be analyzed in comparison to Madison population statistics. According to the US Census Bureau the population of Dane County increased by 47 percent between 1980 and 2007, from 323,545 to 476,785. This population increase occurred as the percentage of land area in farms decreased from 74 percent in 1987 to 67 percent in 2002 (see Table 1). The number of farms, however, remained relatively stable, declining from 2,849 in 1987 to 2,595 in 1997 before climbing back up to 2,887 in 2002. Over that time period, the average farm size decreased from 200 in 1987 to 179 in 2002.

Although the average inflation-adjusted value of farmland increased overall from $1,831 (2002 dollars) per acre in 1987 to $3,264 in 2002, the average property taxes paid per farm actually decreased from $6,583 (2002 dollars) in 1987 to $4,144 in 2002 (see Table 1). Even when not adjusting for inflation, average property taxes paid remained relatively stable over time and actually declined slightly from $4,193 in 1987 to $4,144 in 2002. Between 1992 and 2002, the number of farms in Dane County has increased by more than 200 even though the amount of land farmed decreased by 4 percent.

Between 1992 and 2002, the market value of agricultural products decreased from $344 million (2002 dollars) to $288 million. But average cash rents paid by farmers also

decreased slightly from $15,527 (2002 dollars) to $15,224. As farmers’ revenues declined slightly, so did the operation costs of property taxes and rent.

The greatest farming trends have been the drastic decline in hog and pig inventories and the steady decline of milk cow inventories (see charts and graphs in Appendix C.1). In 1987, there were 88,614 hogs and pigs. By 2002, only 28,243 hogs and pigs were counted in the county. Although this region of the country is noted for its dairy production, the number of farms keeping milk cows decreased from 1,063 in 1987 to 434 in 2002. Milk cow inventories decreased from 65,246 in 1987 to 46,838 in 2002. These trends are perhaps indicative of the unsuitability of these particular operations given their location relative to nearby population centers, and the inherent conflicts that arise as new suburban residents interact with their farm neighbors.

Table 1. Selected Agricultural Statistics for Dane County, Wisconsin

1987 1992 1997 2002 Number of farms 2,849 2,639 2,595 2,887 Land in farms (A) 569,937 538,582 512,971 515,475 Farmland percentage of land area 74% 70% 67% 67% Avg. size of farm (A) 200 204 198 179

Adjusted for Inflation (2002 Dollars) 1987 1992 1997 2002 1987 1992 1997 2002 Estimated market value of land and buildings Avg per farm 232,454 280,434 366,967 580,806 364,953 356,151 411,003 580,806 Avg per acre 1,166 1,367 1,853 3,264 1,831 1,736 2,075 3,264

Market value of agricultural products sold In thousands of dollars ($) 216,456 270,522 295,685 287,637 339,836 343,563 331,167 287,637 Avg per farm 75,976 102,509 93,012 99,632 119,282 130,186 104,173 99,632

Cash rents* Farms* 1,002 1,043 956 800 1,002 1,043 956 800 Avg per farm* 10,114 12,226 13,410 15,224 15,879 15,527 15,019 15,224

Property taxes paid* Farms* 2,600 2,345 2,882 2,734 2,600 2,345 2,882 2,734 Avg per farm* 4,193 4,907 4,244 4,144 6,583 6,232 4,753 4,144

* In 1997 and 2002 the agricultural census was completed by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Previous censuses were completed by the U.S. Census Bureau. To account for non-response bias in the 1997 census, the NASS produced new weighted figures for some categories including 'Cash Rents' and 'Property Taxes Paid. These figures were not weighted for previous years.

Sources: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992; U.S. Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997, 2002

Acreage devoted to corn for grain and hay have decreased steadily from 1992 to 2002 from 170,041 to 158,370 and 142,954 to 78,264 respectively. Meanwhile, soybean acreage

13 increased and overtook hay acreage to become the second most planted crop in the county in 2002 behind corn—increasing to 87,185 acres. Farms producing vegetables also decreased from a high of 254 with a total of 14,942 acres in 1992 to 115 with only 2,508 acres in 2002, despite proximity to a large local market. Urban growth in Dane county could affect livestock production more heavily than crop production. Although crop acreage declined overall across the four census periods, this decrease was far less than the declines in inventories of milk cows, beef cows, hogs, and sheep, with a loss of 5 percent (crops) and 15 percent (livestock) respectively.

Agricultural Infrastructure

Rosalind Gausman is the town clerk and treasurer of Dunn and a dairy farmer. She describes the existing agricultural infrastructure servicing the Town of Dunn and neighboring areas as adequate. Several active farmers—including dairy, hog, and grain farmers—all have local markets to which they ship. Several small dairy plants and co-ops are located in the area in Cottage Grove (10 miles east of Madison) and in Green County (directly south of Dane County). Crystal Farms, located in nearby Lake Mills, is a large processor of dairy and cheese products, as well as potato and egg products. According to the Dunn and Bradstreet Million Dollar Database, Kraft Foods is a major employer in the county, employing up to 3,500 people. The 2006 U.S. Census–County Business Patterns identified three other dairy product manufacturers that employed more than 100 people.

Dane County contains several outlets for local farmers’ products. The U.S. Census reports eight animal slaughtering facilities, four dairy manufacturing facilities, two fruit and vegetable preserving and manufacturing businesses, and four grain and field bean wholesalers. Gausman indicated that there were also some community supported agriculture (CSA) farms and food cooperatives in the area that provide a local market for small produce farmers.

Agricultural Taxation

Wisconsin utilizes use value assessment of agricultural land to protect the state’s farm economy and curb urban sprawl (Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 2008). Assessed value of agricultural land is determined based on the productivity of its use rather than the potential market value that land would bring on the open market for development. Land receives preferential assessment when it is devoted primarily to agricultural use. If they purchase land that has been in agricultural use, developers must pay penalties or charges before they are permitted to develop the land. Farmland is divided into one of three different grades based on soil productivity or grazing land, and a use value per acre is assigned to each category (Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 2008). In the Town of Dunn during the year 2000, grade one cropland was valued at $642 per acre; grade two was valued at $544 per acre; grade three was $394 per acre; and pasture was valued at $159 per acre. Actual estimated market values of land in 2000, however, were likely between the 1997 and 2002 Dane County average values of $1,853 and $3,264 per acre (see Table 1)— or even higher due to Dunn’s proximity to the urban center.

A penalty for land conversion applies when landowners convert their land from agriculture to other uses. This penalty enables the state to recoup the previous year’s differential tax between the assessed use value and the market value as well as a small penalty of between 5 and 10 percent depending on the amount of land converted (Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 2008). Although this policy would seem to discourage

14 conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, several loopholes appear to produce counter-productive results. Land penalties are smaller for larger parcels of land. A developer seeking to convert five acres of farmland, for example, would have to pay a 10 percent penalty, whereas someone converting 40 acres of farmland would only be subject to a 5 percent penalty on top of the assessment differential between use value and market value. Additionally, there is no penalty when agricultural land is no longer farmed and becomes vacant. Converting agricultural land to vacant land is considered a change in use, however, and further changes in use do not affect penalties paid as agricultural land can only be considered converted once (Wisconsin Department of Revenue, 2008). A landowner seeking to avoid penalties, then, could purchase a large tract of farmland and rent it out to keep it in agriculture. One year before developing the land, the landowner could cease farming the land, allow it to become ‘vacant.’ The landowner, not only would be able to develop without paying penalties but would also enjoy greatly diminished holding costs by taking advantage of a greatly reduced tax rate available to agricultural land holders.

Infrastructure

There are a few subdivisions within the township that are identified as limited urban service areas (see Appendix D) (Town of Dunn, 2006). Most of these subdivisions are located around Lake Waubesa and Lake Kegonsa, with one small area landlocked near the center of the township. Limited urban service areas in Dane County provide one or more

Limited urban service area, Town of Dunn urban services in special cases such as areas of existing development experiencing sewage disposal problems (Dane County Department of Planning and Development, n.d.). Majid

Allan (2008) of the Dane County Board of Supervisors indicated that in the case of Dunn, sewer was extended to protect the lake areas and was not intended to promote new development. These subdivisions exist adjacent to farmland but are at least minimally buffered by tree stands. Urban service areas that provide the full level of services— including, but not limited to, sewer, water, fire, police, and solid waste removal—do not extend into the Town of Dunn (Dane County Planning and Development, n.d.).

The Town of Dunn contains one agricultural transition area directly east of McFarland, which is also a potential urban service area established to accommodate future growth of that village toward the interstate. The Village of McFarland and the agricultural transition area are almost entirely surrounded by agricultural protection areas, thus ensuring that village expansion will not continue southward into the heart of Dunn. There are a few small unsewered subdivisions within the township. The larger two abut protected lands. One such subdivision in the central western portion of the township abuts protected land to the north but has some space to grow in other directions.

Agricultural transition area, Town of Dunn

Unsewered subdivision, Town of Dunn

Purchase of Development Rights Program

On April 22, 1997, the Town of Dunn, in conjunction with the Dane County Parks Department and two local land trusts, purchased the development rights to its first farm, protecting 174 acres of agricultural land (Town of Dunn, n.d.). Ten years later, in 2007, the program boasted 2,822.48 acres on 23 farms permanently protected (Town of Dunn, 2007a.). Additional applications for approximately 1,350 acres on 23 more farms are pending (Town of Dunn, n.d.). These lands—combined with other lands protected by various state and private agencies such as Dane County, Town of Dunn Parks, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, American Farmland Trust, and MaHunt—form a formidable green corridor that permanently protects a sizeable portion of the town. A Town of Dunn newsletter from fall 2007 reported that approximately 16 percent of land within the township was protected by PDR. A town map reflecting protected lands shows a similar amount protected by other sources as well (See Appendix E).

Although the Town of Dunn was one of the first in the region to create a planning commission and institute a land use plan with an open space plan and exclusive agricultural zoning (Paulson, 1997), it soon found its farmland threatened by expansion of nearby cities and villages. These annexation worries from fast-growing nearby municipalities created a sense of urgency for the township (Laskin, 2007). In 2003, Dunn performed a Cost of Community Services by Land Use study, which indicated agricultural land and open space fiscally benefited the town by providing more tax revenue than imposed costs, at a ratio of $1 in revenue to $0.18 in costs. The study found that residential uses pose a greater burden on taxpayers, with a revenue-to-cost ratio of $1 to

$1.06 (Town of Dunn, n.d.). After demonstrating the fiscal advantages of agricultural land uses, the town passed a referendum by a vote of 531 to 412 for a property tax increase that raised the mill rate by $.50 per $1000 equalized valuation to create the purchase of development rights program (Town of Dunn, 2007a).

The stated goals of the program are to preserve farmland and support viable farm operations, protect open space and environmentally sensitive areas, maintain a rural quality of life, and protect the town from encroachment by neighboring municipalities (Town of Dunn, n.d.). To these ends, the Town of Dunn created a Land Trust Commission and a Rural Preservation Program that together created the mechanism by which the town could identify potential land for conservation and hold conservation easements. The Land Trust Commission is made up of seven members, including the Chair of the Town of Dunn Planning Commission, a representative of a Dane County nonprofit conservation organization, and people with backgrounds in agriculture, finance, conservation, or planning. This commission identifies interested landowners, conducts public meetings, and recommends the acquisition of specific parcels for conservation to the Dunn Town Board. After hearing the consideration of the commission, the town board is authorized to purchase conservation easements through the expenditures of the Rural Preservation Program (Town of Dunn, n.d.).

Many of the accomplishments of the PDR program have come from partnerships with other organizations. Dunn has been able to secure more than three million dollars in grants from organizations such as the Wisconsin DNR, the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As of late 2007, only 45.3 percent of the costs of purchasing development rights have come from tax dollars (Town of Dunn, 2007a). Another element to the success of Dunn’s PDR program has been the constant outreach to landowners and citizens. Every newsletter published by the township contains an update on the program, highlighting recent news and protected lands. These newsletters are sent to large landholders, and serve both to reinforce the existence of the program and to remind landowners that PDR is a realistic option (Boone County Planning Commission, 2001).

Perhaps most critical to Dunn’s farmland and open space preservation effort was the fact that the town started early and worked tactically. The map of protected lands indicates that large portions of the township’s borders are protected. The town of Fitchburg, by comparison, located directly to the west of Dunn grew from a population of 15,648 in 1990 to an estimated 23,246 in 2007, whereas Dunn actually lost population during the same period, shrinking from 5,274 in 1990 to an estimated 5,148 in 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau).

How the Program Works

The Town of Dunn (n.d.) has published a manual that guides landowners through the step-by-step process of selling development rights. The steps include:

• Learn more about PDR • Complete a pre-application form • Meet with members of the Land Trust Commission to go over specific features of your land • The Land Trust Commission ranks your application using a land evaluation site assessment (LESA) system • Discuss the terms of a potential easement on your property

• A professional appraiser will determine the value of the easement • Negotiate the terms of the sale • Secure approval from mortgage or lien holders • Town prepares a baseline data report of the property • Finalize the sale of the easement

Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA)

To place priority on lands that would better meet conservation goals if protected, the Town of Dunn ranks land on a point-scale based on a variety of weighted criteria. There are five sets of criteria, and subsets of criteria within each of those. Most important is the quality of farmland, followed by degree of development pressure; financial considerations; historic, archeological, scenic, and environmental qualities; and other considerations. The final score is then counterbalanced by assessing the relative development pressure facing the site. Sites lose points the further they are from existing cities and towns. Another example of this ranking system is the LESA ranking system used by the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Agricultural Preserve Board, included in Appendix H.

Conclusion

With the City of Madison located only a couple miles to the north and suburban communities growing on all sides, the Town of Dunn has maintained its rural character of large undeveloped sections of agricultural land. The town has strategically purchased development rights, coordinating with state, local, and private conservation organizations to provide protected buffers adjacent to growth areas prohibiting the extension of existing development.

Local support for farmland preservation was a vital factor contributing to the establishment of a PDR program. As land prices and development pressures have the potential to drive up the costs of development rights, residents have to be willing to collectively pay the price for agricultural protection. The local referendum passed by residents of the Town of Dunn demonstrated that willingness to forbear the fiscal burden of maintaining rural character. Furthermore, support from other local and state agencies demonstrates that agricultural preservation in the Town of Dunn was a common goal that stretched beyond the local town level. Although the Town of Dunn’s PDR program demonstrates the power a small municipality may have to shape its destiny, it also reveals the importance of local and regional support, which are necessary to fund and manage such a program.

Despite past successes, there are still several formidable obstacles to maintaining rural character with PDR. The neighboring cities and villages of Fitchburg, Oregon, McFarland, and Stoughton have growth plans that will affect the Town of Dunn, including a proposed business park, a Wal-Mart, and a new high density neighborhood adjacent to the town (Town of Dunn, 2007b). Other recent state and national projects that would have negatively affected the character of Dunn have failed, including the installation of high voltage power lines, a national Bio and Agro Defense Facility, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation South Beltline project (Laskin, 2007). Town Chair Ed Minihan attributed the abandonment of the power line and beltline projects to the town’s PDR program, claiming that “the easements purchased by that program are very difficult to overturn, even by a private for-profit corporation with governmental powers of condemnation” (Town of Dunn, 2007a., p.1). Despite success, mounting growth pressure

19 is forcing Land Trust Commissioners to reexamine the direction of the PDR program to further protect the town’s rural quality (Town of Dunn, 2007b). Although the program has been successful to this point, the town will need to act proactively to address changing needs and modify the program to continue its mission of preservation.

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

ancaster County is located in southwestern Pennsylvania, about 50 miles west of Philadelphia and 50 miles north of Baltimore. The county’s population has grown by L more than 100,000 people between 1970 and 1990, and is expected to grow by more than 100,000 by the year 2030, from 470,658 in 2000 to 585,489 in 2030 (Lancaster County Planning Commission, 2002). This massive growth pressure facing Lancaster County threatens Pennsylvania’s best farmland and some of the most productive farmland in the northeastern United States (Daniels, 2005). A Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry factsheet released in 2008 notes total cash receipts from crops and livestock at $914 million—a sizeable portion of the $4.04 billion for the entire state. The county ranks 15th nationwide in farm market value (AFT, 2003).

Agriculture is important as both an economic and cultural component of the county. Amish and old order Mennonite farmers make up 60 percent of the county’s farmers and 11 percent of the population (Gish, 2007). The average farm size in the county is about half the size of the typical Pennsylvania farm, at 78 acres and 132 acres respectively (Lancaster Farmland Trust, 2008). One in five jobs in the county are in the agricultural industry. The agrotourism business brings in 7 million tourists and $1.6 billion each year (Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 2008).

To protect its agricultural heritage, Lancaster County has adopted a multifaceted agricultural protection policy that includes growth boundaries, agricultural zoning, and purchase and transfer of development rights. These land protection tools are implemented in an overarching comprehensive pattern that exemplifies county goals, and are executed locally through comprehensive plans, a county-led Agriculture Preserve Board, and a nonprofit land trust. By using a broad range of tactics, the county has been able to preserve a critical mass of farmland necessary to preserve the viability of farming. The county has also been able to steer growth onto less productive lands, thereby accommodating both an increasing population and agricultural interests.

Development Patterns

Despite a population of about 500,000, small farms are still ubiquitous within Lancaster County. The city of Lancaster is the major population center within the county, containing approximately 54,672 people according to the 2007 U.S. Census estimate. Several suburbs surround Lancaster, including older suburbs that abut the city and continue the street grid, and newer sprawling suburbs with low-density highway subdivisions that exhibit leapfrog development patterns and cut swaths through farmland.

Although sprawling urban development is more common in the northern portions of the county between Lancaster and Lititz or Euphrata, to the south and east the county looks very different. Small farms proliferate, as do small farming community settlements that typically surround an intersection of two or more farm roads. In some cases, like along Highway 23, development has occurred in pods along corridors, leaving the farmland on either side intact. As the future land use plan available in Appendix F indicates, the county intends to direct future growth within existing areas with infill or contiguous development. In some cases, like New Holland, roads in early developments were capped with temporary cul-de-sacs to connect with roads in future developments, providing easy connectivity and access to existing urban settlements.

Northern exurbs of the City of Lancaster

Potential for infill development in New Holland

Small farms and farming communities, Lancaster County

Pods and corridors, Lancaster County

Infrastructure

The major roads within Lancaster County are arranged in a hub-and-spoke system around the city of Lancaster, with the exception of Interstate 76 and Highway 322, both of which cut through the northern portion of the county. Recognizing the importance of accommodating future growth in appropriate areas, the county has identified lands adjacent to these corridors as designated growth areas. These infill areas are intended to accommodate up to 85 percent of future growth with higher density and full access to services through capital improvement planning (Coalition for Smart Growth, 2003). Such areas are intended to be flexible to meet population growth needs in the future as well, meaning that agricultural protection areas should not interfere with orderly growth in these designated areas (Coalition for Smart Growth, 2003).

Lancaster County has designated several agricultural security areas on parcels of land comprised of valuable agricultural soils. These lands are granted protections intended to preserve agriculture for the long-term, including protection from public capital projects that might otherwise encourage urban growth and farmland conversion (Smart Communities Network, n.d.).

Agricultural Facts

The amount of land area in farms has fluctuated in Lancaster County during the past four census periods (see Table 2). In 1992, the percentage of land area in farms decreased to 64 percent from 67 percent in 1987. In 2002, farming rebounded to 68 percent of land area. This increase came with the addition of 737 farms, while the average farm size shrank from 86 acres to 78 acres. This increase in farming also came amid decreasing population growth. According to the US Census Bureau the county population increased by more than 16 percent between 1980 and 1990, and then by more than 11 percent between 1990 and 2000. After 2000, the population increase rate fell to just under 6 percent.

This increase in farming also occurred despite an increase in inflation-adjusted market values for land and buildings, increases in property taxes, and a decline in the value of agricultural products. Land value and property taxes remained constant in 2002 dollars between 1992 and 1997, but rose somewhat after 1997. Average land values per acre climbed as high as $7,955 in 2002, up from $6,247 (in 2002 dollars) in 1997. Property taxes increased to an average of $4,621 per farm in 2002 from $4,031 (2002 dollars) in 1997. Meanwhile, market value of agricultural products declined from an average of $188,000 in 1997 to $150,000 in 2002.

Lancaster County has very large numbers of livestock and poultry, and a diverse range of crops. Although the amount of land in agriculture has fluctuated over time, no clear trends related to that fluctuation have emerged (see charts and graphs in Appendix C.2). Broilers sold increased between 1987 and 2002 from 46.4 million to 50.9 million, whereas the number of layers decreased from 11.4 million in 1987 to 7.5 million in 2002—a net increase of only about 600,000 birds. Hog and pig inventories fluctuated slightly, but appeared to make the greatest gains from 330,547 on 911 farms in 1987 to 386,801 on 431 farms in 2002. Despite the rising inventories of hogs and pigs, the number of farms raising the animals declined. Farms raising other livestock declined as well. Only beef cows were raised on more farms during the 15-year period investigated, despite their relative inferiority in numbers to milk cows and hogs.

Acreage devoted to corn for grain decreased, accompanied by simultaneous increases in corn for silage and hay production, as well as slight increases in soybean production. Although paling in comparison to corn and hay production in terms of acreage, vegetable production has increased steadily over the four census periods, from 4,055 acres on 573 farms in 1987 to 5,759 acres on 627 farms in 2002.

Table 2. Selected Agricultural Statistics for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

1987 1992 1997 2002 Number of farms 4,775 4,490 4,556 5,293 Land in farms (A) 403,964 388,368 391,836 411,848 Farmland percentage of land area 67% 64% 65% 68% Avg. size of farm (A) 85 86 86 78

Adjusted for Inflation (2002 Dollars) 1987 1992 1997 2002 1987 1992 1997 2002 Estimated market value of land and buildings Avg per farm 314,972 427,332 472,172 610,359 494,506 542,712 528,833 610,359 Avg per acre 3,778 4,943 5,578 7,955 5,931 6,278 6,247 7,955

Market value of agricultural products sold In thousands of dollars ($) 600,773 680,867 766,743 798,346 943,214 864,701 858,752 798,346 Avg per farm 125,816 151,641 168,293 150,831 197,531 192,584 188,488 150,831

Cash rents* Farms* 1,815 1,847 2,024 1,685 1,815 1,847 2,024 1,685 Avg per farm* 5,495 7,881 7,249 11,160 8,627 10,009 8,119 11,160

Property taxes paid* Farms* 3,933 3,584 4,793 4,399 3,933 3,584 4,793 4,399 Avg per farm* 2,084 3,252 3,599 4,621 3,272 4,130 4,031 4,621

* In 1997 and 2002 the agricultural census was completed by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Previous censuses were completed by the US Census Bureau. To account for non-response bias in the 1997 census, the NASS produced new weighted figures for some categories including 'Cash Rents' and 'Property Taxes Paid.' These figures were not weighted for previous years.

Sources: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992; U.S. Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997, 2002

Agricultural Infrastructure

With an average farm size in 2002 of 78 acres, a large agricultural infrastructure system would be necessary for small farmers to find adequate markets for their products. Several large processing facilities within Lancaster County are able to take advantage of the area’s agricultural productivity while at the same time providing jobs for county residents. The food processing industry—including agricultural production, agricultural services, food processing, and grocery wholesaling—accounted for 15,993 jobs, or 7.3 percent of

Lancaster County’s employment in 2000 (Sheely, n.d.). According to the Dunn and Bradstreet Million Dollar Database, large food processing companies supplying significant employment in the county include Tyson Foods (1,200 employees), Kellogg (508 employees), Kunzler Foods (330 employees), and Zausner Foods (300 employees). The 2006 U.S. Census–County Business Patterns counted 26 different food manufacturing companies related to grain milling, fruit and vegetable preserving, dairy production, or meat processing and slaughtering. There were also 29 nursery, garden, and farm supply stores serving the county. Seven refrigerated warehouse facilities were available for farmers needing cold storage services.

Use Value Taxation

Act 319 is Pennsylvania’s Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act. This law allows parcels 10 acres or greater that are devoted to agricultural use to be assessed at use value (Clean and Green Value) rather than fair market value. The term ‘agricultural use’ is broadly stated to mean any land that is not developed, including vacant land (Lancaster County, n.d.). This interpretation enables property owners to pay a reduced tax rate for lands that are not devoted to agricultural use, as long as they remain undeveloped or “revert to their natural state.” Clean and Green status does not apply to portions of agricultural land that contain home sites or other buildings. Any change in use of land taxed under Clean and Green value is subject to a rollback tax, plus interest at the rate of six percent during the duration the property owner was enrolled in the program or seven years (whichever is less). This rollback provision reduces the incentive for prospective developers to purchase land and pay lower taxes, thereby decreasing holding costs while waiting to develop.

Agricultural Protection Programs

Growth Boundaries

By 2000, 26 townships and 11 cities had adopted urban or village growth boundaries to contain population targets based on population projections (Lancaster County Planning Commission, 2008). The county assists townships in determining urban growth areas large enough to accommodate development over a 20-year period (Daniels, 2000). These boundaries make up an urban service area. Land outside the boundaries will not be supplied with water or public sewer. Likewise, local comprehensive plans are supposed to direct growth within urban growth areas and limit development in designated agricultural zones outside of urban growth boundaries. Urban and village growth boundaries are supposed to benefit farmers and non-farmers by preserving agricultural land, keep taxes low by limiting capital intensive programs, and enable local governments to better project the need for other services such as schools, police, and fire protection (Land Trust GIS, 2008).

Agricultural Zoning

Of the 41 townships in Lancaster County, 39 have adopted a variation of agricultural zoning that is atypical of most agricultural zones (Daniels, 2000). Rather than simply allowing one residential unit per x amount of acres, Lancaster County allows one unit per two acres for every 25 acres owned. This policy ensures that farms will not be lost as could be the case if individuals bought up 25 acre plots for country estate homes and allowed the

26 land to go fallow. Under Lancaster County’s agricultural zoning, for example, a farmer who owned 100 acres could set aside eight acres on which to build houses—the remaining 92 acres would remain in agriculture. This agricultural zoning ordinance covered 320,000 acres (54 percent) of the county in 1997 (Daniels & Bowers, 1997).

Presence of agricultural zoning next to urban growth boundaries should make the presence of leap frog development less likely by buffering land next to existing development. Land in agricultural zones or voluntary agriculture districts are also eligible for development right purchase or to receive “sending” status for local transfer of development right programs (Daniels & Bowers, 1997). The ability of the county to purchase development rights from farmers has helped offset the political fallout from restrictions placed on farmland through agricultural zoning. A landowner near a growing city or village has the option to sell development rights even if development on the land itself is currently prohibited. Furthermore, the agricultural zoning has kept the price of development rights relatively affordable (Daniels & Bowers, 1997).

Purchase and Transfer of Development Rights

Unfortunately, growth boundaries and agricultural zoning are not always sufficient to protect prime farmland from development. Rezoning does occur, and low-density development without city water and sewer can spring up in the countryside. Between 1994 and 1997, 75 percent of residential units were developed within urban growth boundaries but 61 percent of developed land occurred outside growth boundaries. Gillham (2002) attributes much of this development to the fact that many localities were in the process of implementing their plans, and such restrictions were not yet on the books. Nonetheless, in reaction to development outside of growth boundaries, the Lancaster Farmland Trust and the Agriculture Preserve Board have made it a priority to preserve prime farmland that is adjacent to or within one mile of existing growth boundaries by giving preference to these areas when purchasing development rights. In some cases, this has resulted in permanent growth boundaries as land at the developed fringe has been protected in perpetuity. In East Donegal, for example, land surrounding the growth boundary is protected, forcing future redevelopment of existing parcels, infill development, or development in areas without productive farmland (see Appendix F).

In 1980, Lancaster County formed its Agricultural Preserve Board (APB), a nine-member board appointed by the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners (American Farmland Trust and Agricultural Issues Center, 2003). The APB has acquired the development rights for approximately 45,000 acres on 500 farms. The first development rights that came under control of the APB were donated in 1982, and the board purchased its first easements in 1984 with general appropriation funds (American Farmland Trust and Agricultural Issues Center, 2003). The APB, with the approval of the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners, will acquire conservation easements only through voluntary sale or donation of lands (Smart Communities Network, n.d.). Eligible lands must be located in established agricultural security areas; contain at least 50 percent harvested cropland, pasture, or grazing lands; contain at least 50 percent high-quality soils (classes I through IV); and be at least 10 acres in size (Smart Communities Network, n.d.).

When purchasing development rights, the APB ranks the lands of farmers who have applied to the program by qualitative and quantitative variables using a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system. LESA scores are broken down into four weighted categories: soils (40 percent of total score), development potential (20 percent of score), farmland potential (20 percent of score), and clustering potential (20 percent of score). Each category is scored based on several other weighted subcategories. Although only the

27 soils data is quantitative, the other qualitative categories are used in an attempt to preserve agricultural land strategically in a way that maximizes conservation potential. Overall preference is given to parcels that are closer to existing developed areas or areas zoned for future development, large farms, and farms adjacent to other protected farms (Smart Communities Network, n.d.). For the complete LESA point system used by Lancaster County, see the Smart Communities Network Model Ordinance (Appendix H).

Agricultural property interests secured by the county and costs associated with the county’s conservation easement program are funded in part by the Lancaster County Agricultural Land Preservation Fund. This fund secures funding from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, townships, general appropriations, and the sale of bonds for the purpose of agricultural preservation. The fund may also accept private donations and revenue from accrued interest (Smart Communities Network, n.d.).

Lancaster County’s agricultural land preservation efforts are significantly bolstered by the state of Pennsylvania’s farmland preservation program. In 1987, Pennsylvania voters approved a $100 million bond to purchase development rights. This program also receives funding from a two-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes (Daniels, 2005). By 2003, state allocations for easements throughout the duration of the program had amounted to $51.1 million, followed by county bond funds ($32 million) and general funds appropriations ($5 million). Federal funds for easement activity in Lancaster County only amounted to $538,000 (American Farmland Trust and Agricultural Issues Center, 2003).

The purchase of development rights program in Lancaster County is a collaboration between the APB and the Lancaster Farmland Trust (LFT). As a large proportion of farmers in Lancaster County belong to the Amish and Old Order Mennonite communities, there was a need to creatively adapt the PDR program to accommodate farmers who traditionally do not get involved in government affairs and, therefore, would not be likely to participate in a county-run land protection program. In 1988, the LFT, a private nonprofit group, initiated a program to buy agricultural easements as a remedy to this problem (Gish, 2007).

Two townships in Lancaster County offer a twist on the traditional PDR program. Both Warwick and Manheim Townships allow for transferable development rights (TDR). Both townships can purchase and bank development rights. Those rights can later be sold to developers in receiving areas at market value who, in return, receive special development privileges. In Warwick Township, developers building in the Campus Industrial Park can purchase development rights in return for the ability to drastically increase lot coverage. Almost 1,100 acres of farmland have been protected through TDR—790 in Warwick and 300 in Manheim (Warwick Township, 2007; Manheim Township, n.d.).

Additionally, both townships partner with the LFT, which sells donated development rights for the purpose of purchasing additional development rights within the township (Bowers, 2002). Warwick and Manheim townships split the cost of development rights with the LFT, and in return share responsibility for monitoring the easements placed on protected farms. The APB allows Warwick to bank and resell the conservation easements it purchases in that township as long as any proceeds go to protecting more agricultural land (Gish, 2007). The banking and reselling of TDRs creates a perpetual funding source for agricultural preservation. Lancaster County has been working with 12 other townships to develop a model TDR ordinance using Warwick Township as a model to expand the potential of TDR throughout the county (Gish, 2007).

Conclusion

Lancaster County has successfully protected a critical mass of farmland through PDRs and careful land-use planning. By establishing growth areas and agricultural protection zones, Lancaster County laid the groundwork for preserving large blocks of high-quality agricultural land. With large financial support from several dedicated sources, Lancaster County has the funds necessary to acquire development rights. The LESA system enables the APB to identify for protection the best farms in the application pool. Additionally, the creation of the Lancaster Farmland Trust provides the ability to adapt the farmland preservation framework to culturally relevant conditions by ensuring that Amish and old- order Mennonite communities are not excluded from the protection agenda.

The agricultural protection policies put in place by Lancaster County are renowned throughout the country. The success achieved thus far would not have been possible, however, without the support of local farmers and their willingness to participate. By the latest counts, more than 60,000 acres of farmland have been protected on more than 750 farms (Land Trust GIS, 2008; Lancaster Farmland Trust, 2006). The rate of farmland loss in Lancaster County has decreased from 3,000 acres per year in the 1980s to 1,500 acres per year in the 1990s (Daniels, 2000). By protecting farmland, Lancaster County is preserving a vital economic force, the region’s best agricultural soils, and a cultural way of life.

Montgomery County, Maryland

ontgomery County, Maryland has one of the most successful and widely praised farmland preservation programs in the United States. Located in the northwestern M portion of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, Montgomery County has seen sustained population growth of more than 350,000 people between 1980 and 2007, a 61 percent increase. Through intensive land-use planning, the county has been able both to preserve a greater percentage of its land area and develop a larger portion of the county than any other county in Maryland (Hanson, 2005).

Development Patterns

Montgomery County is the suburban county directly north of Washington, D.C., and the southern two-thirds of the county is fairly densely urbanized. The Capital Beltway lies in the southern portion of the county, with two spokes projecting outward through the northern portion of the county. These are Federal Highway 29, which lies parallel to Interstate 95 (in Prince George’s County) and connects Washington, D.C., to Baltimore; and Interstate 370, which extends northwest from the Capital to Frederick, and effectively bisects Montgomery County in two. Another notable arterial road is State Highway 97, which lies between Highway 29 and I-370. As these roads extend outward from Washington, D.C., they also provide access to the northern suburbs of Bethesda, Rockville, Gaithersburg, White Oak, Fairland, and Burtonsville, which tend to become less dense the further away the are from the Capital. The northern one-third of the county contains mostly a mix of farmland and forestland.

The style of suburban development within the county varies greatly. In the northern portion of the county, there are some examples of very large lot residential subdivisions, whereas in the northwest along Interstate 270 there are some prized examples of New Urbanist town planning developments, including the Duany-Plater Zyberk planned communities of Kentlands and Lakelands. Many other examples of transit-oriented development and new town center projects have been built along the Red Line of the D.C. Metro, adjacent to State Highway 355 and Interstate 270. The city of Clarksburg in the northwestern portion of the county has adopted land-use patterns similar to Kentlands and Lakelands, including mixed residential densities, short rectilinear blocks, short setbacks, housing facing sidewalks, and rear alley parking. Aerial photography of Clarksburg reveals that this development is relatively new or not yet complete, and exists on the suburban edge between previously existing urban areas and natural/agricultural lands. These factors make this type of development—and Montgomery County by extension—stand out from traditional modern development practices on the urban fringes.

Agricultural Facts

According to the US Census Bureau the population of Montgomery County increased by more than 350,000 people between 1980 and 2007, from 579,053 to 930,813. Despite this large population growth, the county has shown consistent dedication to farmland protection. Indeed, the northern one-third of the county remains largely devoted to agriculture. In 1987, there were 103,337 acres devoted to farmland, followed by a marked decrease in 1992 when that figure fell to 82,470 acres (see Table 3). Although there was a

Large-lot development in Montgomery County

Kentlands and Lakelands, New Urbanist developments in Montgomery County

Clarksburg

Close-up of Clarksburg

33 slight decrease in farmland acreage in the following two census periods, the percentage of land area devoted to farmland only fell from 26 percent in 1992 to 24 percent in 2002. It should be noted that the decreases in farmland in the county may not be indicative of failed farmland protection policies. Montgomery County has designated specific areas as agricultural zones and has attempted to direct growth away from these areas (Gillham, 2002). Some of the decreases in farmland were likely the result of lands developed in growth corridors that previously contained working farms.

Although the average estimated market value per acre of farmland in Montgomery County fluctuated from $5,000 to $6,000 between 1987 and 1997, property taxes paid remained relatively constant (see Table 3). Between 1997 and 2002, both figures spiked. Although the increase in land values climbed back to their 1992 values, increases in property taxes far surpassed their 1992 values, climbing to an average of $5,273 per farm—up from an adjusted average of $3,025 in 1992 and $3,307 in 1997. Cash rents paid also spiked between 1997 and 2002, from an average adjusted $11,380 per farm to $21,213, although the number of farms renting land decreased from 137 to 108. Meanwhile, the average value of agricultural products sold did increase by more than $11,000 per farm, from $60,819 to $72,156.

Montgomery County does not grow one dominant crop. In 1987 and 2002, the majority of acreage was planted in both corn and hay, before soybeans overtook them in 1997 (see charts and graphs in Appendix C.3). In 2002, more than 13,000 acres were in soybeans, with more than 11,000 acres each in corn and hay. Wheat also has been a significant crop over the years, fluctuating from between 4,500 and 6,000 acres during the four census periods.

Although Montgomery County is not a major producer of livestock, the variety of animals raised is relatively diverse, and is dominated by beef cows, milk cows, and layers. Trends indicate that livestock production is diminishing over time. Most drastic is the decline of hogs and pigs, which fell from 5,940 in 1987 to 735 in 1992 495 by 2002. The number of farms keeping hogs and pigs also decreased steadily during the census periods, from 35 in 1987 to only 12 by 2002. Although the number of sheep, lambs, and layers sold remained relatively constant between 1992 and 2002, the number of milk cows and beef cows diminished between those time periods. In 1992, there were 141 farms keeping 3,717 beef cows and 36 farms with 2,517 milk cows. By 2002, there were 104 farms with 2,201 beef cows and 23 farms with 1,546 milk cows.

As the population has increased and the amount of land in farms has decreased during the past 20 years, it appears that livestock has been impacted far more than crops. As the most drastic amount of farmland loss occurred between 1987 and 1992, livestock totals of milk cows, dairy cows, hogs and pigs, sheep and lambs, and layers decreased by 42 percent, whereas acreage devoted to corn, wheat, barley, soybeans, hay, and vegetables only decreased by 1.5 percent. In the 10 years between 1992 and 2002, acreage in those same crops fell by 9 percent, whereas the number of those same livestock fell by an additional 30 percent. These figures indicate that although Montgomery County continues in its attempts to preserve farmland, there may be more deference placed on cropland than farms devoted to livestock, perhaps because livestock operations may conflict with urban populations due to smells, noise, and other complaints.

Table 3. Selected Agricultural Statistics for Montgomery County, Maryland

1987 1992 1997 2002 Number of farms 669 561 526 577 Land in farms (A) 103,377 82,470 77,266 75,077 Farmland percentage of land area 33% 26% 24% 24% Avg. size of farm (A) 155 147 147 130

Adjusted for Inflation (2002 Dollars) 1987 1992 1997 2002 1987 1992 1997 2002 Estimated market value of land and buildings Avg per farm 587,159 787,024 659,337 793,623 921,840 999,520 738,457 793,623 Avg per acre 3,379 4,696 4,396 5,979 5,305 5,964 4,924 5,979

Market value of agricultural products sold In thousands of dollars ($) 26,049 27,727 28,563 41,634 40,897 35,213 31,991 41,634 Avg per farm 38,937 49,407 54,303 72,156 61,131 62,747 60,819 72,156

Cash rents* Farms* 152 115 137 108 152 115 137 108 Avg per farm* 8,151 12,861 10,161 21,213 12,798 16,333 11,380 21,213

Property taxes paid* Farms* 578 482 572 546 578 482 572 546 Avg per farm* 2,151 2,382 2,953 5,273 3,376 3,025 3,307 5,273

Sources: US Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992; U.S. Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997, 2002

Agricultural Infrastructure

Perhaps owing to the large urban nature of Montgomery County, the agricultural infrastructure is somewhat limited. Only one grain milling establishment is located within the county, despite the amount of acreage devoted to corn and soybeans. According to the 2006 U.S. Census–County Business Patterns, there is limited refrigerated warehousing available, but no farm product warehousing. As most of the protected farmland is located on the outer fringes of the county, it is likely that farmers use facilities outside of the county. There are a large number of nursery, garden center, and farm supply shops in Montgomery County. This is consistent with the area’s prominence in nursery plant production. There appear to be few if any large employment centers in non-farming agricultural sectors. Except for one veterinary services center and three nursery and garden supply stores, there are no establishments employing more than 50 people. Considering the sizeable urban population within the county and the lack of further data

35 disaggregation within categories, it is not possible to tell whether these establishments cater to urban residents rather than farmers.

Agricultural Taxation

In 1960, Maryland was the first state to initiate an agricultural use assessment law. The Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation (2006) provides a description of how this law is implemented. Land receiving preferential assessment must be more than three acres in size and actively used for agricultural purposes. This means that agricultural use must be the primary ongoing use of the land. There must also be an average of $2,500 in gross income from agriculture derived from the land, which is calculated over an average span of three years. The preferential tax applies only to agricultural lands and excludes portions of the land used for home sites. The preferential assessment remains for lands that are rezoned to higher intensities, as long as the county was the entity that requested the rezoning. If the owner requests a rezoning, the agricultural assessment is removed.

When agricultural land is sold for development, an Agricultural Transfer Tax applies. According to the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (2008), the purpose of this tax is to deter and penalize the conversion of agricultural land. This tax applies at the point of sale of a parcel of land that is taxed under the use value. The purchaser of agricultural land can forego the transfer tax if he or she agrees to continue farming the land for five full taxable years after the land is transferred.

The Agricultural Transfer Tax imposes a set of sliding-scale rates depending on the size of the converted parcel. A rate of 5 percent is applied to 20 acres or more; a 4 percent rate is applied to land that is less than 20 acres; and a 3 percent rate applies to lands that are less than 20 acres but contain site improvements like well and septic (Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation, 2008). After the tax is calculated, an additional 25 percent surcharge is applied. An additional 10 percent penalty is applied on top of the 25 percent surcharge for landowners who have foregone the transfer tax but develop within five years (Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation, 2008).

Infrastructure

Montgomery County has an adequate public facilities ordinance intended to direct urban development toward areas within the county that have existing infrastructure, such as water and sewer services, transportation facilities, solid waste facilities, and schools (Gillham, 2002). Although such ordinances may direct development to places where existing facilities are located, it is conceivable that a developer might pay for the needed facilities to develop land not in proximity to planned growth areas. In Montgomery County, the specific ordinance detailed in the Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage System Plan dictates that areas in the Rural Density Transfer zones—that is, areas eligible for protection with the Transferable Development Rights program—are not intended to be served by community systems except under special circumstances (M-NCPPC, 2003). By restricting public infrastructure to areas in the county that are not intended for agricultural protection, Montgomery County further limits the feasibility of development in these areas.

Agricultural Preservation

Agricultural preservation is rooted in the comprehensive planning efforts of the county. In 1964, the adoption of a county planning document called “On Wedges and Corridors” marked the beginning of an effort to contain population growth along existing transportation corridors in the southeast portion of the county, allowing the remaining rural areas to stay in agricultural production (American Farmland Trust, n.d.). In 1973, the county established a Rural Zone with an allowable density of one unit per five acres in the northwest portion of the county to slow land development and preserve farming. Although this had the reverse effect of stimulating growth, the county formed a task force to consider additional tools aimed at preventing farmland loss. In 1980, the county adopted a new master plan that created an 89,000-acre Agricultural Reserve, which was rezoned to the Rural Density Transfer (RDT) zone and was later expanded to include 93,000 acres. In this zone, the maximum allowable density was reduced to one unit per 25 acres. To appease landowners, Montgomery County enacted a transferable development rights program as a method of providing compensation to landowners who would otherwise be subjected to diminished land values due to the new regulations.

Under the program, the RDT zone became the sending area from which development rights could be severed from the land and transferred to receiving areas, which were designated by the County Planning Board. Receiving areas were located along transportation corridors or in areas where roads, schools, and utilities were already in place (Natural Resources Defense Council, n.d.). These receiving areas are subjected to two density limits: a baseline density which determines the maximum allowable density when developers opt not to use TDRs, as well as a higher limit when TDRs are used. County plans typically offer only marginal increases on lot yields from, for example, six allowable units per acre with TDR instead of four units without (American Farmland Trust, n.d.). The purpose of this program is not to eliminate development within the county, but rather to transfer the density from areas with high agricultural utility to areas with existing infrastructure available to accommodate growth. Montgomery County has made TDR the primary source for developers to obtain density bonuses to ensure the program is not weakened by the availability of other options. Developers can only obtain density bonuses through one other means—the construction of moderately priced development units.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (n.d.) claims that Montgomery County has the most successful farmland preservation program in the country. In a publication from January of 2001, the American Farmland Trust noted that Montgomery County had protected more than 40,000 acres using TDR, amounting to 60 percent of the nation’s total 67,707 TDR acres. As of 2006, Montgomery County had protected 48,345 acres using TDR (Montgomery County Department of Economic Development, 2006). The northwestern portion of Montgomery County continues to be characteristically rural, a sharp contrast from neighboring Fredrick County, Maryland, and Loudoun County, Virginia, where scattered sprawling development has overtaken portions of the countryside. In the Montgomery County Farmers Survey, one farmer noted that “if not for the agricultural land use tax, downzoning, and TDRs, there would be no farms left in the county” (in Cohen and Preuss, 2002, p.19).

The success of Montgomery County’s TDR program is in part due to extensive county-level comprehensive planning. Although the TDR program is very complex and involves a multijurisdictional region, it has been necessary for the county to coordinate several planning elements—from identifying and creating agricultural protection areas to overseeing development permits and cataloging TDRs. Montgomery County also coordinates land use through capital improvement programs, enabling the receiving areas

37 to be located in areas where adequate facilities will exist to accommodate additional development (Daniels and Bowers, 1997).

How it Works

The Research and Technology Center and Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (2008) describe how the TDR system of Montgomery County operates. First, a landowner decides to sever development rights on five-acre increments of his or her property. Landowners can sell TDRs or options to buy TDRs to interested developers, or hold severed TDRs for sale at a later date. Once development rights are severed from the property, the Montgomery County Attorney’s Office records the easement, including the severance date, serial number, the tax identification number assigned with the parcel, the number of acres, grantor and grantee of the easement, number of development units on the parcel, the TDR capacity of the parcel, and the number of TDRs severed from the parcel. When the TDR is sold, a deed records additional information, including the sale date, the buyer and seller of the TDRs, the number of TDRs sold, serial number(s), liber and folio of the deed, and location and description of the parcel.

A developer who wants to use TDR submits plans to build on land within a receiving area. Each TDR purchased enables the developer to construct one additional dwelling unit, as long as the maximum density does not exceed that allowed in the governmental unit’s master plan. The developer includes proof of an option to buy the necessary TDRs with the preliminary plat application by showing the deed of transfer from the sending area. County officials record relevant easements from the sending area on final subdivision plans to avoid the duplication of TDR sales. After the easement(s) are recorded, the developer receives final site plan approval. The final plat includes the number of TDRs used and a reference to the specific farmland from which the easement originated (Daniels & Bower, 1997).

The price of TDRs is determined on the open market between developers’ bids and sellers’ asking prices (Daniels, 1999). Although some jurisdictions that have implemented TDR programs use a land bank system to “prime the pump” for a TDR supply, Montgomery County has solely relied on the market for program implementation. This has been effective in absolving taxpayers of any cost burden for holding land within the TDR program in favor of private sector investment in agricultural protection. When the program began in 1983, the average price of a TDR was about $5000. Between 1995 and 1998—before the recent development boom—average high prices for TDRs were between $10,000 and $12,000. Prices had increased to a high of more than $40,000 per TDR right before the housing market collapse (Montgomery County Department of Economic Development, 2006).

Other Farmland Protection Tools

Because TDR pricing is set by market demand, there may be times when farmland protection incentives offered by the program are not sufficient to farmers considering conversion to other uses. However, Montgomery County has many programs available for farmers to preserve farmland that complement the TDR program. The Agricultural Services Division of the Department of Economic Development acts as a one-stop clearinghouse of information for farmers looking to explore their options (Natural Resources Defense Council, n.d.). This agency can work with farmers to determine which of the following programs best suits the farmer’s economic needs and preservation goals.

The other primary farmland preservation programs in Montgomery County include the Maryland Environmental Trust easement program, the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation, the Montgomery County Agricultural Easement Program, and the Maryland Rural Legacy Program. Each program has slightly different program goals, but each offers a tool available to protect land within the Rural Density Transfer zone which, depending on current circumstances, may offer better incentives to farmers than the TDR program. The Agricultural Easement Program, for example, was created in 1987 and gives the County authority to purchase agricultural easements. The Rural Legacy Program enables the county to compete for state funding. This program is used to protect contiguous tracts of land and other selectively strategic areas to protect farmland, habitats, and environmentally sensitive lands (M-NCPPC, 2005). Additionally, use value assessment of TDR and protected farmlands gives farmers additional incentive to participate in agricultural preservation programs. As of June 2004, the TDR program had preserved almost 75 percent of protected farmland within the county at 45,042 acres, followed by the Agricultural Easement Program at 6,678 acres, or 11 percent.

Current Issues With TDR

Although TDR has been successful, as the program has aged various and perhaps unforeseen problems have emerged. In recent years, there has been waning demand for TDRs due to a decrease in receiving area capacity (Montgomery County Department of Economic Development, 2006). Although sending and receiving areas were originally coordinated to produce an excess of receiving area capacity, over time various factors have diminished the ability for some receiving areas to accommodate the excess density bonuses made available through TDR. These factors include environmental or economic constraints, landscape suitability, or simply that developers opt not to use TDR. The Montgomery County Department of Economic Development (2006) notes that an optimal ratio of receiving sites per TDR would be about 2:1. Over time, however, the actual ratio has become closer to 1:1. Cohen and Preuss (2002) note that this reduced ratio of sendable to receivable rights drives down the value of TDRs. Of course, the housing market boom that followed on the heels of their analysis pushed up the prices of TDRs to record levels (Montgomery County Department of Economic Development, 2006). This illustrates, perhaps, that the TDR market is as fickle as the housing market itself. With the current housing slump, TDR values are likely to drop as well.

One method of injecting additional value into the TDR market would be to expand the available receiving zones. Although there may be some interest in this tactic, it remains problematic as there are already political pressures within the existing receiving zones for developers to build at baseline densities (Cohen and Preuss, 2002). Likewise, the creation of new receiving zones might spur a not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) response from residents living in proposed receiving zones.

Perhaps the most daunting and complex problem facing the TDR program today is the issue of the “fifth TDR” or “super TDR.” Farmers are allowed one TDR for every five acres of downzoned land from within the Rural Density Transfer Zone, but they do not have to sell all rights at once. With an allowable density of one unit per 25 acres, farmers are able to sell four rights and retain the fifth right to develop in the future. Montgomery County’s location as an affluent neighbor of the nation’s Capital makes it a ripe market for large- parcel estates. Additionally, the protected land surrounding a fifth-right estate would add an additional amenity value that further incentivizes development. As a result, the value of these fifth TDRs is drastically higher than the value of a typical TDR. Montgomery County, for example, estimates that whereas a typical TDR in 2005 was valued at between $37,500 and $41,000, a fifth TDR would be valued at a whopping $175,000 to $500,000. If farmers

39 in the agricultural preserve begin developing on these sites, then the pockets of supposedly protected farmland could become converted to extreme low density—essentially 25-acre— rural estates.

In response to these problems, Montgomery County has begun developing an additional program aimed at resolving the defects of the TDR program. The proposed Building Lot Termination program is aimed at retiring fifth TDRs through direct county intervention. A revolving fund would be appropriated with $14 million over two years to purchase fifth TDRs for resale in a newly created receiving area (Montgomery County, 2005). Potential political opposition to new receiving areas might be mitigated by channeling the extended density bonuses to commercial and mixed-use developments. The county would negotiate the appropriate price for the additional development rights with the landowner. The county would then sell these rights to developers and use those proceeds to purchase additional fifth TDRs from other farmers. As of 2008, the M-NCPPC noted that there were 211 fifth TDRs that had been removed under this budding program. If the estimated 2,452 additional fifth TDRs are acquired by the county or developers, then more than 61,000 acres of land will change from a minimum density of one unit per 25 acres to zero (Research and Technology Center & Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 2008).

Conclusion

Although Montgomery County’s success in preserving farmland through its TDR program is remarkable, the complexity of the program may hinder widespread emulation. Identifying sending and receiving areas and establishing the proper ratios for each is difficult and can be controversial. Additionally, Montgomery County’s location on the east coast near the nation’s capital, where population and residential densities are much higher than in other parts of the country, may also help to explain the success of the program.

The success of Montgomery County’s effort to protect agricultural land has also come from its flexibility. When the original “wedges and corridors” approach with 5-acre lots failed, 25-acre lots were enforced, complemented by TDR. Although TDR is the most widespread tool used to protect agriculture, the Agricultural Services Division of the Department of Economic Development helps farmers find the land protection program that is most suitable to them. Recognizing the imbalance in the ratio of sending to receiving areas, Montgomery County has begun seeking ways to expand receiving areas. Finally the county has been diligent in responding to the so-called fifth TDR problem.

Additional factors contributing to Montgomery County’s success have been strong comprehensive planning and coordination of infrastructure facilities in receiving areas. Furthermore, because TDR is one of the few ways to obtain density bonuses in Montgomery County (inclusion of affordable housing is another), developers have few options but to purchase tranferrable rights to maximize their profits.

Despite the complexity of the TDR system, it offers benefits not available through other agricultural protection methods. For instance, farmers subjected to forced downzoning do not automatically lose equity in their property, because the sale of development rights to developers in receiving areas provides the opportunity for significant financial gain. Furthermore, TDR moves the financial burden of agricultural protection from the public sphere to private markets. Although it was not successful in Montgomery County, the creation of a land-banking system with a small amount of public “priming” money can provide a revolving fund for local governments to purchase and sell development rights.

Puget Sound Region, Washington

he Puget Sound of northwest Washington State is surrounded by tall, snow-peaked mountains and extremely fertile river valleys. Leading out to the Pacific Ocean, the T Puget Sound is home to several islands and communities that provide breathtaking views and a relatively mild yearlong climate. Approximately two-thirds of the state’s population lives within the 12 counties abutting the Puget Sound, which encompass the cities of Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Bellingham, and Olympia among others. As these population centers expand, adjacent agricultural lands are threatened with the prospect of development. At the same time, the large population of the Puget Sound area also provides a large market for the diverse range of agricultural products that are grown in this region.

Of the 12 counties in the Puget Sound region, 9 grew by at least 20 percent between the census years of 1990 and 2000. Although there have been great efforts in statewide planning aimed at curbing expansive growth patterns into the countryside, the more impressive efforts at farmland preservation have come from grassroots farmers and advocates. Puget Sound area farmers are able to produce a wide variety and great abundance of crops. These farmers have been able to tap into local markets by building alliances and working to market directly to consumers, restaurants, and government agencies. These efforts have built the confidence of local farmers and ensure the potential for success for agricultural industries in the region. From statewide programs to small nonprofit organizations, local food advocates have worked to expand the market for locally grown products and provide small farmers access to those markets. The intention is to preserve farmland in metropolitan areas by enabling farmers to make money farming. As Skagit County Commissioner Ken Dahlstedt noted “if people aren’t making a living farming, you can preserve the land, but you won’t keep farming in the area” (Berton, 2005). Using everything from innovative labeling efforts and integrated web-based buying systems to rentable, mobile chicken-processing units, farmers in the Puget Sound area have been able to focus on selling products to the five million local individuals.

The Seattle area is creating a viable agricultural economy through a multifaceted approach. Cooperation between state agencies and several nonprofits has boosted the local food movement by increasing consumer demand through public education and marketing, while simultaneously building systems to increase market access through the creation of a grassroots network of agricultural infrastructure available to small and mid-sized farmers. Although such farmers have previously had limited access to facilities such as cold-storage, small-scale specialty processing plants, and transportation, local networks of farmers working together have found that they are better able to compete with large-scale agricultural operators. The proximity of prime agricultural soils to large population centers combined with the region’s large diversity of specialty crops and the growing popularity of local and organic foods has created an economic environment where farming can exist within a metropolitan area.

It must be noted that although this report focuses on regional cooperation as a method of achieving agricultural stability, there are other agricultural and natural resource land protection methods used within both the state of Washington and individual counties. The Washington Growth Management Act was adopted by the state legislature in 1990 with the goal of requiring and providing a framework for identifying and protecting critical areas and natural resources, designating urban growth areas, preparing local comprehensive plans, and implementing those plans through capital improvements and development regulations (Washington State, n.d.). In addition, several counties either use PDR or TDR programs or are in the process of completing feasibility studies for

41 implementing TDR. Most notable is King County, which has preserved almost 13,000 acres of threatened farmland through a PDR program since 1979 (Robinson, 2002) and more than 90,000 acres of open space and fish and wildlife habitat using TDR since 1999 (Sims, 2008). Although King County’s TDR program does not specifically target farmland, it has clearly been effective in protecting vast amounts of land for other purposes. In addition to county preservation programs, the State of Washington is in the process of setting up a central Puget Sound TDR program that would protect natural resource lands in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties (Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, 2008).

Development Patterns

Although the stretch of land along Interstate 5 between Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett is fairly heavily populated, there are also a range of development patterns throughout the region. This includes stretches of agricultural areas in fertile river valleys with minimal development, bluff lands with scattered low-density development, and small towns surrounded by farmlands. The city of Snohomish and its surroundings demonstrate a few of the various land-use patterns exemplified within the region. The city itself is laid out in an old-style street grid emanating northward from the Snohomish River. Past the city limits to the north and east, suburban sprawl continues on for several miles, melding with the suburban developments of neighboring municipalities. Directly to the west is a developed area roughly the size of Snohomish that follows a typical low-density pattern. On closer examination, however, it appears that there may be some interesting conservation techniques being used in this area. Large tree stands have been preserved by placing houses in clusters or along roadways. There are also large patches of undeveloped lands that appear to be planted in crops or livestock pastures. In some cases, large luxury houses have animals grazing not far from the backyards.

To the south of Snohomish is the Snohomish River Valley, which appears to undisturbed by development and left entirely to agriculture. This agricultural ribbon extends in a narrow swath to the Puget Sound. Directly on the other side from Snohomish is another bluff leading to more intense development. This land has likely been spared from development in part due to its location within the 100-year floodplain. These types of agricultural bands within river valleys are common in the Puget Sound area, and their protection may be due more to the liabilities implicit in floodplain development than active preservation methods.

Further north in Skagit County, one finds more compact development limited to existing cities that only minimally sprawls into farmland areas. As can be seen from the ‘Skagit County development patterns’ image on page 39, development in Mt. Vernon and Burlington stretches up to the city limits and only minimally spreads across the Skagit River to areas along the Memorial Highway corridor before tapering off into larger farm fields. These differences in county land-use patterns between Skagit and Snohomish Counties are also apparent in average farm sizes. Although Snohomish County appears to have more fragmented farmlands, it also had average farm sizes of only 44 acres in 2002—a figure which has declined from 56 acres since 1987 (see Table 5). Skagit County, on the other hand, has had average farm sizes ranging from 118 acres in 1987 to 131 in 2002 (see Table 6).

Large-lot luxury homes with livestock grazing nearby

Agricultural area in the Snohomish River Valley

Rural bluffland developments

Skagit County development patterns

Agricultural Facts

Puget Sound Region’s local food system includes 12 counties that straddle the Sound to the east and west. Several cities within the Seattle metropolitan area lie within the region, including Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia, Bellevue, Bellingham, and Mt. Vernon. Although geographical constraints including the Puget Sound and the Cascade Mountains limit farming within the region, the area nonetheless is home to fertile soils that produce several specialty crops, including berries, vegetables, and orchard fruits. This review of farming trends will focus on three counties: King County (which includes Seattle), Snohomish County, and Skagit County. Snohomish and Skagit Counties are the two counties that lie north of King County and are less populated than their urban counterpart. The majority of fertile farmland in these counties straddles the Interstate 5 corridor, sandwiched between the mountains and the Sound. Swaths of agricultural land also extend along river valleys— most notably the Skagit River Valley—that originate within the mountains and make their way to the Puget Sound.

King County predictably has the lowest proportion of farmland of all three counties at 3 percent, compared to 5 percent in Snohomish County and 10 percent in Skagit County (see Tables 4, 5, and 6). King County, however, is more restricted than the other two due to urban development and natural topography. The population of the county has increased by more than 589,000 people, or 45 percent, between 1987 and 2002. Although there was a 22 percent decrease in land in farms between 1987 and 1992, between 1992 and 2002 the area of land in farms remained relatively constant despite continued population growth.

Land in farms also remained constant despite large increases in estimated land value between 1997 and 2002. Although inflation-adjusted land values declined between 1992 and 1997 by an average of $1,168 per acre, they skyrocketed between 1997 and 2002, rising to $21,338 per acre. This massive increase in land values did not seem to affect property taxes paid which—adjusted for inflation—only increased from $3,357 in 1997 to $3,658 in 2002. Market values for agricultural products fell between 1997 and 2002, from $96,284 (in 2002 dollars) to $77,555, after increasing steadily during the past three census periods. If market values continue to fall and property taxes catch up to increased land values, farming in King County may be a difficult proposition in the future.

Farm production in King County is dominated by hay production and dairy farming, both of which decreased between 1997 and 2002. Acreage devoted to hay production decreased from 7,253 acres in 1997 to 6,066 acres in 2002, whereas the number of milk cows declined from 16,835 to 11,423 during the same period. Overall, acreage devoted to vegetable crops increased from 1987 to 2002, from 677 acres to 1,163 acres, despite a decline of about 400 acres from 1997 to 2002. This rise in vegetable farming may be a hopeful sign due to the strong local market for such crops and relatively higher prices such crops bring.

Snohomish County is adjacent to King County to the north, and has fewer residents and more land in farms. The population of Snohomish County has grown by about 100 percent since 1987, from 337,720 people to 676,898, and has grown by more than 30 percent in each census period. The population growth slowed to 11.7 percent between 2000 and 2007, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimate. Although land in farms decreased from 81,783 acres to 68,612 acres between 1987 and 2002, the reported number of farms increased from 1,473 to 1,574.

This slight increase in land in farms has come amid steady increases in market value of agricultural land and property taxes paid. Inflation-adjusted land and building values

45 increased from $6,222 in 1992 and $7,422 in 1997 to $9,654 in 2002. Meanwhile, property taxes paid increased sharply after decreasing slightly between 1987 and 1992. Average property taxes paid per farm in Snohomish County were only $583 in 1992 but had jumped to $2,802 in 1997 and further to $4,454 in 2002. Despite these increases, market value of agricultural products decreased between 1997 and 2002, from an average of $110,998 per farm to $80,653.

Hay, broilers, and dairy cows have been predominate agricultural products of Snohomish County, despite decreases in acreage and inventories of all three. Hay acreage has been decreasing steadily from more than 20,000 acres in 1987 to fewer than 14,000 acres in 2002. Likewise, vegetable acreage decreased between 1997 and 2002, from just over 4,000 acres to about 2,300 acres, despite increases in acreage between 1987 and 1997. Broiler and milk cow inventories fell sharply between 1992 and 2002, from 2.9 million to 1.5 million and 23,665 to 15,604, respectively. Inventories of other animals decreased as well, except sheep and lambs which saw a rise in numbers from 1,573 in 1992 to 1,676 in 2002.

Of these three counties in the Puget Sound region, Skagit County experienced the smallest population growth in actual terms and the greatest relative resilience of agriculture. Although the population of Skagit County more than doubled from 1980 to 2007, its estimated 2007 population was only 116,397. Skagit County also recorded the largest increase in farmland between 1997 and 2002, at about 20,000 acres. Roughly 10 percent of Skagit County was in agriculture in 2002.

Although the inflation-adjusted value of agricultural land and buildings actually decreased slightly from 1997 to 2002 (from an average of $5,202 per farm to $5,113 per farm), property taxes paid increased during that same period, from $3,413 (in 2002 dollars) to $4,255. Cash rents also increased substantially from an average of $21,094 (in 2002 dollars) in 1997 to $35,051 in 2002. Meanwhile, average market values of agricultural products declined only slightly from that period and remained high. In 1997, the average farm’s products were worth $269,319 (in 2002 dollars), compared to $249,294 in 2002. Before adjusting for inflation, however, the value of farmers products increased from $240,463 to $249,294, so farmers did see an increase in receipts despite the slightly lower relative value.

Skagit County’s high-value agriculture exists amid minimum acreage and small livestock inventories (see charts and graphs in Appendix C.4). Dairy cows were the dominant livestock, and declined slightly from 20,736 in 1997 to 17,021 in 2002. Meanwhile, beef cow counts were under 5,000 between 1987 and 2002, and under 500,000 layers were sold during both the years for which records were available (1992 and 1997). Despite small numbers of livestock, the crops grown in Skagit County were very diverse. The traditional crops of corn and soybeans are relatively rare in the county, with agricultural land instead devoted to vegetables and specialty crops. Berries and nursery/greenhouse plants were higher in Skagit County than the other two Puget Sound counties and may have contributed to increased agricultural values. Acreage devoted to berries increased steadily from 1,237 acres in 1992 to 1,757 acres in 1997 and 2,602 acres in 2002. Nursery/greenhouse acreage spiked from 4,394 acres and 4,595 acres in 1987 and 1992, respectively, to 7,130 acres in 1997. There were no records available for this category in 2002. Vegetable production is also very high, with 105 farms devoting 12,046 acres to vegetables in 2002. This number is a sharp decrease from the 133 farms planting 18,264 acres in 1997, but this is made up for by the subsequent increase in potato production from that same time period, increasing from 6,953 acres to 11,205 acres. The diversity of Skagit County’s agriculture is likely related to the high value of its agricultural product.

Table 4. Selected Agricultural Statistics for King County, Washington

1987 1992 1997 2002 Number of farms 1,498 1,221 1,091 1,548 Land in farms (A) 54,172 42,290 41,653 41,769 Farmland percentage of land area 4% 3% 3% 3% Avg size of farm (A) 36 35 38 27

Adjusted for Inflation (2002 Dollars) 1987 1992 1997 2002 1987 1992 1997 2002 Estimated market value of land and buildings Avg per farm 209,727 326,405 378,684 459,385 329,271 414,534 424,126 459,385 Avg per acre 6,131 8,715 8,839 21,338 9,626 11,068 9,900 21,338

Market value of agricultural products sold In thousands of dollars ($) 73,749 84,548 93,791 120,055 115,786 107,376 105,046 120,055 Avg per farm 49,232 69,245 85,968 77,555 77,294 87,941 96,284 77,555

Cash rents* Farms* 244 182 177 151 244 182 177 151 Avg per farm* 4,508 6,830 7,215 13,510 7,078 8,674 8,080 13,510

Property taxes paid* Farms* 1,414 1,111 1,601 1,361 1,414 1,111 1,601 1,361 Avg per farm* 1,974 2,580 2,998 3,658 3,099 3,276 3,357 3,658

Sources: US Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992; US Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997, 2002

Table 5. Selected Agricultural Statistics for Snohomish County, Washington

1987 1992 1997 2002 Number of farms 1,473 1,255 1,139 1,574 Land in farms (A) 81,783 74,153 60,588 68,612 Farmland percentage of land area 6% 6% 5% 5% Avg size of farm (A) 56 59 53 44

Adjusted for Inflation (2002 Dollars) 1987 1992 1997 2002 1987 1992 1997 2002 Estimated market value of land and buildings Avg per farm 225,608 347,551 387,090 439,666 354,205 441,390 433,541 439,666 Avg per acre 3,697 4,899 6,627 9,654 5,804 6,222 7,422 9,654

Market value of agricultural products sold $1,000 87,800 98,026 112,881 126,947 137,846 124,493 126,427 126,947 Avg per farm 59,607 78,108 99,105 80,653 93,583 99,197 110,998 80,653

Cash rents* Farms* 240 239 174 245 240 239 174 245 Avg per farm* 8,717 12,238 11,540 11,008 13,685 15,543 12,925 11,008

Property taxes paid* Farms* 2,315 2,651 1,699 1,417 2,315 2,651 1,699 1,417 Avg per farm* 613 459 2,501 4,454 962 583 2,802 4,454

Sources: US Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992; US Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997, 2002

Table 6. Selected Agricultural Statistics for Skagit County, Washington

1987 1992 1997 2002 Number of farms 806 754 714 872 Land in farms (A) 95,357 92,074 93,495 113,821 Farmland percentage of land area 9% 8% 8% 10% Avg size of farm (A) 118 122 131 131

Adjusted for Inflation (2002 Dollars) 1987 1992 1997 2002 1987 1992 1997 2002 Estimated market value of land and buildings Avg per farm 290,692 435,274 609,685 613,134 456,386 552,798 682,847 613,134 Avg per acre 2,427 3,618 4,645 5,113 3,810 4,595 5,202 5,113

Market value of agricultural products sold $1,000 102,532 138,471 171,690 217,384 160,975 175,858 192,293 217,384 Avg per farm 127,211 183,648 240,463 249,294 199,721 233,233 269,319 249,294

Cash rents* Farms* 312 293 253 195 312 293 253 195 Avg per farm* 10,128 17,297 18,834 35,051 15,901 21,967 21,094 35,051

Property taxes paid* Farms* 729 712 959 801 729 712 959 801 Avg per farm* 2,097 2,921 3,047 4,255 3,293 3,710 3,413 4,255

Sources: US Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992; US Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997, 2002

Agricultural Infrastructure

Within the counties of King, Snohomish, and Skagit, there are a variety of establishments and businesses related to agriculture. Although the number of farms and overall farm acreage increases by county with distance from urban King County, King County has far more agriculturally related businesses than Snohomish and Skagit Counties. Although the northernmost Skagit County has more acreage devoted to berry and vegetable production, according to the 2006 U.S. Census–County Business Patterns, King County had 12 fruit and vegetable preserving establishments compared to just one each for Snohomish and Skagit Counties. In fact, other than nursery, garden centers, and farm supply stores, Skagit and Snohomish Counties had very few establishments related to agriculture. Meanwhile, King County boasted 10 dairy product manufacturers, 16 slaughtering and processing plants, and 15 refrigerated warehouses. King County even had 8 grain and field bean wholesalers compared to just one each for Skagit and Snohomish Counties. According to the Dunn and Bradstreet Million Dollar Database, notable non-farming agricultural employers in the three counties included the chicken hatchery and processer Draper Valley in Skagit County with 500 employees, Twin City Foods (frozen fruit and juice manufacturer) with 450 employees in Snohomish County, and Campbell’s Soup with 350 employees in Snohomish County. The 16 meat packing establishments in King County employed 1,058 people. Each county had a large number of nursery, garden centers, and farm supply stores, ranging from 20 in Skagit County to 84 in King County.

These trends may be indicative of the importance of metropolitan Seattle in sustaining the farm communities throughout the greater region. Although a relative lack of non-farm agricultural establishments in more rural counties may pose a hardship for farmers, it appears likely that the large urban structure of Seattle provides outlets and markets for farmers of products from berries to meats.

Agricultural Taxation

Washington’s Open Space Taxation Act is a use value taxation tool that extends to open spaces and timber lands, in addition to agricultural and farm uses. The Washington State Department of Revenue (2007) states that the act applies to agricultural lands that are 20 acres or more in size, or multiple contiguous parcels that combined are 20 or more acres. In addition, these parcels have to be devoted to the production of commodities or livestock for commercial purposes or be enrolled in the federal conservation reserve program. The act also applies to smaller parcels of land as long as they meet average gross income requirements of $200 per acre for lands between 5 and 20 acres and $1,500 per acre for lands less than 5 acres. Allowances are made for agricultural lands within parcels that are devoted to wetland protection and land that contains buildings or residences integral to the use of land for agriculture (including housing for employees or farm owners/operators).

Use values are determined by an assessor who considers the earning capacity of comparable lands from crops grown most typically in the area, averaged over five years or more. Once land is classified as agriculture, there are stiff penalties for changing the use. The official classification lasts for 10 years, after which a change in use is subject to an additional tax equal to the difference between the use value and the fair market value for the past seven years, plus interest. When a landowner wishes to change the use, they must request a withdrawal from the tax program and wait for two years. Those two years can begin at the eighth year of the classification. Should a landowner change the use before

50 the 10-year program is finished or before the two-year waiting period expires, an additional 20 percent penalty is applied to in addition to the additional tax payments.

Infrastructure

According to Washington’s Growth Management Act, each city under the Act’s jurisdiction is to identify urban growth areas and natural resource protection areas. Each city must adopt a comprehensive plan that is implementable through capital investments and development regulations (Washington State, n.d). In the case of Skagit County, there are 10 designated growth areas, seven of which have public sewer available. The County’s comprehensive plan establishes a goal to allow for the extension of public services to growth areas in a manner consistent with growth, but explicitly states that urban governmental services should not be extended to rural areas except in limited circumstances (Skagit County, 2007). These policies are intended to promote growth in existing urban areas and prevent the spread of urban sprawl into rural areas and areas with significant natural resources.

Local Food Networks

From the Heart of Washington

From the Heart of Washington is a public awareness campaign facilitated by the Washington Department of Agriculture. Produce grown in Washington can be branded with a label indicating its origin in the state. Awareness of the program is promoted on radio and television advertisements, boosting the local agricultural economy and promoting the label. The intention is to produce increased visibility of products grown in Washington, thereby increasing consumer demand. This allows consumers to easily identify locally grown produce items such as apples—of which Washington is a major producer—from similar produce grown in distant regions that directly compete with local agriculture.

Cookson Beecher reported in the June 16, 2006, Capital Press that the Heart of Washington campaign received a $2.5 million federal grant in 2002, followed by a state allocation of $400,000. The program became even more visible after a television advertisement aired featuring Washington governor Chris Gregoire grocery shopping and wearing an apron reading, “our farms, your table.” Beecher noted that the program has received unprecedented support from more than 450 Washington grocery store locations, all agreeing to place “shelf talkers” in front of Washington-grown produce, packaged goods, dairy products, meats, seafood, and wine.

Cascade Harvest Coalition

Like From the Heart of Washington, the Cascade Harvest Coalition leads a similar labeling project called Puget Sound Fresh that deals specifically with agricultural products grown within the 12 counties that touch the Puget Sound. This program produces different labels for different products: fresh items, such as produce, fish, or cuts of meat, are labeled “Puget Sound Fresh,” whereas other products not considered fresh receive a “Puget Sound Grown” label. These products may be as diverse as bottles of wine grown and produced in the Puget Sound region to Christmas trees (Cascade Harvest Coalition, 2008).

The Puget Sound Fresh program goes beyond product labeling and seeks to promote greater market opportunities for local farmers. King County (which includes Seattle) partners with the Cascade Harvest Coalition by hosting a Puget Sound Fresh web page that provides easy access to information regarding local farms, farmers markets, and harvest schedules. One notable feature of the website is a farm guide that enables one to search for a farm by specific crop. This search function allows restaurant owners or food producers to access local farmers who may be able to supply any of a wide range of needed ingredients. For example a bakery looking for a supply of nuts for specialty cookies can quickly find eight different farms that grow a variety of nuts.

The Cascade Harvest Coalition is committed to “relocalizing” the food supply by bringing together farmers and consumers through a variety of different programs. The Farmlink program matches aspiring farmers with landowners who have agricultural land to lease. Their Farm-to-Table program matches farmers with buyers as part of farm-to-cafeteria efforts throughout the region. The Helping Hands project uses community volunteer labor to stock emergency food shelves with produce from local farms using funds from emergency feeding programs. More recently, the Cascade Harvest Coalition has been working with the Northwest Agricultural Business Center to found the Puget Sound Food Project, which will attempt to fill the gaps in the regional food network, thereby increasing agricultural viability throughout the region.

Northwest Agricultural Business Center

The Northwest Agricultural Business Center (NABC) has initiated a pair of projects that will attempt to enable farmers to expand their markets by adding value to their products and supplying them with the necessary infrastructure to do so. The NABC is an educational resource for aspiring agricultural workers, offering training and classes on a range of topics, from starting a community-supported agriculture farm to learning how to make and market cheese.

The Puget Sound Food Project

According to the Puget Sound Food Project Progress Report (2007) and the Cascade Harvest Coalition (2008), the Puget Sound Food Project was the first of these projects and involved a strategic planning process among key stakeholders to study and determine the feasibility of a region-wide food production center for Puget Sound producers. Through the course of several meetings, the Cascade Harvest Coalition and the NABC worked with small and mid-sized farms, as well as food buyers and business leaders, to examine current farmer- buyer relationships and identify needed resources that could further the relationship between farmers (suppliers) and producers (demand). Participants in the meetings identified some holes in the regional agricultural economy that could be strengthened through cooperation. They found the key issues to be a lack of affordable or accessible processing, packaging, and storage facilities, and regulatory barriers such as a lack of uniform health department regulations. Many producers had been sending their products long distances—sometimes out of state—for processing. The strategic planning participants recognized that there was a patchwork of infrastructure for local food production and distribution, and that there was a need to collaborate with these existing facilities to strengthen the capacity for local processing.

According to the 2007 PSFP Progress Report, several project goals emerged including:

• business incubation services • small scale custom processing for initial start-up operations • co-packing facilities for larger producers • processing facilities devoted to specific functions

As of February 2008, the NABC had been studying the extent to which these services are available to producers in the Puget Sound region. They found that there were a number of venues providing incubation services, including support for product development, but only one custom packing facility and one operator who offered co-packing facilities for fruits and vegetables. Although there were potentially several commercial kitchens available for those seeking to add value to their products, there was no central source of information available for public use. The NABC has begun to compile such a list.

Although there are many farmers in the region producing a range of products from milk to potatoes and tree nuts, there are limited opportunities for farmers to process or add value to those products for local markets. In response to their findings, the NABC is leading an effort to develop processing facilities for Northwest Washington farmers. They have determined that needed facilities they will seek to provide include:

• post-harvest handling of produce • drying/dehydrating • freezing • storage and distribution • poultry processing • meat processing

Currently NABC is in the process of developing co-packaging facilities for fruits and vegetables, a product development center, meat processing facilities, poultry processing facilities, and post-harvest handling of fruits and vegetables. By supplying these facilities to Puget Sound area farmers, NABC hopes they will enable local companies to increase production of value-added products. An example given by the NABC Progress Report is a local company that produces pickles and sauerkraut for commercial market in 1-, 2-, and 5- gallon containers. A small-scale retail packaging line would enable this company to begin producing product available for retail sale. This would increase the demand for local cucumbers and cabbage production, thereby increasing the potential market for local farmers who grow such products.

Puget Sound Food Network

The NABC has also received a $400,000 U.S. Department of Commerce/Small Business Association grant for the construction of an online market access project that brings together suppliers, consumers, and other participants in the regional food system on one website (Northwest Agriculture Business Center, 2008). This project will complement the Puget Sound Food Project by creating an outlet for the regional network of growers, producers, retailers, food service businesses, and key infrastructure providers (processing, storage, and transportation). Farmers may be able to find new markets for specialty crops by having easy access to several small-food producers. Those producers, in turn, will be more visible to individuals and businesses seeking to increase the viability of the local food system.

Growing Washington

Growing Washington is another important organization in the Puget Sound region dedicated to the promotion of and education about local foods to increase economic viability and regional self-reliance. Growing Washington acts as a network of small farms that together are able to provide a wide array of products for consumers and services for each other. By using multiple resources from various projects, Growing Washington is able to provide streamlined service across the broad spectrum of their programs. Cold storage facilities used in their Local Food Exchange business in downtown Bellingham, for example, may provide necessary short-term storage for a member farms’ CSA boxes awaiting pick-up or delivery. The Local Food Exchange is a local food market that provides seasonal produce, milk, and butter produced by 15 farmers in Whatcom and Skagit Counties (Levitt, 2008).

Jennifer Langston, in the October 16, 2007, Seattle Post Intelligencer, notes that by using the distribution channels and facilities available to them, Growing Washington is able to act as a “benevolent broker” by coordinating deliveries and charging only enough to cover a driver and gas costs. In this manner, Growing Washington is able to sustain several programs aimed at uniting multiple growers to provide products that a single grower may have difficulty supplying.

An example of this is the organization’s web-based Farm Fresh Store, which allows a restaurant buyer to purchase several different locally grown produce items from a variety of different growers all at one place. Growing Washington will then coordinate the process to ensure that all of the produce is in the right place at the right time for pick-up or delivery. Small- or medium-sized growers who specialize in a few crops have access to local markets they might otherwise be shut out of due to the inability to provide a wide variety of produce. At the same time, restaurants looking to serve locally grown food are able to use the web site as a one-stop produce shop.

Along these lines, Growing Washington also offers a Local Choice Food Box which, unlike a CSA, gives families the opportunity to go online and pick the mix of produce they will receive for the week. The food box is available for residents of Seattle and King County. Growing Washington is able to compile the produce supplied by its consortium or small farmers into individual boxes for pick-up. Growing Washington also offers a Whatcom County CSA that features food provided by various growers in that county.

In addition to brokering and CSA-style operations, Growing Washington also runs several other programs. The Farm to Cafeteria program supplies seven schools with local food. By working with school nutritional coordinators, Growing Washington is able to determine specific products and quantities needed for weekly deliveries. The program provides additional marketing outlets for local farmers, provides fresh produce for school children, and educates children about farming and the local food economy (Growing Washington, 2008). Another notable program is Just Food. Funded by the Bellingham Co-op’s Farm Fund and local community members, Just Food is a CSA that delivers weekly food boxes to a home for women, children, and families in need.

Conclusion

Despite the very small percentage of land in the Puget Sound region that is used for farming, agriculture is a vital portion of the economy. The diversity of food raised in the region supports a wide range of agricultural services and provides food to a range of

54 institutions and individuals, and has supported an ever-growing local food movement. Through specialization, cooperation, and ready access to local markets in large population centers, farmers can make a living growing high-value crops on small tracts of land.

The local farm and food interest groups have successfully harnessed youthful energy and technology to provide access to information, infrastructure, and markets. With mobile chicken killing units, co-packing facilities for fruits and vegetables, access to online databases of suppliers and consumers of specialized crops, and local labeling programs, the Puget Sound region is quite literally transforming the way food is grown, transported, and consumed.

Although it is true that the Puget Sound region benefits from a unique microclimate well- suited to the production of a large variety of specialty crops, the potential for specialty- crop production is by no means unique to this area. A simple visit to a farmers market in almost any region of the United States will reveal a large variety of fruits and vegetables that can be grown successfully. In addition, greenhouses, row covers or tunnels, and cold frames make it possible to extend the growing season significantly in less temperate areas of the country. Much more critical to local food production in the Puget Sound are the cooperation and networking efforts that have enabled local food advocates to build a web of knowledge and distribution networks. Ultimately, it is this system that has made small- scale specialty farming viable and sustainable.

Woodbury County, Iowa

lthough industrial farming has become the norm in the Midwest, large farms that are able to take advantage of economies of scale often emerge as the only viable A farming operations. Increasing reliance on industrial chemical inputs, fertilizers, and other raw materials combined with the encroachment of urban land, increasing land values, and rising property taxes have made farming a difficult venture for all but the largest farms. For farmland preservation efforts on the metropolitan fringe to become successful, farms must be economically sustainable or no amount of effort to preserve farmland will succeed. Consequently, farming strategies outside of the realm of industrial agriculture that can benefit from the close proximity to population centers may provide an agricultural alternative. Furthermore, if viable family farming operations can be economically enhanced, increased economic benefit could trickle up into the community in the form of a diversified local economy that includes a food-based industry that supports wholesale outlets, processing, storage, shipping, and other industries. Woodbury County, Iowa, has enacted local policies to promote exactly that economy.

Development Patterns

The majority of Woodbury County is rural agricultural land. There are a few small towns situated along state highways that have distinct boundaries, but very few settlements extend into traditional agricultural land. An obvious exception is the northwestern portion of the county near Sioux City. The vast majority of the populated portion of Sioux City is located within Iowa. Sioux City sits on a bend in the Missouri River. Two smaller suburbs, North Sioux City and South Sioux City, are across the Missouri River in South Dakota and Nebraska, respectively. The lack of geographical constraints could easily allow Sioux City to continue to expand within Woodbury County, Iowa, to the east.

A future land-use map of the county shows vast swaths of land along highway corridors leading to Sioux City designated as rural residential, despite the fact that neither the county nor the city is experiencing significant population growth. Furthermore, minimum density requirements of two acres per dwelling unit in agricultural districts may incentivize low-density development away from Sioux City into agricultural areas, as there are virtually no restrictions on land supplies for low-density residential development.

Agricultural Facts

Woodbury County is located in the heart of the heartland along the Missouri River in northwestern Iowa. Sioux City is the only significant population center within the county and is situated in the northwestern portion of the county. Omaha is the closest large city and is located about 95 miles south of Sioux City. The populations of both Sioux City and Woodbury County have remained relatively constant during the past 30 years, fluctuating by a few percentage points each census year. In 2007, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated a population of 102,287 for Woodbury County and 82,684 for Sioux City. Although Woodbury County does not face farmland conversion pressures due to urban growth, the aging population of the county highlights the threats to local farming, as retiring farmers may not have successors or younger relatives willing to take over the family farm.

Farmsteads in Woodbury County

Moville, Woodbury County

Southeastern edge of Sioux City

The number of farms and acreage in farmland decreased slightly between 1987 and 2002, from 1,360 to 1,146 farms and 451,759 to 442,152 acres (see Table 7). Like population figures, these figures appear to fluctuate between agricultural census years, however, and may reflect differences in the way data was gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Census Department rather than actual changes in farming.

Although the population of the county has not increased significantly, land values have climbed steadily over the years, peaking at an average of $1,794 per farm-acre in 2002, up from an inflation-adjusted value of $1,492 in 1997 and $1,267 in 1992. Meanwhile, the market value of agricultural products sold in Woodbury County has decreased slightly since 1992, from an inflation-adjusted average of $152,875 per farm in 1992 to $129,773 in 1997 and $123,994 in 2002. Property taxes paid spiked between 1997 and 2002, from an average of $3,335 in 1997 (2002 dollars) to an average of $5,342 in 2002, after a decrease in inflation-adjusted totals for the previous two census periods. These figures indicate that costs of farming appear to be increasing, whereas the value of agricultural products remains relatively constant or has declined slightly.

In a region where corn is king, Woodbury County is no exception. Corn for grain has been the major crop in the county, followed by soybeans. Acreage devoted to corn increased from more than 162,000 acres in 1987 to more than 194,000 in 1997 before declining to 163,000 in 2002 (see charts and graphs in Appendix C.5). Soybean acreage expanded from more than 97,000 in 1997 to 168,000 in 2002 before declining slightly to about 150,000 in 2002. Although the majority of livestock raised in the county was hogs and pigs, the

number of hogs and pigs peaked in 1992 at 146,569 before declining steadily. In 2002, there were only 64,797 hogs and pigs in inventory.

Vegetable production, although a very small portion of the acreage in the county, held constant between 1987 and 1997 at between 30 and 50 acres, and spiked to 682 acres in 2002. Although paling in comparison to the acreage devoted to corn and soybeans, this represents a small but not insignificant paradigm shift in the county as aging commodity crop farmers begin to give way to a new breed of younger farmers and entrepreneurs seeking to fill niche markets in Sioux City and nearby Omaha.

Table 7. Selected Agricultural Statistics for Woodbury County, Iowa

1987 1992 1997 2002 Number of farms 1,360 1,254 1,306 1,148 Land in farms (A) 451,759 442,247 497,241 442,152 Farmland percentage of land area 81% 79% 89% 79% Avg. size of farm (A) 332 353 381 385

Adjusted for Inflation (2002 Dollars) 1987 1992 1997 2002 1987 1992 1997 2002 Estimated market value of land and buildings Avg per farm 255,831 374,368 506,937 698,733 401,655 475,447 567,769 698,733 Avg per acre 769 998 1,332 1,794 1,207 1,267 1,492 1,794

Market value of agricultural products sold In thousands of dollars ($) 127,445 150,949 151,324 142,345 200,089 191,705 169,483 142,345 Avg per farm 93,709 120,374 115,869 123,994 147,123 152,875 129,773 123,994

Cash rents* Farms* 464 379 514 366 464 379 514 366 Avg per farm* 11,946 20,615 27,064 36,115 18,755 26,181 30,312 36,115

Property taxes paid* Farms* 1,131 1,009 1,224 1,022 1,131 1,009 1,224 1,022 Avg per farm* 2,779 3,286 2,978 5,342 4,363 4,174 3,335 5,342

Sources: US Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992; US Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997, 2002

Agricultural Infrastructure

Woodbury County’s rural economic development director Rob Marqusee (2008) has noted that agricultural infrastructure in the county related to meat production has been declining since the 1967 interstate shipment ban on state-inspected meat (which was overturned in the 2008 Farm Bill). There is a local Tyson plant that packs meat and a few pork processing plants in neighboring towns and counties. According to Marqusee, however, most of the agricultural economy is devoted to corn and soybeans. A recent addition of a $40 million organic soybean processing facility in South Sioux City will boost the ability of local organic producers to find an outlet for their crops. Marqusee states that there are a few uninspected (custom) meat locker facilities in the region. The county is currently looking into developing locker facilities that could provide services to cattle farmers and provide a value-added product. The 2006 U.S. Census–County Business Patterns revealed that there were 14 animal slaughtering and processing plants within the county, providing a total of 2,240 jobs. These included Kustom Pack, Tur-Pak, and Sioux- Preme Packing, all employing more than 100 people. There were also seven grain and field bean wholesalers within the county and two or three more immediately outside the county boundaries that are available for corn and soybean producers, as well as seven nursery, garden center, and farm supply stores.

Agricultural Taxation

Iowa has an Ag Land Tax Credit and a Family Farm Tax Credit. The Ag Land Credit is available to owners of 10 or more acres of land that are used for agricultural or horticultural purposes (Iowa Department of Revenue, 2007). The Family Farm Credit is available to individual landowners who are actively engaged in farming the land (Iowa Department of Revenue, 2007). Agricultural real estate is assessed based on the productivity and net earning capacity of the land rather than the assessed market value of land (Iowa Department of Revenue, 2007).

Infrastructure

Woodbury County does not provide sewer or water service to rural land. Although cities may have their own water supply and sewer systems, these facilities are not available to rural residents, who must rely on septic systems and wells.

Two major roadways, Interstate 29 and State Highway 20, traverse the county. Interstate 29 is a north-south highway that connects Sioux City with Omaha, Nebraska, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Highway 20 extends eastward more than 125 miles before it becomes a national highway, and about another 80 miles before it reaches Waterloo, Iowa.

Local Agriculture Policies

In June, 2005 Woodbury County, Iowa, became the first county in the United States to offer tax rebates to farmers who agreed to convert their cropland to organic production and become certified organic farmers. The program grants a total of $50,000 in annual tax rebates each year for up to five years to farmers who enroll in the program (Woodbury County, Iowa, 2005). The policy promotes a return to smaller acreage farms that require increased labor and provide greater returns (Woodbury County, Iowa, 2005). More

61 broadly, the program is part of a greater economic development scheme aimed at strengthening the local farm economy and attracting young people to the farming profession by promoting the economic viability of farming as a business venture. As Woodbury County’s farmers age, attracting young farmers is vital to the strategy of strengthening agriculture. With more than half of the farmland owned by people over the age of 55, Woodbury County expects that more than half of the county’s farmland will change hands during the next 10 years (Woodbury County, Iowa, 2005). By taking advantage of the growing organics market, Woodbury County is hoping it can entice younger farmers to take over the helms of family farms and bring economic prosperity to the area.

Although there was already a strong demand for local foods in the county (Food and Society, 2006), Woodbury County provided an additional incentive for enrollment in the organic conversion program with a policy enacted just six months later that mandates the purchase of locally grown organic food by all county entities. The Local Food Purchase Policy requires the county to prefer locally grown organic food first before purchasing from other sources (Woodbury County, Iowa, 2006). After organic options have been exhausted, the county must then purchase from local farms that do not grow organically. This is important because it can take several years of transitional growing before crops can be certified organic, thus such a policy also provides a buffer for those farmers who are in the process of converting to organic.

This pair of programs is expected to benefit the local farm economy in several ways. Farmers will be enticed to work together and form new bonds to effectively access markets and consumers. The program also hopes to counter the deterioration of small farming communities that have been losing population due to federal subsidy programs that favor large industrial farming operations. Rob Marqusee points out that “there is little evidence that farmers as a group are reaping significant gains from current U.S. agricultural subsidy programs, even though they are the direct recipients” (DeVore, 2006). This local economic development strategy favors the entrepreneurial role of the family farm as a bottom-up approach over the top-down strategy of attracting large agricultural industry that tends to pay low wages and may vanish as soon as a cheaper location can be found elsewhere. By contrast, farmers switching to organic production have the opportunity to diversify their crop production and expand their market beyond the commodity framework. The economic feasibility of diversification is exemplified in the drastically different price points between various crops. In 2004, right before the Organic Conversion Program took effect, area farmers were netting about $35 per acre from standardized industrial corn. Meanwhile, growers of organic heritage tomatoes were producing a net income of about $9,000 per acre (Bedford, 2004). Although the process of producing specialty crops is drastically different from industrial farming, the pair of county programs provides a buffer for farmers who seek to make the transition. This buffer can be an important factor because mid-sized farm operators are often reluctant to try new enterprises; changes requiring more time and management are risky and reduce subsidy payments that cannot be recovered if the new enterprise fails (Krouse & Galluzzo, 2007).

Additionally, by providing a supply of local food for area consumers, economic effects may be bolstered as more money is spent within the community. Although approximately a quarter of a million people in the Sioux City region spend $320 million on food each year, less than 1 percent of that money was spent on food produced locally (Bedford, 2004). If that percentage can be increased, the multiplier effect can increase the value of those food dollars by 2 to 8 times (Freiburger, 2004). By capturing those revenues locally, local food producers are more likely to spend that income locally as well and produce new economic activity.

There have been some positive developments in the Siouxland related to the shift to local organic production. The Sioux City Journal reported that a Whole Foods retailer in Omaha, Nebraska, has agreed to purchase organic food produced in Woodbury County. “Whatever you can provide, we’ll do our best to buy,” stated Tom Marciniak of Whole Foods. Additionally, the local community college has launched a degree program in organic agriculture providing local farmers with the educational tools needed to successfully farm organically. The Sioux City Journal reported that neighboring Cherokee County—which enacted similar organic growing incentives—has attracted a large organic processing plant, American Natural Soy, providing direct access for Woodbury County farmers to tap into a larger market for organic products. This new processing plant also has the potential to create more jobs for the region and bridge the gap between bottom-up and top-down economic development efforts.

One major complementing factor to the Local Food Purchase Policy and the Organics Conversion Policy is the simultaneous rise in the local food advocacy group Sustainable Foods for Siouxland (SFFS). In 2003, Sioux City consumers looking for access to high- quality local foods formed SFFS. The organization soon created the Floyd Boulevard Local Foods Market as “a joint farmer and consumer effort to establish a humane and sustainable local food supply for the tri-state region” (Freiburger, 2004). What started as a year-round farmers market has emerged as a much larger enterprise aimed at promoting local foods and enabling local farmers access to the infrastructure necessary to become successful beyond the local level.

The Floyd Boulevard Local Foods Market (FBLFM) is made up of four ventures: the farmers market, the Firehouse Market, a food brokerage, and a commercial kitchen (Value Chain Partners, 2008). The Firehouse Market and the farmers market may be the most visible aspects of SFFS, but the other enterprises offer the local farming community the opportunity both to tap into a food distribution network and add value to their products. Those farmers seeking to sell food to the county through the Local Food Purchase Policy can use FBLFM as a wholesale broker. In addition, the brokerage also supplies restaurants, other food co-ops, and the Whole Foods in Omaha (Value Chain Partners, 2008).

The commercial kitchen provides the option for some growers to add value to their crops through processing and canning. Currently, the kitchen produces the Sioux City Sue label of tomato sauces (Value Chain Partners, 2008). As local foods produced under the Sioux City Sue label must come from farms within a 100-mile radius, the supply for inputs is limited. The success of a local label depends on the ability of local growers to supply product. At the same time, local growers must be sure that there is a significant market for their crops if they are to expand.

Although there are some limitations to the current volume potential of the FBLFM, the very existence of the Sustainable Foods for Souixland provides an important link between the local governmental programs and local growers to provide the necessary infrastructure and support for a viable local foods economy. Volume limitations do not overshadow the ability of a public-private endeavor to incubate local farm operations. Although Iowa is known for its corn and soybean production, the push for a new innovative perspective on farming in the local economy creates great opportunities to sustain farming as a viable economic force.

As a whole, the Woodbury policies have been slow to take hold but there are signs that things are improving. As of 2008, only about 5 percent of the county’s purchases came from local sources (mostly melons and apple cider), but the county will soon have a local supplier for all of its purchases of eggs (Patton, 2008). Although some farmers have moved to the area to take advantage of the local organic policies, the supply of food is not yet

63 large enough (Patton, 2008). This could be changing. The recent announcement that local grocery chain Hy-Vee will increase the availability of locally grown natural foods for sale in local markets adds increased visibility to the project and creates additional incentives for farmers to increase the supply of organic produce (Woodbury County, 2008). A $40 million organic soybean processing plant owned by Green Planet Farms is also nearing completion. This new facility, drawn to the area in part due to Woodbury County’s organic and local food policies, will create 60 new jobs and increase the demand for locally grown organic soybeans. As infrastructure networks begin to fill in and small family farmers slowly populate the countryside, the Siouxland will be doing its part to change the face of farming back to food production for people after years of creating commodities for international industries.

Conclusion

Although Woodbury County has a traditional agricultural system based predominately on corn and soybean crops, current economic development policies are aimed at transforming that paradigm and creating a new system of local food and organic crop production. As Marqusee notes, the organic policies implemented by the county attempt to build a system from the ground up. Although limited processing facilities and associated agricultural services are currently available, Marqusee does see some early dividends from the county’s policies. Green Planet Farms’ decision to locate in South Sioux City, just across the Missouri River, will not only provide incentives for farmers to switch to organic production to take advantage of the nearby processing plant, but as Bret Hayworth of the Sioux City Journal reported on July 28, 2007, it will also provide 60 jobs paying an average of $18 per hour. Marqusee believes that the location of Green Planet Farms is a direct result of the county’s organic policies.

Woodbury is attempting to diversify agricultural activities not only to take advantage of the direct economic benefits to the county, but also to encourage and support the next generation of farmers. With commodity farming increasingly competitive, alternative and specialty operations provide additional possibilities for younger farmers who may otherwise eschew taking over the family farm and instead move to urban areas to seek other opportunities. By facilitating and supporting the creation of markets and infrastructure for organic foods, Woodbury County is helping to spark local economic development and the entrepreneurial spirit of its younger residents.

Conclusion

he preceding case studies demonstrate a range of techniques that have been used to protect or promote farmland on the metropolitan fringe. Each case study focuses T either on specific methods of protecting farmland, or programs and policies intended to promote agricultural viability. As mentioned earlier, both of these concepts are important. Farmland can be temporarily or permanently protected from development through a variety of methods, but if agriculture is not economically viable, preserving farmland as productive land will be difficult. In this sense, agricultural preservation should be viewed both from an economic development and a land protection perspective.

Each case study highlights a community or region that has had success in engineering an agricultural protection strategy or has implemented unique policies intended to promote agriculture. Montgomery County, Maryland, uses one of the oldest and best-known TDR programs. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has used an Agricultural Protection Board to prioritize and protect thousands of acres of farmland with PDR. The Town of Dunn has formed a formidable buffer of protected land as a township initiative through PDR and cooperation with other conservation organizations. Several governmental and nonprofit organizations in the Puget Sound area in Washington State promote local agriculture by building support systems for small famers and creating markets through local food initiatives. Finally, Woodbury County, Iowa, promotes agricultural diversification by providing tax incentives to small farmers who convert their fields to organic production and mandating the purchase of locally grown foods for county institutions.

All of the case study areas and approaches have some features in common. In almost every case, the community or region used several different strategies simultaneously to preserve agriculture. Lancaster County used a combination of PDR, growth boundaries, and a unique form of agricultural zoning. Montgomery County enforces adequate public facilities ordinances and establishes receiving areas where public facilities are available to accommodate growth. Some local jurisdictions in the Puget Sound region have agricultural protection programs in addition to strong local food policies to enhance agricultural viability. Woodbury County has used a variety of economic approaches, from tax incentives and marketing efforts to direct purchases and investment.

In each case there was also strong support for agricultural protection among the public and government officials. This was vital not only to secure dedicated funding and project implementation, but also to encourage participation in the programs (most of which are voluntary) and to sustain these programs over time.

In each case, broad coalitions were created that helped to make local agriculture economically viable. In the Puget Sound case, the State of Washington’s efforts were matched by the ingenuity of local nonprofit organizations. Dunn Township used public funds to purchase development rights, but worked closely with local and state conservation agencies to acquire matching funds and coordinate with regional preservation initiatives. Woodbury County’s government policies are supplemented by local food markets that together are drawing young farmers to the area.

As the case studies show, efforts to protect agriculture will likely be more effective if they are broadly supported, well funded, and use many approaches and strategies simultaneously.

Although some of the approaches in the case studies represent pioneering agricultural protection policies, all of these efforts have encountered obstacles. Agricultural protection

65 is not something that can be done once; it requires an ongoing effort. Development pressures will continue to mount, agricultural markets will ebb and flow, and new and unforeseen circumstances will emerge to threaten agriculture in the future. A successful farmland preservation program requires constantly scanning the horizon for new opportunities and potential threats. Protection policies, once enacted, must be continuously monitored and retooled when necessary to achieve the desired goals.

As populations grow and cities expand, it is inevitable that some farmland will be lost and converted to other uses. The purpose of an agricultural protection policy should be to maximize the efficiency of existing agriculture, and manage population growth in ways that protect high-quality farmland as a valuable, nonrenewable natural resource. If metropolitan farmland is productive, economically viable, and considered an asset, it can more easily be preserved as “the best and highest use” of the land.

Next Steps

Perhaps the most important initial step in any agricultural preservation effort in Scott County is to identify specific areas of the county worthy of protection based on the inherent properties of the land. Characteristics such as soil quality, crop yields, land cover types, topography, depth to groundwater, contiguity with other high-quality farmland, and proximity to already developed areas may make land more or less suitable for long- term agricultural use. Once areas most suitable for agriculture have been identified, protection efforts can be more carefully targeted to these areas.

Efforts to preserve agricultural land in Scott County must include close cooperation with the Metropolitan Council. Local units of government in the seven-county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area are required to conform to Metropolitan Council land use policies and must produce comprehensive plans that are consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework (see Appendix I). The 2030 Framework identifies large portions of Scott County as “diversified rural” (see Appendix I). Although these areas are currently dominated by agricultural uses and scattered low-density residential uses, the Metropolitan Council considers some portions of the diversified rural area to be within long-term metropolitan service areas that will eventually receive sewer capacity. Accordingly, the Metropolitan Council recently adopted guidelines for the diversified rural areas that discourage development or adoption of local policies that would impede the future ability to develop land in the long-term service area at minimum densities of 3 dwelling units per acre. Efforts to permanently preserve farmland in the diversified rural areas may conflict with these policies. However, approaches that maintain a gross density of 3 dwelling units per acre or more in the affected portions of diversified rural areas might be acceptable to the Met Council, even if they make some land undevelopable in perpetuity through deed restrictions or permanent easements. Similarly, transferring development rights from prime agricultural land within affected portions of the diversified rural area to other areas of the county within the long-term service area may also be acceptable. A regional approach to agricultural protection may provide more options for communities in the seven-county metro area. Development rights, for example, could be transferable across municipal or county boundaries, providing greater opportunities for agricultural preservation and more flexibility in implementation.

In pursuing agricultural protection measures, the local political feasibility of such policies must be considered. For example, efforts to increase density in some locations to preserve farmland in other areas may be met with local opposition unless the concerns and fears raised by increased density can be adequately assuaged. Approaches such as PDR that

66 require expenditure of public funds may be a hard sell, especially given the current economic downturn. And any approach that limits the rights of some landowners to develop their land at the same densities as their neighbors is likely to meet opposition from property rights advocates. It would be prudent to judge the public’s attitudes toward such issues as agricultural protection, local food production, varying rates of residential density, smaller lot sizes, and higher density development in already urbanized areas. Strong support for agricultural preservation and more compact development might even serve as justification for a bonding bill to support a PDR or TDR program.

Another important consideration is how economic conditions might affect farmland protection programs. The recent subprime loan crisis and worsening economic situation may have profound implications for agricultural protection efforts. TDR approaches, for example, may be affected by a long-term housing slump because high land values provide the incentive for developers to purchase development rights and gain density bonuses. At the same time, farmers might be more willing to sell development rights if they feel that they will no longer be able to take advantage of the high land prices seen in previous decades. Maintaining the proper ratio of sending to receiving areas, as well as the appropriate density bonus for developers, will therefore be critical. Approaches such as adequate public facilities ordinances that encourage more compact development in areas already served by infrastructure may become popular as municipalities increasingly seek to ensure that development pays its own way.

Another issue that deserves consideration is the feasibility and viability of additional local food production in the region. The Twin Cities is anecdotally known as a region that supports active and healthy lifestyles and that is friendly to organic food markets and cooperative grocery stores. It would seem, then, that local food production has room to grow. However, much of the farmland in the seven-county metro area is currently devoted to commodity crops and industrial agriculture. To expand the amount of local food and specialty crop/livestock farming, it will be necessary to understand the existing local food system, and to adopt policies and support programs that nurture farmers (or potential farmers), facilitate conversion of land to local food production, and create access for farmers seeking entry into new and existing local and regional markets.

Finally, a study of potential areas for agricultural specialization within the region might increase the feasibility of metropolitan farming. Varying microclimates within the region may be conducive to growing certain high-value crops such as orchard crops, vegetables, or tree nuts. Regional niches, if identified, could increase agricultural vitality if more farmers are able to take advantage of the specialized climate and regional systems are in place to support those endeavors. Existing areas of specialization could also be identified through location quotients of industrial patterns or agricultural products. This might help determine existing strengths in agricultural production relative to the rest of the country and identify avenues for farmers seeking to diversify.

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust. (2007). Farming on the edge report. Accessed December 3, 2008 at: http://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/default.asp

American Farmland Trust. (2008). Success in the 2008 Farm Bill: A new direction for farm and food policy. Accessed December 4, 2008 at: http://www.farmland.org/programs/farm- bill/analysis/documents/AFT-2008-Farm-Bill-brochure-August2008.pdf

American Farmland Trust. (n.d.). Excerpt from American Farmland Trust Montgomery County, Maryland TDR program. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.preservethereserve.org/pages/tdr_program.pdf

American Farmland Trust & Agricultural Issues Center. (2003). A national view of agricultural easement programs: Profiles and maps – Report 1: Eds. Sokolow and Zurbrugg. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.aftresearch.org/PDRdatabase/report1.pdf

American Farmland Trust and the Farmland Information Center. (2008) Fact sheet: The farmland protection toolbox. Accessed December 5, 2008 at: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27761/fp_toolbox_02-2008.pdf

Bedford, C. (2004). Food market with big promise. In Business, 26 (4), 14. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5378/is_/ai_n21355959

Berry, D. (1978). Effects of urbanization on agricultural activities. Growth and Change. 9: 2- 8.

Berton, V. (2005). Creating viable farms and ranches: An economic development strategy in rural and urban-edge communities. American Farmland Trust E-News. July 2005. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/30298/Creating_Viable_Farms_and_Ranches.pdf

Boone County Planning Commission. (2001). A study of PDR and TDR for Boone County, Kentucky. Accessed December 21, 2008 at: http://www.boonecountyky.org/PC/PDR_TDR.pdf

Bowers, D. (2002). TDR programs seeing success in mid-Atlantic. Farmland Preservation Report, Nov. 2002. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.farmlandpreservationreport.com/articles.htm#anchor427233

Cascade Harvest Coalition. (2008). Puget Sound Fresh. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.cascadeharvest.org/programs/puget-sound-fresh

Cohen, J. & Preuss, I. (2002). An analysis of the social equity issues in the Montgomery County (MD) transfer of development rights program. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/pdf/CohenPreuss_TDREquity_DateNA.pdf

Coalition for Smart Growth. (2003). Policy paper. Accessed November 14, 2008 at: http://www.coalitionforsmartgrowth.org/pdf/SmartGrowth_Policy.pdf

Dane County, Wisconsin. (2005). Regional trends 2004. Accessed November 13, 2008 at: http://danedocs.countyofdane.com/webdocs/PDF/PlanDev/ComprehensivePlan/resources/ capd_2004_trends_summary.pdf

Dane County Department of Planning and Development. (n.d.). Urban service areas fact sheet. Accessed November 13, 2008 at: http://danedocs.countyofdane.com/webdocs/PDF/capd/usafactsheet.pdf

Daniels, T. L. (1999). When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. Island Press. Washington D.C.

Daniels, T. L. (2000). Integrated working landscape protection: The case of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 261-271.

Daniels, T. L. (2004). Farmland preservation policies in the United States: Successes and shortcomings. Department of City and Regional Planning Departmental Papers. University of Pennsylvania.

Daniels, T. L. (2005). Land preservation in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania: Strategy, funding, and cooperation are key. Presented at The Conference on The Race for Space: The Politics and Economics of State Open Space Programs, The Policy Research Institute for the Region, Princeton, NJ. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/cplan_papers/28

Daniels, T.L. & Bowers D. (1997). Holding our ground: protecting America’s farms and farmland. Washington D.C. Island Press.

DeVore, B. (2006). Putting farming back in the driver’s seat. The Land Stewardship Letter, 24 (1), 1, 16-19. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.woodbury- ia.com/departments/economicdevelopment/Land%20Stewardship%20FULL%20TEXT.pdf

Food and Society. (2006). The case of Woodbury County. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://ola.wkkf.org/fasupdate/2006/january/feature.html

Freiburger, A. (2004). New farmer’s market is ‘value($) added’: Floyd Boulevard Local Foods Market in Sioux City, Iowa. Organic Broadcaster 12 (5).

Gausman, R. Town of Dunn Town Clerk, phone interview with author. November 12, 2008.

Gillham, O. (2002). The limitless city. Washington DC: Island Press.

Gish, B.W. (2007). Keep it plain and simple: Planning with a twist in Lancaster County. Planning. February 2007, 56-60. Growing Washington. (2008). Farm to cafeteria project. Accessed December 17, 2008 at: http://www.growingwashington.org/farm_to_cafeteria_project%20.php

Hanson R. (2005). Protecting Montgomery’s agricultural preserve for the next generation. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.montgomerycountrysidealliance.org/hanson.htm

Heimlich, R. E. and Anderson D. (2001). Development at the urban fringe and beyond.” Agricultural Economic Report No. (AE803). Accessed December 3, 2008 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER803/

Ikerd, J. (2002) Small farms: The foundation for long run food security. Presented at “A time to act: Providing educators with resources to address small farm issues: sponsored by University of Illinois, Agroecology/Sustainable Agriculture Program, Effingham and Peoria, IL, Nov. 13-14 2002.

Iowa Department of Revenue. (2007). An introduction to Iowa property tax. Accessed November 12, 2008 at: http://www.iowa.gov/tax/educate/78573.html

Krouse, L. & Galluzzo, T. (2007). Iowa’s local food systems: A place to grow. The Iowa Policy Project. Mt. Vernon, Iowa. Accessed: December 23, 2008 at: http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2007docs/070206-LocalFood.pdf

Lancaster County. (n.d.). Act 319 questions and answers. Accessed November 22, 2008 at: http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp?a=565&q=580800

Lancaster County Planning Commission. (2002). 2002 Lancaster County population forecasts 2000 – 2030. Accessed December 21, 2008 at: http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/planning/lib/planning/pdfs/population_forecasts.pdf

Lancaster County Planning Commission. (2008). Status of UGB adoption. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/planning/cwp/view.asp?a=476&Q=385913

Lancaster Farmland Trust. (2006). 2006 annual report. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.lancasterfarmlandtrust.org/docs/annual-reports/annual-06.pdf

Lancaster Farmland Trust. (2008). Farming in Lancaster County. Accessed December 21, 2008 at: http://www.lancasterfarmlandtrust.org/heritage/farming-lancaster.html

Lancaster County Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2008). Lancaster farming facts. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.lcci.com/ag/farmfacts.asp

Land Trust GIS (2008). Lancaster Farmland Trust. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.landtrustgis.org/best-practices/impact/lft

Laskin T. 2007. Dunn against all. Isthmus/The Daily Page. Accessed December 21, 2008 at: http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=5414 Levitt, J. (2008). Growing Washington: Practical solutions for small farms. World Changing Seattle. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.worldchanging.com/local/seattle/archives/008397.html

Lopez, R., Adelaja, A. & Andrews, M. (1988) The effects of suburbanization on agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70, 347-358.

Manheim Township. (n.d.). Manheim Township receives farmland trust award. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.manheimtownship.org/pzoning.htm#top

Majid Allan – Dane County Board of Supervisors, phone interview with author. November 13, 2008

Marqusee, Rob. Telephone interview with author. November 12, 2008.

Maryland – National Capital Park and Planning Commission. (2003). Montgomery County comprehensive water supply and sewerage systems plan.

Accessed November 18, 2008 at: http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/planning/viewer.shtm#http://www.montgomerycoun tymd.gov/content/dep/water/revisedmar25wsplanchap1-4combo.doc

Maryland – National Capital Park and Planning Commission. (2005). 2005 land preservation, parks, and recreation plan. Chapter IV agricultural land preservation. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/ppra/Park_Planning/LPPRP_2005/LPPRP_final%20cha pters/chapter04_Agriculture.pdf

Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. (2006). The agricultural use assessment. Accessed November 24, 2008 at: http://www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/aguse.html

Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. (2008). Agricultural transfer tax. Accessed November 24, 2008 at: http://www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/agtransf.html

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2007). Minnesota’s agricultural land preservation statutes. Accessed December 5, 2008 at: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation/statutes.htm

Montgomery County. (2005). Enhanced farmland preservation initiatives. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/ded/agservices/pdffiles/enhfrmpresin.pdf

Montgomery County Department of Economic Development. (2006). TDR program overview. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/ded/agservices/pdffiles/tdr_info.pdf

National Resources Conservation Service. (2003). 2003 natural resources inventory land use. Accessed December 3, 2008 at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/nri03landuse-mrb.html

Natural Resources Defense Council. (n.d.). Montgomery County agricultural reserve: The country’s largest farmland protection program. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/solve/mont.asp

Northwest Agriculture Business Center. (2008). Food network project launched. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.agbizcenter.org/FilesUploaded/file/2008%2008%2005%20August%206th%20la unch%20on%20letterhead.pdf

Organic Farmers Action Network. (2008). Implementing the 2008 Farm Bill organic provisions. Accessed December 4, 2008 at: http://ofrf.org/policy/federal_legislation/farm_bill_implementation/081110_farm_bill_impl ementation.pdf

Patton, Z. (2008). Fresh fight. Governing, April 2008. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.governing.com/articles/0804food.htm

Paulson, J. (1997). Dane County, Wisconsin plats versus plows. Center for Agriculture in the Environment Working Paper. Number 97-13. Accessed December 21, 2008 at:

72 http://aftresearch.org/research/resource/publications/wp/wp97-13.html

Puget Sound Food Project. (2007). Puget Sound Food Project progress report 22 October 2007. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.agbizcenter.org/FilesUploaded/file/October%20Progress%20Report(1).pdf

Research and Technology Center & Maryland – National Capital Park and Planning Commission. (2008). 2007: Tracking transferable development rights. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.mc-mncppc.org/research/documents/TDRstatusreport- finaldraft.pdf

Robinson, R. R. (2002). Development rights programs gain popularity. About Growth, Spring 2002, 5. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.cted.wa.gov/uploads/agnspr_02.pdf

Sheely. S. (n.d.). Lancaster County industry cluster profiles. Lancaster County Workforce Investment Board. Powerpoint Presentation. Accessed November 18, 2008 at: http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/communityaudits/

Sims, R. (2008). King County protects open space, habitat while housing density increases in urban core. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/2008/0104space.aspx

Skagit County. (2007). Comprehensive plan. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.skagitcounty.net/Common/asp/default.asp?d=PlanningAndPermit&c=General &p=comp_toc.htm

Smart Communities Network. (n.d.). Codes/Ordinances. Accessed November 14, 2008 at: http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/codes/lancastr1.shtml

State of Minnesota. (2008). 2008 Minnesota statutes: 473H.04 authority must certify eligible preserve lands. Accessed December 5, 2008 at: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=473H.04

Town of Dunn. (2006). Comprehensive Plan Map 3. Accessed December 13, 2008 at: http://town.dunn.wi.us/NineElements.aspx and http://town.dunn.wi.us/LandUse/Map_Chapter%206%20Utilities%20Service%20Area.pdf

Town of Dunn. (2007a). Rural preservation through the purchase of development rights. Town of Dunn Newsletter Fall 2007. Accessed December 21, 2008 at: http://town.dunn.wi.us/Government/Newsletter%20Fall%202007.pdf

Town of Dunn. (2007b). Purchase of development rights: 10 years of progress. Town of Dunn Newsletter Spring 2007. Accessed December 21, 2008 at: http://town.dunn.wi.us/Government/Newsletter%20Spring%202007.pdf

Town of Dunn. (n.d.). Purchase of development rights program. Accessed September 3, 2008. http://town.dunn.wi.us/PurchaseofDevelopmentRights.aspx

Value Chain Partners. (2008). Workshop proceedings from April 3, 2008: Making Value Chains Work: Best Practices for Success. Ames, Iowa. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.valuechains.org/rfswg/BPW-Proceedings_071608.pdf

Warwick Township. (2007). Warwick Township, Lancaster County: Transferable development rights (TDR) program. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/warwick/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=565106&tx=1

Washington State. (n.d.). Growth management hearing boards. Accessed December 18, 2008 at: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/gma/index.html

Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. (2008). Regional transfer of development rights program. Accessed December 18, 2008 at: http://cted.wa.gov/site/1060.default.aspx

Washington State Department of Revenue. (2007). Open space taxation act. Accessed November 25, 2008 at: http://dor.wa.gov/docs/Pubs/Prop_Tax/OpenSpace.pdf

Washington State. (n.d.). The growth management act – growth management hearing boards. Accessed November 25, 2008 at: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/gma/index.html Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection. (2005). Right to farm laws. Accessed December 12, 2008 at: http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/workinglands/pdf/sept7/Right_to_Farm_Laws_Briefing_Paper. pdf

Wisconsin Department of Revenue. (2008). Agricultural assessment guide for Wisconsin property owners 2008. Accessed December 22, 2008 at: http://www.dor.state.wi.us/pubs/slf/pb061.pdf

Woodbury County, Iowa. (2005). Woodbury County, Iowa Board of Supervisors first in the United States to offer tax incentives for organic farming practices. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.woodbury- ia.com/departments/EconomicDevelopment/wc_press_release_organics%20v2.pdf

Woodbury County, Iowa. (2006). Woodbury County, Iowa board of supervisors first in the United States to mandate purchase of locally grown organic food. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://www.woodburyiowa.com/departments/economicdevelopment/WC_PRESS_RELEASE _LFPP.pdf

Woodbury County, Iowa. (2008). Gentle Creek Candy Company, Hy-Vee, Inc, and Woodbury County announce the introduction of locally produced food products that consumers will demand throughout the year. Accessed December 23, 2008 at: http://web.mac.com/marqusee/Woodbury_Organics/Main_files/WC_PRESS_RELEASE_Lore nzen.pdf

Appendix A

American Farmland Trust Farmland Protection Toolbox

AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST · FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER

DESCRIPTION

This fact sheet provides a brief description of the assessment or property tax credits to farmers tools and techniques that state and local govern- who enroll. ments are using to protect farmland and support Some states encourage local planning by limiting the economic viability of agriculture. Some of the district authorization to jurisdictions with techniques result in programs that are enacted comprehensive or farmland protection plans, and administered at the state level, others are requiring the adoption of land use regulations to used primarily by local governments. Sometimes, protect farmland, involving planning bodies in municipal governments adapt and strengthen the development and approval of districts, and FARMLAND state laws to meet unique local needs. Some of limiting non-farm development in and around the most effective farmland protection programs agricultural districts. INFORMATION combine regulatory and incentive-based strategies. ENTER AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION C AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT PROGRAMS ZONING (APZ) Agricultural district programs allow farmers to Agricultural protection zoning refers to county form special areas where commercial agriculture FACT and municipal zoning ordinances that support is encouraged and protected. Typically, programs and protect farming by stabilizing the agricul- are authorized by state law and implemented at tural land base. They designate areas where the local level. Enrollment in agricultural districts SHEET farming is the primary land use and discourage is voluntary. In exchange for enrollment, farmers other land uses in those areas. APZ limits the receive a package of benefits, which varies from activities that are permitted in agricultural state to state. zones. The most restrictive regulations prohibit THE There are 19 agricultural district programs in any uses that might be incompatible with com- 16 states. California, New Jersey and North mercial farming. Carolina offer farmers two levels of benefits. APZ ordinances restrict the density of residen- Minnesota and Virginia have statewide and local FARMLAND tial development in agricultural zones. Maximum agricultural district programs. Ohio has two densities range from one house per 20 acres in statewide programs. the eastern United States to one house per PROTECTION Agricultural district programs are intended to 640 acres in the West. Exclusive agricultural use be comprehensive responses to the challenges APZ prohibits non-farm residential development. facing farmers in developing communities. To Non-exclusive APZ ordinances use different maintain the land base for agriculture, some approaches to limit density. Large minimum lot TOOLBOX agricultural district programs protect farmland size APZ sets a minimum lot size for each resi- from annexation and eminent domain. Many dence. For example, some ordinances require also require that state agencies limit construction 40 acres per dwelling unit. Area-based of infrastructure, such as roads and sewers, in allowance APZ uses a formula to achieve a agricultural districts. A few offer participants desired density on the parent tract but allows or eligibility for purchase of agricultural conserva- requires houses to be situated on small lots of 1 FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER tion easement programs, and two states include or 2 acres. The ratio may be fixed or based on a One Short Street, Suite 2 a right of first refusal in district agreements to sliding scale that requires more acreage per Northampton, MA 01060 ensure that land will continue to be available dwelling for larger parcels. Tel: (413) 586-4593 for agriculture. Fax: (413) 586-9332 In addition to limits on residential development, Web: www.farmlandinfo.org Agricultural district programs help create a more some APZ ordinances also contain limits on sub- secure climate for agriculture by preventing local division, site design criteria and right-to-farm NATIONAL OFFICE governments from passing laws that restrict farm provisions. They may also authorize commercial 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800 practices and by providing enhanced protection agricultural activities, such as farmstands, that Washington, DC 20036 from private nuisance lawsuits. enhance farm profitability. Occasionally, farmers Tel: (202) 331-7300 To reduce farm operating expenses, some pro- in an agricultural zone are required to prepare Fax: (202) 659-8339 grams offer automatic eligibility for differential farm management plans. Web: www.farmland.org

The FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER (FIC) is a clearinghouse for information about farmland protection and stewardship. © February 2008 The FIC is a public/private partnership between the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and American Farmland Trust. American farmland trust · Farmland information center

In most states, APZ is implemented at the county ranchers because of the noise, dust and odors level, although towns and townships may also associated with commercial agricultural produc- have APZ ordinances. Zoning can be modified tion. Even if the owners are willing to let the through the local political process. Generally, the land be used for agriculture, undeveloped por- enactment of an APZ ordinance results in a tions of cluster subdivisions may not be large reduction of permitted residential densities in the enough for farmers to operate efficiently, and new zone. This reduction in density, also called access can also be a problem. For these reasons, downzoning, may be controversial because it can cluster zoning has been used more successfully THE reduce the market value of land. A change in to preserve open space or to create transitional zoning that increases permitted residential areas between farms and residential areas than densities is known as upzoning. A change in the to protect farmland. FARMLAND zoning designation of an area—from agricultural to commercial, for example—is known as re- COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING zoning. Successful petitions for upzoning and Comprehensive planning allows counties, cities, rezoning in agricultural protection zones often towns and townships to create a vision for their PROTECTION result in farmland conversion. joint future. Comprehensive plans, which are also APZ stabilizes the agricultural land base by known as master or general plans, outline local keeping large tracts of land relatively free of government policies, objectives and decision TOOLBOX non-farm development. This can reduce the like- guidelines, and serve as blueprints for develop- lihood of conflicts between farmers and their ment. They typically identify areas targeted for a non-farming neighbors. Communities can use variety of different land uses, including agricul- APZ to conserve a “critical mass” of agriculture, forestry, residential, commercial, industrial tural land, enough to keep individual farms and recreational activities. Comprehensive plans from becoming isolated islands in a sea of resi- provide a rationale for zoning and promote the dential neighborhoods. Maintaining a critical orderly development of public services. mass of agricultural land can ensure that there A comprehensive plan can form the foundation will be enough farms to support local agricul- of a local farmland protection strategy by identi- tural service businesses. By restricting the devel- fying areas to be protected for agricultural use opment potential of large properties, APZ limits and areas where growth will be encouraged. It land speculation and helps keep land affordable may include policies designed to conserve natural to farmers and ranchers. Finally, APZ helps pro- resources and provide affordable housing and mote orderly growth by preventing sprawl into adequate public services. Some counties have rural areas, and benefits farmers and non-farmers used the comprehensive planning process to alike by protecting scenic landscapes and main- encourage their cities and towns to develop desig- taining open space. nated urban growth areas or boundaries (UGBs) and adopt APZ. Others have incorporated the CLUSTER ZONING use of purchase of agricultural conservation ease- Cluster zoning ordinances allow or require ments (PACE) and transfer of development rights houses to be grouped together on small lots to (TDR) into their master plans. protect open land. The portion of the parcel that CONSERVATION EASEMENTS is not developed may be restricted by a conservation easement. Cluster developments are also Conservation easements are deed restrictions known as cluster subdivisions, open space or that landowners voluntarily place on their land open land subdivisions. to protect important resources. They are used Cluster subdivisions can keep land available for by landowners (“grantors”) to authorize a qual- agricultural use, but generally they are not ified conservation organization or public agency designed to support commercial agriculture. The (“grantee”) to monitor and enforce the restric- protected land is typically owned by developers tions set forth in the agreement. or homeowners’ associations. Homeowners may Forty-nine states have a law pertaining to con- object to renting their property to farmers and servation easements. The National Conference

2 AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST · FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER

of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws purposes. They may be advisory or carry the full adopted the Uniform Conservation Easement Act force and effect of law, depending on the state. in 1981. The Act was designed to serve as a Governors from at least nine states have issued model for state legislation to allow qualified executive orders directing state agencies to avoid public agencies and private conservation organi- contributing to the conversion of agricultural zations to accept, acquire and hold less-than-fee- land. These state-level policies mirror the federal simple interests in land for the purposes of Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), which conservation and preservation. Since the Uniform was enacted as a subtitle of the 1981 Farm Bill Act was approved, 23 states have adopted con- to “…minimize the extent to which Federal THE servation easement-enabling legislation based programs contribute to the unnecessary conver- on this model and 26 states have drafted and sion of farmland to non-agricultural uses….” enacted their own conservation easement- Some orders identify a lead agency, typically FARMLAND enabling laws. the state department of agriculture, to review Agricultural conservation easements are designed state agency activities that may result in farm- to keep land available for agriculture. Grantors land conversion. These policies may help head retain the right to use their land for farming, off condemnation and/or may be used to justify PROTECTION ranching and other purposes that do not interfere mitigation. with or reduce agricultural viability. They hold Massachusetts Executive Order 193, for title to their properties and may restrict public example, issued in 1991, has been used by the TOOLBOX access, sell, give or transfer their property, as Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR) they desire. Producers also remain eligible for to negotiate mitigation for farmland loss. The any state or federal farm program for which DAR seeks mitigation for projects involving they qualified before entering into the conserva- state funds and privately funded development tion agreement. projects subject to the state’s environmental Easements may apply to entire parcels of land or permitting process. Mitigation options include to specific parts of a property. Most easements permanently protecting equivalent agricultural are permanent; term easements impose restric- land by granting an agricultural preservation tions for a limited number of years. All conser- restriction to the Commonwealth or by making vation easements legally bind future landowners. a financial contribution to its farmland protec- Land protected by conservation easements re- tion program, a municipality or a qualified con- mains on the tax rolls and is privately owned servation organization. and managed. While conservation easements Other executive orders have created task forces to limit development, they do not affect other investigate farmland conversion and recommend private property rights. possible solutions. For example, Ohio’s executive Agricultural conservation easements are a flexible order created a state-level farmland preservation farmland protection tool. Private land trusts and task force and ultimately led to the creation of the other conservation organizations educate farmers state’s easement acquisition program. about the tax benefits of donating easements, State executive orders have the potential to build and state and local governments have developed public and institutional support for other farm- programs to purchase agricultural conservation land protection programs. By restricting the use easements from landowners. In addition, agricul- of state funds for projects that would result in tural conservation easements can be designed to the loss of agricultural land, executive orders protect other natural resources, such as wetlands also can influence the actions of local govern- and wildlife habitat. ments. To the extent that they call attention to the problem of farmland conversion and facilitate EXECUTIVE ORDERS discussion about solutions, orders can serve as a State executive orders are policy statements building block of a comprehensive farmland pro- issued by governors to accomplish specific tection program.

3 American farmland trust · Farmland information center

FARM VIABILITY PROGRAMS require that public services such as water and sewer lines, roads and schools be in place before Farm viability programs provide technical assis- new development is approved. Others direct tance and, in some cases, small grants to local governments to make decisions in accor- improve the profitability of farm operations. dance with comprehensive plans that are consis- These programs are administered by departments tent with plans for adjoining areas. of agriculture, extension and/or nonprofit organizations. Typically, teams of experts work with Oregon has one of the nation’s strongest growth THE operators to evaluate the current operation and management laws. As a result of the state’s 1972 develop individualized plans. Funds may also be Land Conservation and Development Act, every available to implement practices or undertake county in Oregon has implemented agricultural capital projects identified in the planning protection zoning, protecting more than 16 mil- FARMLAND process. Some of the programs include farmland lion acres of agricultural land. Washington’s protection and resource conservation compo- Growth Management Act (GMA), passed in nents. The Massachusetts Farm Viability 1990 and strengthened in 1991, also is proving PROTECTION Enhancement program, for example, awards to be an effective farmland protection tool. Since implementation grants in exchange for term the enactment of the GMA, most of Washington’s easements. All viability programs assume that counties have developed inventories of important changes at the farm level—be it better manage- agricultural land, and several have adopted agri- TOOLBOX ment of existing resources or a new direction in cultural protection zoning and/or created pur- marketing and/or products offered—can lead to chase of agricultural conservation easement and enhanced farm profitability. transfer of development rights programs. Growth management laws in Hawaii, Vermont, The first two agricultural viability programs New Jersey and Maryland have been somewhat were developed in Massachusetts and Minnesota less effective in preventing farmland conversion in the mid 1990s. Subsequent programs have and promoting the development of local farm- been adopted by Connecticut, Maine, New land protection programs. Jersey, New York and Vermont. In the 2002 Farm Bill, a federal Farm Viability Program was MITIGATION lawS AND POLICIES created, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants to eligible entities with Farmland mitigation laws and policies attempt to approved farm viability programs. The federal compensate for the conversion of agricultural program has not yet been implemented. land to another use by requiring permanent protection of “comparable” agricultural land. In GROWTH MANAGEMENT LAWS 1995, city officials in Davis, Calif., enacted an ordinance that requires developers to perma- Growth management laws are designed to con- nently protect one acre of farmland for every trol the timing and phasing of urban growth acre of agricultural land they convert to other and to determine the types of land use that will uses. Developers can place an agricultural conser- be permitted at the local and regional levels. At vation easement on farmland in another part of least 12 states have laws that control develop- the city or pay a fee in lieu of direct protection. ment or set planning standards for local governments. Of these, several address the issue of King County, Wash., has a “no net loss of farm- farmland conversion. land” policy in its comprehensive plan. The policy prohibits the conversion of land subject to Growth management laws take a comprehensive APZ unless an equal amount of agricultural land approach to regulating the pattern and rate of of the same or better quality is added to the development and set policies to ensure that most county’s agricultural production zones. new construction is concentrated within UGBs. They direct local governments to identify lands In 2004, Connecticut lawmakers adopted Public with high resource value and protect them from Act No. 04-222, which requires municipalities, development. Some growth management laws towns, cities, boroughs and districts to mitigate

4 American farmland trust · Farmland information center

the loss of active agricultural land taken by programs. Cooperative programs allow states to eminent domain. Local governments may either set broad policies and criteria for protecting purchase an agricultural conservation easement agricultural land, while county or township gov- on comparable land within its jurisdiction OR ernments select the farms that they believe are pay a mitigation fee to the state’s farmland pro- most critical to the viability of local agricultural tection program to protect similar land elsewhere economies and monitor the land once the ease- in the state subject to the approval of the state’s ments are in place. Involving two levels of farmland preservation program and the government generally increases the funding Commissioner of Agriculture. available for PACE. Finally, cooperative pro- THE grams increase local government investment in PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL farmland protection. CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAMS (PACE) PACE programs allow farmers to cash in a fair FARMLAND percentage of the equity in their land, thus cre- Purchase of agricultural conservation easement ating a financially competitive alternative to programs pay farmers to protect their land from selling land for non-agricultural uses. Permanent PROTECTION development. PACE is known by a variety of easements prevent development that would other terms, the most common being purchase effectively foreclose the possibility of farming. of development rights (PDR). Removing the development potential from farm- Landowners voluntarily sell agricultural conser- land generally reduces its future market value. TOOLBOX vation easements to a government agency or This may help facilitate farm transfer to the private conservation organization. The agency or children of farmers and make the land more organization usually pays them the difference affordable to beginning farmers and others who between the value of the land for agriculture and want to buy it for agricultural purposes. PACE the value of the land for its “highest and best provides landowners with liquid capital that can use,” which is generally residential or commer- enhance the economic viability of individual cial development. farming operations and help perpetuate family tenure on the land. Finally, PACE gives commu- Easement value is most often determined by pro- nities a way to share the costs of protecting fessional appraisals, but may also be established agricultural land with farmers. through the use of a numerical scoring system that evaluates the suitability for agriculture of a RIGHT-TO-FARM LAWS piece of property. Twenty-seven states have authorized state-level PACE programs and inde- Every state in the nation has at least one right- pendent local programs operate in 18 states. to-farm law. State right-to-farm laws are State and local governments can play a variety of intended to protect farmers and ranchers from roles in the creation and implementation of PACE nuisance lawsuits. Some statutes protect farms programs. Some states have passed legislation and ranches from lawsuits filed by neighbors that allows local governments to create PACE who moved in after the agricultural operation programs. Others have enacted PACE programs was established. Others protect farmers who use that are implemented, funded and administered generally accepted agricultural and management by state agencies. Several states work coopera- practices and comply with federal and state tively with local governments to purchase ease- laws. Many right-to-farm laws also prohibit ments. A few states have appropriated money local governments from enacting ordinances for use by local governments and private non- that would impose unreasonable restrictions on profit organizations. Finally, some local govern- agriculture. ments have created independent PACE programs State right-to-farm laws are a state policy asser- in the absence of any state action. tion that commercial agriculture is an important Cooperative state–local PACE programs have activity. The statutes also help support the eco- some advantages over independent state or local nomic viability of farming by discouraging

5 American farmland trust · Farmland information center

neighbors from filing lawsuits against agricul- breaker programs are based on farmer income tural operations. Beyond these protections, it is and are funded by state governments. unclear whether right-to-farm laws help main- Differential Assessment tain the land base. Differential assessment laws direct local govern- At the same time, local governments around the ments to assess agricultural land at its value for nation are enacting their own right-to-farm laws agriculture, instead of its full fair market value, to strengthen and clarify language in state laws. which is generally higher. Differential assessment THE Local activity has been encouraged by model laws are enacted by states and implemented at local ordinances developed by state agriculture the local level. With a few exceptions, the cost is agencies (e.g., New Jersey’s State Agriculture borne at the local level. Development Committee) and/or farm advocacy FARMLAND groups (e.g., California Farm Bureau). Differential assessment programs help ensure the economic viability of agriculture. Since high Local right-to-farm ordinances can serve as a taxes reduce profits, and lack of profitability is a formal policy statement that agriculture is a PROTECTION major motivation for farmers to sell land for valuable part of the county or town economy development, differential assessment laws also and culture. Some require that a notice be protect the land base. Finally, these laws help placed on the deed to all properties in agricul- correct inequities in the property tax system. TOOLBOX tural areas, cautioning potential buyers that Owners of farmland demand fewer local public they may experience noise, dust, odors and services than residential landowners, but they pay other inconveniences due to farming and ranch- a disproportionately high share of local property ing operations. At a minimum, local ordinances taxes. Differential assessment helps bring farm- help educate residents about the needs of com- ers’ property taxes in line with what it actually mercial agriculture and reassure farmers that costs local governments to provide services to their communities support them. the land. TAX RELIEF Every state except Michigan has a differential assessment law. Differential assessment is also Circuit Breaker Tax Relief Credits known as current use assessment, current use Circuit breaker tax programs offer tax credits to valuation, farm use valuation, use assessment offset farmers’ property tax bills. Four states and use value assessment. have circuit breaker programs. In Michigan, Wisconsin and New York, farmers may receive TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT state income tax credits based on the amount of RIGHTS (TDR) their real property tax bill and their income. In Transfer of development rights programs allow Iowa, farmers receive school tax credits from landowners to transfer the right to develop one their local governments when school taxes parcel of land to a different parcel of land. exceed a statutory limit. The counties and Generally established through local zoning ordi- municipalities are then reimbursed from a state nances, TDR programs can protect farmland fund. In Michigan, landowners who wish to by shifting development from agricultural areas receive circuit breaker credits must sign 10-year to areas planned for growth. When the develop- restrictive agreements with their local government rights are transferred from a piece of ments to prevent farmland conversion. In property, the land is typically restricted with a Wisconsin, counties and towns must adopt plans permanent agricultural conservation easement. and enact agricultural protection zoning to Buying development rights generally allows ensure that tax credits are targeted to productive landowners to build at a higher density than agricultural land. ordinarily permitted by the base zoning in desig- Like differential assessment laws, circuit breaker nated receiving areas. TDR is known as transfer tax relief credits reduce the amount farmers are of development credits in California and in some required to pay in taxes. The key differences parts of New Jersey. between the programs are that most circuit

6 American farmland trust · Farmland information center

TDR is used by counties, cities, towns and TDR programs are designed to accomplish townships. Two regional TDR programs were the same purposes as publicly funded PACE developed to protect the pine barrens of Long programs. They prevent non-agricultural devel- Island, N.Y., and New Jersey’s Pinelands. TDR opment of farmland, reduce the market value of programs are distinct from PACE programs protected farms and provide farmland owners because they involve the private market. Many with liquid capital that can be used to enhance TDR transactions are between private landowners farm viability. and developers. Local governments approve TDR programs also offer a potential solution to transactions and monitor easements. A few THE the political and legal problems that many com- jurisdictions have created “TDR banks” that munities face when they try to restrict develop- buy development rights with public funds and ment of farmland. Landowners often oppose sell them to developers and other private agricultural protection zoning and other land use FARMLAND landowners. regulations because they can reduce equity. APZ Some states have enacted special legislation can benefit farmers by preventing urbanization, authorizing local governments to create TDR but it may also reduce the fair market value of PROTECTION programs. In 2004 the New Jersey Legislature their land. When more restrictive land use regu- enacted the State Transfer of Development lations are enacted in conjunction with a TDR Rights Act. The State TDR Act enables muni- program, communities can maintain equity for cipalities to develop and participate in intra- landowners. For example, development rights TOOLBOX municipal and inter-municipal programs. This for transfer may be allocated based on the law also formalized the planning process re- “underlying” or prior zoning. quired to enact TDR and mandated a list of While dozens of local jurisdictions around the For additional information on planning documents required prior to adopting a country allow the use of TDR, only a few of farmland protection and stewardship, TDR ordinance. The Act also authorized the them have used the technique successfully to contact the Farmland Information State TDR Bank Board to provide planning protect farmland. TDR programs are complex Center. The FIC offers a staffed grants to communities developing programs. and must be carefully designed to achieve their answer service, online library, Other states have consistently refused to give goal. Communities that have been most success- program monitoring, fact sheets local governments such authorization. Counties ful in using TDR are characterized by steady and other educational materials. and towns have created TDR programs without growth, with the political will to maintain and specific state authorizing legislation; municipal implement strong zoning ordinances and plan- www.farmlandinfo.org governments must work with their attorneys to ning departments that have the time, knowledge determine whether other provisions of state law and resources to administer complex land use (800) 370-4879 allow them to use TDR. regulations.

American Farmland Trust works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. 7 AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST · FARMLAND INFORMATION CENTER

FARMLAND PROTECTION ACTIVITY BY STATE

Agricultural Conservation Circuit Differential PACE Right-to-Farm* TDR State Districts Easements Breaker Assessment

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

TOTAL 16 49 4 49 32 50 24

State level Local level * A number of local jurisdictions also have enacted right-to-farm ordinances. We do not have a complete inventory.

Appendix B

Statistical Charts and Graphs

Dane County Statistics

Dane County Population Statistics 1980 1990 2000 2007 Population 323,545 367,085 426,526 476,785 Percentage change 13.46% 16.19% 11.78% Source: US Census Bureau

Agricultural Statistics - Dane County

600 7,000

6,000 580

) 5,000 0 0 s r

0 560

4,000 a 1 l

l x o (

D s 3,000

e 540 r c

A 2,000 520 1,000

500 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Land in farms Average property taxes paid ($1,000) Prop tax adjusted for inflation Estimated average market value of land and buildings (per acre) Land and building value adjusted for inflation Average market value of ag products sold (x100) Market value of ag products adjusted for inflation

Livestock and Crop Statistics for Dane County, Wisconsin Dane County 1987 Dane County 1992 Livestock Livestock Inventory farms number Inventory farms number Beef Cows 228 3,982 Beef Cows 248 3,805 Milk Cows 1,063 65,246 Milk Cows 873 58,420 Hogs and Pigs 363 86,614 Hogs and Pigs 273 67,572 Sheep and Lambs 157 7,690 Sheep and Lambs 119 6,014 Layers (sold) 144 Layers (sold) 79 63,914 Broilers (sold) 24 6,737 Broilers (sold) 21 2,423

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 1,987 170,041 19,379,254 b Corn for Grain 1,591 187,388 19,654,306b Corn for Silage 934 25,783 362,111 t Corn for Silage 883 29,496 378,180 t Oats 860 15,464 867,597 b Oats 555 10,590 530,553 b Soybeans 314 12,714 545,769 b Soybeans 478 25,667 910,299 b Hay 1,931 142,954 446,379 t Hay 1,703 123,147 333,174 t Vegetables 249 14,943 Vegetables 254 16,934 Orchards Orchards US Census of Agriculture 1997 US Census of Agriculture 1997

Dane County 1997 Dane County 2002 Livestock Livestock Inventory farms number Inventory farms number Beef Cows 299 3,936 Beef Cows 285 3,778 Milk Cows 682 51,113 Milk Cows 434 46,838 Hogs and Pigs 134 45,457 Hogs and Pigs 83 28,243 Sheep and Lambs 148 4,910 Sheep and Lambs 104 3,666 Layers (sold) 93 9,235 Layers (sold) 113 45,403 Broilers (sold) 25 1,100 Broilers (sold) 25 17,039

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 1,478 172,914 22,684,592 b Corn for Grain 1,115 158,370 21,795,608b Corn for Silage 722 26,442 408,657 t Corn for Silage 528 25,392 428,287 t Oats 353 5,891 333,273 b Oats 228 4,959 327,230 b Soybeans 770 62,640 2,923,355 b Soybeans 813 87,185 4,048,239b Hay 1,312 97,632 269,739 t Hay 1,269 78,264 297,679 t Vegetables 160 4,752 Vegetables 115 2,508 Orchards 74 329 Orchards 47 173 Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms.(N) Not available.

Livestock Inventory - Dane County, WI

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000 Beef Cows Milk Cows 60,000 Hogs and Pigs 50,000 Sheep and Lambs 40,000 Layers (sold)

30,000 Broilers (sold)

20,000

10,000

0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Livestock Inventory - Dane County, WI

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000 Beef Cows

60,000 Milk Cows Hogs and Pigs 50,000 Sheep and Lambs 40,000 Layers (sold)

30,000 Broilers (sold)

20,000

10,000

0 1987 1992 1997 2002 Lancaster County Statistics

Lancaster County Population Statistics 1980 1990 2000 2007 Population 362,346 422,822 470,658 498,465 Percentage change 16.69% 11.31% 5.91% Source: US Census Bureau

Agricultural Statistics - Lancaster County

450 9,000 8,000 430 7,000 )

0 6,000 0 s

410 r 0 a 1 5,000 l

l x o ( 4,000 D s

e 390 r

c 3,000 A 370 2,000 1,000 350 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Land in farms Average property taxes paid Prop tax adjusted for inflation Estimated average market value of land and buildings (per acre) Land and building value adjusted for inflation Average market value of ag products sold (x100) Market value of ag products adjusted for inflation

Livestock and Crop Statistics for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

Lancaster County 1987 Lancaster County 1992 Livestock Livestock Inventory farms number Inventory farms number Beef Cows 267 3,890 Beef Cows 264 4,373 Milk Cows 2,215 92,585 Milk Cows 2,030 92,595 Hogs and Pigs 911 330,547 Hogs and Pigs 693 375,550 Sheep and Lambs 436 7,526 Sheep and Lambs 373 6,909 Layers (sold) 784 11,426,855 Layers (sold) 618 12,577,143 Broilers (sold) 239 46,360,679 Broilers (sold) 241 42,419,203

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 3,252 107,452 11,371,990 b Corn for Grain 2,963 106,903 13,900,451 b Corn for Silage 2,665 66,275 1,211,623 t Corn for Silage 2,481 62,670 1,211,122 t Wheat 1,327 15,266 688,121 b Wheat 1,020 13,385 721,715 b Oats 244 2,148 131,090 b Oats 148 1,309 91,631 b Barley 719 8,742 573,957 b Barley 764 10,434 724,099 b Soybeans 688 17,260 621,843 b Soybeans 833 23,646 945,048 b Potatoes 140 1,836 391,647 cwt Potatoes 133 1,281 347,785 cwt Hay 3,274 83,370 284,861 t Hay 2,961 78,604 266,400 t Vegetables 573 4,055 Vegetables 513 4,583 Orchards 177 1,530 Orchards 134 1,054 US Census of Agriculture 1997 US Census of Agriculture 1997

Lancaster County 1997 Lancaster County 2002 Livestock Livestock Inventory farms number Inventory farms number Beef Cows 353 4,931 Beef Cows 604 12,089 Milk Cows 2,234 107,833 Milk Cows 1,911 107,591 Hogs and Pigs 537 344,779 Hogs and Pigs 431 386,801 Sheep and Lambs 373 5,777 Sheep and Lambs 383 6,125 Layers (sold) 672 10,127,798 Layers (sold) 618 7,500,336 Broilers (sold) 350 51,245,607 Broilers (sold) 305 50,901,903

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 3,090 102,006 12,333,900 b Corn for Grain 2,045 69,829 4,694,401 b Corn for Silage 2,873 79,565 1,372,945 t Corn for Silage 2,652 94,421 1,199,747 t Wheat 953 12,811 787,769 b Wheat 620 10,830 636,854 b Oats 115 801 54,637 b Oats 80 591 35,222 b Barley 695 9,154 651,620 b Barley 614 9,071 662,390 b Soybeans 1,045 31,693 1,322,658 b Soybeans 863 28,223 821,421 b Potatoes 111 794 227,790 cwt Potatoes 154 602 149,505 cwt Hay 2,997 82,627 237,069 t Hay 3,378 93,905 338,890 t Vegetables 623 5,679 Vegetables 627 5,759 Orchards 143 961 Orchards 159 963 Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

Broilers and Layers - Lancaster County, PA

60,000,000

50,000,000

40,000,000

Layers (sold) 30,000,000 Broilers (sold)

20,000,000

10,000,000

0 1,987 1,992 1,997 2,002

Livestock Inventory - Lancaster County, PA

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000 Beef Cows 250,000 Milk Cows

200,000 Hogs and Pigs Sheep and Lambs 150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1,987 1,992 1,997 2,002

Crop Acreage - Lancaster County, PA

120,000

100,000 Corn for Grain Corn for Silage

80,000 Wheat Oats Barley 60,000 Soybeans Potatoes 40,000 Hay V egetables

20,000 Orchards

0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Montgomery County Statistics

Montgomery County Population Statistics 1980 1990 2000 2007 Population 579,053 757,027 873,341 930,813 Percentage change 30.74% 15.36% 6.58% Source: US Census Bureau

Agricultural Statistics - Montgomery County

150 7,000

6,000 130 5,000 ) 0 0 s

110 r 0

4,000 a 1 l

l x o (

D s 3,000

e 90 r c

A 2,000 70 1,000

50 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Livestock and Crop Statistics for Montgomery County, Maryland

Montgomery County 1987 Montgomery County 1992

Livestock Inventory farms number Livestock Inventory farms number Beef Cows 173 2,934 Beef Cows 141 3,717 Milk Cows 49 3,663 Milk Cows 36 2,517 Hogs and Pigs 32 5,940 Hogs and Pigs 22 735 Sheep and Lambs 35 1,765 Sheep and Lambs 32 1,015 Layers (sold) 64 1,988 Layers (sold) 31 1,455 Broilers (sold) (N) (N) Broilers (sold) 5 251

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 147 15,857 1,498,775 b Corn for Grain 101 13,812 1,587,340 b Corn for Silage (N) (N) (N) t Corn for Silage (N) (N) (N) t Wheat 79 5,007 251,864 b Wheat 59 6,259 339,091 b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Barley 35 1,229 75,751 b Barley 25 1,165 75,566 b Soybeans 58 9,934 334,626 b Soybeans 60 11,239 358,222 b Potatoes (N) (N) (N) cwt Potatoes (N) (N) (N) cwt Hay 309 14,445 29,659 t Hay 242 13,010 29,453 t Vegetables 55 932 Vegetables 51 1,200 Orchards (N) (N) Orchards (N) (N) Nursery/Greenhouse 92 4,394 Nursery/Greenhouse 111 4,595 US Census of Agriculture 1997 US Census of Agriculture 1997

Montgomery County 1997 Montgomery County 2002

Livestock Inventory farms number Livestock Inventory farms number Beef Cows 121 2,490 Beef Cows 104 2,201 Milk Cows 28 1,933 Milk Cows 23 1,546 Hogs and Pigs 19 823 Hogs and Pigs 12 495 Sheep and Lambs 39 1,217 Sheep and Lambs 47 952 Layers (sold) 29 700 Layers (sold) 35 1,352 Broilers (sold) 2 (D) Broilers (sold) 1 -

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 59 12,128 928,945 b Corn for Grain 48 11,121 1,043,865 b Corn for Silage 21 2,425 22,540 t Corn for Silage 14 1,304 20,805 t Wheat 47 5,288 367,211 b Wheat 34 4,717 313,107 b Oats 6 89 6,955 b Oats 4 60 4,908 b Barley 11 614 43,424 b Barley 9 315 23,624 b Soybeans 59 16,102 395,241 b Soybeans 43 13,794 403,042 b Potatoes 4 15 (D) cwt Potatoes 6 3 3,443 cwt Hay 223 12,060 21,814 t Hay 192 11,524 26,145 t Vegetables 39 822 Vegetables 33 986 Orchards 22 157 Orchards 33 278 Nursery/Greenhouse 116 7,130 Nursery/Greenhouse N/A N/A Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

(D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. (N) Not available.

Crop Acreage - Montgomery County, MD

18,000

16,000 14,000 Corn for Grain 12,000 Wheat Barley 10,000 Soybeans 8,000 Hay 6,000 Vegetables Nursery/Greenhouse 4,000

2,000

0 1,987 1,992 1,997 2,002

Livestock Inventory - Montgomery County, MD

7,000

6,000

5,000 Beef Cows

4,000 Milk Cows Hogs and Pigs 3,000 Sheep and Lambs Layers (sold) 2,000

1,000

0 1,987 1,992 1,997 2,002

Puget Sound Region Statistics

King County Population Statistics 1980 1990 2000 2007 Population 1,269,898 1,507,319 1,737,034 1,859,284 Percentage change 18.70% 15.24% 7.04% Source: US Census Bureau

Agricultural Statistics - King County

100 25,000

80 20,000 ) 0 0 s r 0 60 15,000 a 1 l

l x o (

D s

e 40 10,000 r c A 20 5,000

0 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Livestock and Crop Statistics for King County, Washington

King County 1987 King County 1992

Livestock Inventory farms number Livestock Inventory farms number Beef Cows 416 3,491 Beef Cows 315 2,226 Milk Cows 143 17,494 Milk Cows 88 18,248 Hogs and Pigs 88 1,787 Hogs and Pigs 75 585 Sheep and Lambs 113 1,662 Sheep and Lambs 86 1,947 Layers (sold) 178 3,716 Layers (sold) 133 6,508 Broilers (sold) 14 (D) Broilers (sold) 8 (D)

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 8 (D) (D) b Corn for Grain 5 24 (D) b Corn for Silage (N) (N) (N) t Corn for Silage (N) (N) (N) t Wheat 6 209 11,890 b Wheat 1 (N) (N) b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Barley 1 (D) (D) b Barley 0 0 0 b Soybeans (N) (N) (N) b Soybeans (N) (N) (N) b Potatoes 3 1 100 cwt Potatoes 3 1 290 cwt Hay 243 8,958 22,138 t Hay 192 7,485 21,161 t Vegetables 62 677 Vegetables 54 831 Orchards 75 296 Orchards 55 168 Specialty Crops Specialty Crops Berries 46 278 Berries 38 180 Nursery/Greenhouse 145 982 Nursery/Greenhouse 158 1,034 US Census of Agriculture 1997 US Census of Agriculture 1997

King County 1997 King County 2002

Livestock Inventory farms number Livestock Inventory farms number Beef Cows 431 2,694 Beef Cows 292 2,376 Milk Cows 90 16,835 Milk Cows 68 11,423 Hogs and Pigs 68 768 Hogs and Pigs 54 559 Sheep and Lambs 95 1,711 Sheep and Lambs 89 1,780 Layers (sold) 183 4,423 Layers (sold) 153 4,663 Broilers (sold) 35 1,630 Broilers (sold) 27 3,699

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain (N) (N) (N) b Corn for Grain b Corn for Silage 20 743 14,507 t Corn for Silage 21 1,018 19,596 t Wheat (N) (N) (N) b Wheat b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Oats 1 (D) (D) b Barley (N) (N) (N) b Barley 1 (D) (D) b Soybeans 0 0 0 b Soybeans 14 14 14 b Potatoes 9 4 1,178 cwt Potatoes 14 6 1,469 cwt Hay* 215 7,253 22,442 t Hay 183 6,066 22,361 t Vegetables 95 1,580 Vegetables 111 1,163 Orchards 62 168 Orchards 78 178 Specialty Crops Specialty Crops Berries 53 123 Berries 53 146 Nursery/Greenhouse 208 869 Nursery/Greenhouse N/A N/A Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

N/A Not Applicable. 2002 data category not comparable to previous years (D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. (N) Not available.

Livestock Inventory - King County, WA

20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 Beef Cow s 12,000 Milk Cow s 10,000 Hogs and Pigs 8,000 Sheep and Lambs 6,000 Layers (sold) 4,000 2,000 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Crop Acreage - King County, WA

10,000 9,000 8,000

7,000 Hay 6,000 Vegetables 5,000 Orchards 4,000 Berries 3,000 Nursery/Greenhouse 2,000 1,000 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Snohomish County Population Statistics 1980 1990 2000 2007 Population 337,720 465,642 606,024 676,898 Percentage change 37.88% 30.15% 11.69% Source: US Census Bureau

Agricultural Statistics - Snohomish County

120 12,000

100 10,000 )

0 80 8,000 0 s r 0 a 1 l

l x 60 6,000 o (

D s e r

c 40 4,000 A 20 2,000

0 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Livestock and Crop Statistics for Snohomish County, Washington

Snohomish County 1987 Snohomish County 1992

Livestock Inventory farms number Livestock Inventory farms number Beef Cows 545 5,034 Beef Cows 449 5,143 Milk Cows 172 22,953 Milk Cows 141 23,665 Hogs and Pigs 97 850 Hogs and Pigs 104 1,621 Sheep and Lambs 104 2,081 Sheep and Lambs 63 1,573 Layers (sold) 162 (D) Layers (sold) 126 858,180 Broilers (sold) 29 1,526,323 Broilers (sold) 17 2,890,720

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 5 118 5,900 b Corn for Grain 5 221 15,030 b Corn for Silage (N) (N) (N) t Corn for Silage (N) (N) (N) t Wheat 26 613 40,326 b Wheat 12 273 18,336 b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Barley 10 314 20,319 b Barley 5 131 8,151 b Soybeans (N) (N) (N) b Soybeans (N) (N) (N) b Potatoes 8 (D) (D) cwt Potatoes 8 (D) (D) cwt Hay 451 20,484 56,703 t Hay 361 19,415 61,702 t Vegetables 74 3,870 Vegetables 81 4,029 Orchards 50 107 Orchards 45 90 Specialty Crops Specialty Crops Berries* 58 374 Berries* 43 203 Nursery/Greenhouse 101 1,482 Nursery/Greenhouse 128 1,611 US Census of Agriculture 1997 US Census of Agriculture 1997

Snohomish County 1997 Snohomish County 2002

Livestock Inventory farms number Livestock Inventory farms number Beef Cows 555 4,780 Beef Cows 420 3,810 Milk Cows 108 21,110 Milk Cows 84 15,604 Hogs and Pigs 81 734 Hogs and Pigs 55 651 Sheep and Lambs 85 1,502 Sheep and Lambs 73 1,676 Layers (sold) 157 768,279 Layers (sold) 200 362,301 Broilers (sold) 21 1,823,082 Broilers (sold) 24 1,467,269

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain (N) (N) (N) b Corn for Grain b Corn for Silage 52 4,021 93,880 t Corn for Silage 47 5,119 120,531 t Wheat 9 576 35,580 b Wheat 9 420 40,532 b Oats 4 47 4,200 b Oats 4 57 3,772 b Barley 8 189 14,811 b Barley 8 388 27,817 b Soybeans (N) (N) (N) b Soybeans 16 16 16 b Potatoes (N) (N) (N) cwt Potatoes 16 134 26,645 cwt Hay 313 15,913 44,943 t Hay 308 13,929 55,041 t Vegetables 71 4,074 Vegetables 81 2,307 Orchards 54 143 Orchards 68 251 Specialty Crops Specialty Crops Berries* 59 225 Berries 52 277 Nursery/Greenhouse 183 1,816 Nursery/Greenhouse N/A N/A Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

N/A Not Applicable. 2002 data category not comparable to previous years (D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. (N) Not available.

Crop Acreage - Snohomish County, WA

25,000

20,000 Corn for Silage Wheat 15,000 Hay Vegetables

10,000 Orchards Berries Nursery/Greenhouse 5,000

0 1,987 1,992 1,997 2,002

Livestock Inventory - Snohomish County, WA

35,000

30,000

25,000 Beef Cows Milk Cows 20,000 Hogs and Pigs Sheep and Lambs 15,000 Layers (sold) x100

10,000 Broilers (sold) x100

5,000

0 1,987 1,992 1,997 2,002

Skagit County Population Statistics 1980 1990 2000 2007 Population 64,138 79,555 102,979 116,397 Percentage change 24.04% 29.44% 13.03% Source: US Census Bureau

Agricultural Statistics - Skagit County

120 6,000

100 5,000 )

0 80 4,000 0 s r 0 a 1 l

l x 60 3,000 o (

D s e r

c 40 2,000 A 20 1,000

0 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Livestock and Crop Statistics for Skagit County, Washington

Skagit County 1987 Skagit County 1992

Livestock Inventory farms number Livestock Inventory farms number Beef Cows 284 3,499 Beef Cows 254 4,464 Milk Cows 131 19,211 Milk Cows 123 21,345 Hogs and Pigs 38 462 Hogs and Pigs 30 287 Sheep and Lambs 40 648 Sheep and Lambs 25 394 Layers (sold) 69 (D) Layers (sold) 37 470,663 Broilers (sold) 4 (D) Broilers (sold) 2 (D)

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 2 (D) (D) b Corn for Grain 3 (D) (D) b Corn for Silage (N) (N) (N) t Corn for Silage (N) (N) (N) t Wheat 84 4,180 325,535 b Wheat 51 3,433 260,091 b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Oats (N) (N) (N) b Barley 56 1,947 156,281 b Barley 34 1,264 98,928 b Soybeans (N) (N) (N) b Soybeans (N) (N) (N) b Potatoes 18 3,095 1,019,192 cwt Potatoes 16 6,794 2,272,510 cwt Hay 309 20,939 61,606 t Hay 316 19,762 64,399 t Vegetables 127 19,219 Vegetables 117 18,056 Orchards 23 154 Orchards 36 207 Specialty Crops Specialty Crops Berries 52 1,603 Berries 40 1,237 Nursery/Greenhouse 92 4,394 Nursery/Greenhouse 111 4,595 US Census of Agriculture 1997 US Census of Agriculture 1997

Skagit County 1997 Skagit County 2002

Livestock Inventory farms number Livestock Inventory farms number Beef Cows 313 3,727 Beef Cows 267 4,352 Milk Cows 106 20,736 Milk Cows 74 17,021 Hogs and Pigs 26 553 Hogs and Pigs 20 207 Sheep and Lambs 44 470 Sheep and Lambs 32 766 Layers (sold) 47 454,182 Layers (sold) 80 (D) Broilers (sold) 6 (D) Broilers (sold) 4 280

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain (N) (N) (N) b Corn for Grain - - - b Corn for Silage 74 6,784 176,599 t Corn for Silage 52 5,871 162,279 t Wheat 57 3,821 321,000 b Wheat 41 5,886 595,410 b Oats 5 57 5,159 b Oats 3 38 (D) b Barley 21 829 72,393 b Barley 10 456 32,287 b Soybeans (N) (N) (N) b Soybeans 30 30 30 b Potatoes 17 6,953 2,342,875 cwt Potatoes 30 11,205 4,640,687 cwt Hay 318 19,446 63,224 t Hay 275 16,968 89,824 t Vegetables 133 18,264 Vegetables 105 12,046 Orchards 62 490 Orchards 55 438 Specialty Crops Specialty Crops Berries* 51 1,757 Berries 63 2,602 Nursery/Greenhouse 116 7,130 Nursery/Greenhouse N/A N/A Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

N/A Not Applicable. 2002 data category not comparable to previous years (D) Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. (N) Not available.

Livestock Inventory - Skagit County, WA

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000 Beef Cows 30,000 Milk Cows 25,000 Hogs and Pigs Sheep and Lambs 20,000 Layers (sold) x10 15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1,987 1,992 1,997 2,002

Crop Acreage - Skagit County, WA

25,000

20,000

Corn for Silage Wheat 15,000 Potatoes

Hay Vegetables 10,000 Berries Nursery/Greenhouse

5,000

0 1,987 1,992 1,997 2,002

Woodbury County Statistics

Woodbury County Population Statistics 1980 1990 2000 2007 Population 100,884 98,276 103,887 102,287 Percentage change -2.59% 5.71% -1.54% Source: US Census Bureau

Agricultural Statistics -Woodbury County

500 6,000

480 5,000

) 4,000 0 0 460 s r 1

a l x l ( 3,000

o s D e

r 440 c 2,000 A

420 1,000

400 0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Livestock and Crop Statistics for Woodbury County, Iowa

Woodbury County 1987 Woodbury County 1992 Livestock Livestock Inventory farms number Inventory farms number Beef Cows 429 16,182 Beef Cows 393 15,349 Milk Cows 32 351 Milk Cows 13 254 Hogs and Pigs 449 144,487 Hogs and Pigs 374 146,568 Sheep and Lambs 105 4,863 Sheep and Lambs 93 4,180 Layers (sold) Layers (sold) 31 1,165 Broilers (sold) 20 1,324 Broilers (sold) 7 3,676

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 1,020 162,688 18,991,273 b Corn for Grain 859 192,504 26,663,573 b Corn for Silage 70 2,798 42,136 t Corn for Silage 80 3,240 48,050 t Wheat 16 697 20,137 b Wheat 5 375 10,040 b Oats 282 9,046 495,502 b Oats 176 5,415 461,645 b Soybeans 763 86,671 3,358,177 b Soybeans 690 97,748 4,243,826 b Hay 510 17,814 48,432 t Hay 457 13,051 42,452 t Vegetables 9 31 Vegetables 12 56 Orchards 9 23 Orchards 7 26 US Census of Agriculture 1997 US Census of Agriculture 1997

Woodbury County 1997 Woodbury County 2002 Livestock Livestock Inventory farms number Inventory farms number Beef Cows 430 19,463 Beef Cows 319 15,443 Milk Cows 6 119 Milk Cows 5 83 Hogs and Pigs 193 102,850 Hogs and Pigs 95 64,797 Sheep and Lambs 49 1,920 Sheep and Lambs 44 1,792 Layers (sold) 40 1,416 Layers (sold) 36 901 Broilers (sold) 14 552 Broilers (sold) 4 525

Crops farms acres yield Crops farms acres yield Corn for Grain 839 194,188 22,263,495 b Corn for Grain 601 163,517 24,547,664 b Corn for Silage 124 4,391 69,744 t Corn for Silage 66 3,501 82,786 t Wheat 6 342 11,210 b Wheat 2 b Oats 81 1,661 116,600 b Oats 33 658 51,903 b Soybeans 781 168,298 6,687,367 b Soybeans 582 150,350 6,781,590 b Hay 458 14,289 32,559 t Hay 389 14,640 47,933 t Vegetables 11 31 Vegetables 8 682 Orchards 9 59 Orchards 5 9 Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Source: 2002 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service

Crop Acreage - Woodbury County, IA

250,000

200,000 Corn for Grain Corn for Silage

150,000 Wheat Oats Soybeans 100,000 Hay Vegetables Orchards 50,000

0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Livestock Inventory - Woodbury County, IA

160,000

140,000

120,000 Beef Cows 100,000 Milk Cows Hogs and Pigs 80,000 Sheep and Lambs 60,000 Layers (sold) Broilers (sold) 40,000

20,000

0 1987 1992 1997 2002

Appendix C

Dane County (WI) Population Change, 2000–2004

Dane

Roxbury Vienna DeForest Windsor Bristol Dane York

Mazomanie

Waunakee Sun Prairie Mazomanie Burke Marshall Berry Springfield Black Earth Westport Sun Prairie Black Medina Earth Madison Lake Cross Maple Plains Middleton Mendota Shorewood Bluff Middleton Cottage Hills Grove Blooming Deerfield Cross Plains Lake Vermont Madison Grove Monona Cottage Grove Deerfield

Blue McFarland Mounds Mount Lake Cambridge Horeb Waubesa Verona Fitchburg Pleasant\Springs Springdale Christiana Blue Mounds Verona Lake Rockdale Dunn Kegonsa

Oregon Stoughton

Perry Primrose Montrose Oregon Albion Rutland Belleville Dunkirk Edgerton Brooklyn

Less Than 50 200 - 500 Miles Population Change 2000-2004 0 1.25 2.5 5 50 - 200 Greater Than 500 Dane County, WI 07/2005

Appendix D

Town of Dunn Future Land Use Plan

Central Town of Dunn USA

MN Future Land Use Village of McFarland Lake Town of Dunn Comprehensive Plan Map 1 Waubesa Urban Service Area Limited Service Area Lower Agricultural Preservation Area Mud Lake Environmental and Cultural Resources Protection Area

AB Potential Urban Service Area Agricultural Transition Area Unsewered Subdivision Area Mixed Use Area Parks and Recreation Private Conservation Agreements

51 Agricultural Preservation includes the following lands: A1-EX, A-2, A-2(1), A-2(2) & A-2(8).

Environmental and Cultural Resources Protection includes the following lands: wetlands, floodplain (100yr), environmental corridors & open space. B Agricultural Transition Area includes the following lands: Lake McFarland/Dunn boundary agreement. Conservation Residential includes the following lands: Kegonsa to be determined by Town of Dunn.

Conservation Mixed Use including any combination of the following: governmental business and residential.

Parks and Recreation Areas include the following lands: Town parks, DNR land, Dane County Parks, parcels owned by The Nature Conservancy & U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Private Conservation Agreements include the following lands: Private properties that do not grant public access but have a conservation agreement with the Town.

Jun, 2007

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles

Source Info: Service Areas: 08/06, (DCPD). This map was prepared through the Dane County Department of Environmental Corridor: 08/06, (DCPD). Planning and Development in conjuction with the Dane County Municipal Boundaries: 01/06, (DCPD). Land Conservation Department, Dane County Land Information Parcel Network & Zoning: 07/06, (DCPD). Office and the Dane County Regional Planning Commission. Road Network: 01/05, Parcel Derived (DCPD). Water: 1995, Orthophoto Derived (DCLIO).

Appendix E

Protected Lands, Town of Dunn

Town of Dunn Protected Lands (Updated 10-16-2007)

Village of Lake M cFarland Waubesa wyAB Hw

H w y 5 1

Lake Co Rd B Kegonsa

Schneider Drive

Hook Lake

Protected Lands Town of Dunn Parks Town of Dunn Conservation Easements Wisconsin DNR Natural Heritage Land Trust Easements Dane County Parks The Nature Conservancy (TNC) ê US Fish & Wildlife TNC Easements MaHUNT Town Easement and owned by Dane County Parks

3,9001,950 0 3,900 Feet

Note: Easements are Private Property - No public access is granted.

Appendix F

Eastern Lancaster County Future Land Use

Appendix G

Preserved Farms, East Donegal Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

Appendix H

Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board Farmland Ranking System

Available at: http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/codes/lancastr3.shtml

Soils Maximum Points The sum of the acreage in each relative value productivity unit times the 100 acreage in each unit divided by total farm acres

Development Potential Maximum Points 1. Extent of Non-Agricultural Use in Area (1 mile radius) ● Intensive development adjacent or in the immediate vicinity (10 40 lots or more/commerical, industrial or residential uses) ● Intensive or extensive scattered development within ½ mile 25 radius (20 lots or more/commercial, industrial, residential uses) ● Scattered non-agricultural development within 1 mile radius (20 10 lots or more) ● No significant non-agricultural development in area 0

2. Zoning ● Residential, commercial, industrial zoning adjacent or within ¼ 30 mile ● Residential, commercial, industrial zoning ½ mile 15 ● Agricultural or rural zoning (not effective agricultural zoning) 10 within ½ mile ● Effective agricultural zoning covering ½ mile radius 0

3. Proximity to Public Sewer and Water Service (existing and planned) ● Existing service area adjacent or within ¼ mile 20 ● Existing or planned service area within ½ mile 15 ● Existing or planned service area within 1 mile 10 ● No existing or planned service within 1 mile 0

4. Amount of Road Frontage ● Extensive developable road frontage (¼ mile +) 10 ● Moderate limited road frontage (less than ¼ mile) 5 ● Severely limited by lack of road frontage (less than 200 feet) 0

Farmland Potential Factors Maximum Points 1. Size of Farm Proposed for Easement Purchase ● 100 acres or more 50 ● 75–99 acres 35 ● 40–74 acres 20 ● Less than 40 acres 0

2. Farm Product Sales ● Gross annual receipts of $65,000 or more 20 ● Gross annual receipts of $25,000 to $64,999 15 ● Gross annual receipts of less than $25,000 0

3. Stewardship of the Land ● SCS soil and water conservation implemented on a minimum of 10 50% of the tract ● No SCS Plan 0

4. Historic, Scenic, Environmental Qualities ● Features favorable to preservation (significant but undocumented 5 historic features, moderate localized scenic contributions, and/or limited but recognized environmental features favorable to preservation ● No significant features 0

5. Percentage of Harvested Cropland, Pasture, and Grazing Land ● Over 75% 15 ● 50–74% 5 ● Less than 50% 0

Clustering Potential Maximum Points 1. Proximity to a Farm with a Conservation Easement ● Adjacent 60 ● Within 1/2 mile 30 ● More than 1/2 mile 0

2. Consistent with County Important Agricultural Areas map ● Within area 10 ● Outside area 0

3. Percentage of land adjacent to the farm in an Agricultural Security Area ● 50% or more 10 ● Under 50% 0

4. Proximity to a farm with an easement sale application ● Adjacent 20 ● Within 1/2 mile 15 ● More than 1/2 mile 0

Maximum Final Ranking Score Points Soils Maximum Score 100 Adjustment Factor 0.4 Maximum Ranking Points 40

Development Potential Maximum Score 100 Adjustment Factor 0.2 Maximum Ranking Points 20

Farmland Potential Maximum Score 100 Adjustment Factor 0.2 Maximum Ranking Points 20

Clustering Potential Maximum Score 100 Adjustment Factor 0.2 Maximum Ranking Points 20 Total Maximum Ranking Points = 100

Appendix I

Scott County Long-Term Service Areas and Planning Areas

Scott County Long Term Service Areas and Planning Areas

The Metropolitan Council’s Long-Term Wastewater Service Area designates where wastewater treatment capacity is likely to extend during the next 20 years. The Council’s 2030 Framework Planning Areas designate appropriate long-term land uses and the density at which these areas may develop. Both are designed to ensure orderly and efficient development of regional services in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and are adjusted periodically to further these K goals. In September of 2008, the Metropolitan Council adopted guidelines that would limit the use of “flexible development ordinances” in communities that «¬101 are designated as Diversified Rural and that fall within the Council’s Long-Term )"13 Shakopee Jackson Service Area. The purpose of the guideline is to discourage scattered develop- «¬18 ment patterns at gross densities that exceed 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres (the

Savage maximum density allowable in the Diversified Rural areas), and to discourage

«¬42 local policies (such as permanent easements) that would impede orderly and Louisville efficient development of Diversified Rural areas at urban densities of three

Prior Lake dwelling units per acre when regional services become available. Based on current Met Council designations, the Urban Expansion Area extending from Belle Plaine Township to Louisville Township would be affected by this policy.

Sand Creek Credit River Spring Lake Legend Jordan

Saint Lawrence Long Term Service Area ¤£169 Developing Area

Belle Plaine Rural Center Rural Residential New Market Diversified Rural Helena Belle Plaine Cedar Lake ¨¦§35 Blakely Agricultural Area

New Market Elko Non-Council Area

New Prague

0 1.25 2.557.5 10 Miles Community Growth Options (U-CGO)

Prepared July 7, 2008 Source: Metropolitan Council