Implementation 69 Chapter 5 Chapter Implementation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Chapter 5 Implementation Chapter 5 - Implementation - 5 Chapter 69 substantial infusion of funding. For planning Introduction Implementation and comparison purposes, a cost range using he previous chapters in this plan provided Strategies one ($) to five ($$$$$) dollar signs has been presented in the tables. Using this method, the an introduction, a look at the benefits of The implementation strategies are T values are as follows: greenways and open space, an overview of organized into tables by category and each the planning process, the vision statement and table includes a brief description of the $ < $50,000 goals, an analysis of key trends, the county’s ex- recommended action, possible partners, cost $$ = $50,000 to $100,000 isting and expected future conditions, an inven- range, potential funding, and timing of the tory of county resources and opportunities, and priority. The categories are: Conservation $$$ = $100,000 to $500,000 the recommended greenway and open space Measures; Education and Outreach; Land $$$$ = $500,000 to $1,000,000 framework. This chapter presents a series of Preservation; Parks and Recreation and Trails strategies and actions that, when completed, & Non-Motorized Transportation. Under $$$$$ > $1,000,000 will implement the greenway and open space the Partners heading is a list of agencies, More refined costs will be developed through framework and the recommendations in this organizations and others that could work feasibility studies or other pre-design work as a document. together to achieve the desired outcome. particular project is selected for advancement Although this was a county-led plan, many of (which could be a decade or more from now for Creating the plan is only an initial step toward the implementation priorities are dependent some tasks). Table 1 presents generalized costs the long-range goal of seeing the ideas mate- on the involvement and cooperation of non- that were used as a basis for estimates in this rialize into real projects that carry forth the vi- county entities including municipalities, private plan. sion to preserve, connect, and enjoy greenway l a n d o w n e r s , s t a t e a g e n c i e s , l a n d t r u s t s , a n d and open space resources. A dedicated and others. In fact, for many concerted effort will be needed among multiple Implementation - 5 Chapter actions, the county is not Table 1. Generalized Cost of Greenway & Open Space Implementation partners over the next several decades to ad- considered a critical lead Implementation Action Estimated Cost vance the priorities that have been identified. partner. Farmland Preservation Easement $2,500/acre Conservation Easement $0 to $1,000/acre Cost estimates for imple- The implementation structure presented here Conservation Land Acquisition $10,000/acre is a multi-faceted approach that relies on a va- mentation strategies can Public Park Land Acquisition $10,000 - $35,000/acre riety of concurrent approaches, such as volun- be wide-ranging and are Riparian Buffer Planting $2,500/acre tary land conservation, land use planning, pub- intended to serve as a Perpetual Riparian Buffer Easement $6,500/acre lic policy, and education and outreach among starting point for project 10' wide trail to PennDOT standards $400,000/mile others to preserve agricultural land, protect im- evaluation. Some strate- 10' wide trail other $75,000/mile portant open space, and to develop greenways, gies have little or no cost Trail Engineering Design-PennDOT $40,000/mile parks, and trails. beyond the administra- Trail Engineering Design non-PennDOT $25,000/mile tive time of the respon- Feasibility Studies $50,000 sible entity while others Park Master Plan $50,000 will require a more Construct canoe/kayak launch area $75,000 Zoning Ordinance Amendment $5,000 71 For additional perspective, the first phase of the Buffalo Valley Rail Trail (BVRT) cost nearly $3,000,000 to construct nine miles to PennDOT standards in 2011. Land for a conservation ac- quisition in 2015 by the Merrill W. Linn Conser- vancy was appraised at approximately $12,000 an acre for developable forest land without public utilities and no zoning restrictions; however, real estate costs will vary across the county and are unique to the location and the qualities of each individual property. Funding is always a moving target and is often dependent upon the economic, fiscal and polit- ical climate of the Commonwealth, the region, and county. For greenways, land conservation, open space, parks, and trails there is more state funding available today than at any time in the last 20 years to support these initiatives. In the implementation tables an attempt has been support park rehabilitation, playground instal- partment of Transportation (PennDOT) awards made to identify potential funding sources for lation, youth sports fields, feasibility studies, nearly $30 million of multi-modal transporta- the projects listed even though this can change trail development, land acquisition, and engi- tion funding annually through Act 89 that can quickly as new initiatives are launched and neering design. be used for trail projects, but a 30% local match existing programs are reduced or eliminated. is required. This is in addition to the Federal Also the funding opportunities identified do not A newer program in recent years is the Com- Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) represent an exhaustive list and other possible monwealth Financing Authority’s Greenway which is limited to alternative transportation. resources should be sought. and Trail Program, which is administered The second phase of the BVRT successfully ac- through the Department of Community and cessed over $500,000 in TAP funding through A funding staple has always been the Depart- Economic Development (DCED). With this PennDOT and the SEDA-COG MPO. In addition ment of Conservation and Natural Resources funding source, DCED will cover up to 85% of to PennDOT, another $30 million in multi-modal (DCNR) Community Partnerships Grant Program eligible costs for a maximum total award of funding is administered by DCED and also re- which funds up to 50% of eligible project costs $250,000. The Merrill W. Linn Conservancy quires a 30% match. for certain pre-construction (plans, studies, was successful in accessing this grant to cover and design) and development activities related a portion of the costs on a recent land acquisi- For farmland conservation, the Pennsylvania to conservation, greenways, trails, and parks. tion in Union Township. Department of Agriculture (PDA) has been the DCNR funding has been obtained by municipali- primary source of funding for the Agricultural Chapter 5 - Implementation Chapter ties, the county, and other organizations to Also at the state level, the Pennsylvania De- Land Preservation Program, which is currently 72 matched annually with $125,000 of county (5th) year following adoption of the plan. • BCWA (Buffalo Creek Watershed Alliance) funds. The Gregg Township Board of Super- • BVRA (Buffalo Valley Recreation Authority) visors also contributes $5,000 a year to the Medium-term strategies then would be imple- • BOF - Bureau of Forestry th th county program and is the only municipality to mented in the sixth (6 ) to tenth (10 ) year, • CSWOA Central Susquehanna Woodland Own- do so. To date, PDA has contributed millions and long-term projects are expected to happen ers Association) of dollars towards preserving more than 8,000 ten (10) or more years out. Timing of a strategy • LASD (Lewisburg Area School District) acres of farmland in Union County. should not be confused with the priority sta- • LDP (Lewisburg Downtown Partnership) tus. It is possible that a recommendation is an • LNC (Lewisburg Neighborhoods Corporation) Finally, Union County receives a limited amount extremely high priority, but the timing of com- • LPCWA (Lower Penns Creek Watershed of Act 13 revenue through the Marcellus Legacy pletion is listed as long-term. Prioritization will Association) Fund that, by law, must be used for greenway, be addressed later in this Chapter. • MHRA (Mifflinburg Heritage and Revitalization trails and open space related purposes. To date, Association) Of the 54 implementation strategies listed, 12 the county has reserved the use of these funds • MLC (Merrill Linn Conservancy) are short term, 18 medium, and 24 long-term. to assist partners with taking on projects that • NCPC (North Central Pennsylvania Conservancy) It should also be noted that this is a general do create a lasting legacy in the community, • NPS (National Park Service) guide as certain tasks may move on this con- such as new extensions to the BVRT and the • NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation tinuum, depending on challenges that arise or protection of Shikellamy Bluffs. Services) due to new opportunities that are presented. • PA DCED (PA Department of Community and It is anticipated that grants from the agencies For example, protection of the Shikellamy Economic Development) listed above and from private foundations will Bluffs has long been a high conservation pri- • PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation and be sought and used to the greatest extent prac- ority of the Merrill W. Linn Conservancy and Natural Resources) tical for implementing the recommendations in the county that emerged from the 1993 Nat- • PA DEP (PA Department of Environmental Pro- Implementation - 5 Chapter this plan. In limited instances, different funding ural Areas Inventory. It is also a priority in this tection) streams can be aligned to cover 100% of proj-