DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Open Space Planning Guide Local Open Space Planning Guide 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Open Space Planning Guide Local Open Space Planning Guide 2004 Local Open Space Planning Guide Local Open Space Planning Guide 2004 Reprint May 2007 This publication was prepared jointly by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of State in collaboration with the Hudson River Valley Greenway, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. David A. Paterson Governor NYS Department of NYS Department of State Environmental Conservation Division of Local Government Acknowledgements The knowledge and expertise of many individuals and organizations are reflected in this Local Open Space Planning Guide. In addition to staff members at the NYS Departments of State, Environmental Conservation, Agriculture and Markets, Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and Hudson River Valley Greenway, we are grateful to the New York Planning Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Land Trust Alliance of New York, and the Westchester Land Trust for their contributions. And, above of all, we extend sincere thanks to New York State’s local government officials for their interest and efforts in the field of open space protection and for the many success stories we have documented in this guide. This guide was printed as part of the Quality Communities Technical Assistance Program and was made possible in part through a grant from the Governor’s Office for Small Cities. Cover images: Poets’ Walk Park photo by Darren McGee; Salmon River and forest photos courtesy of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Local Open Space Planning Guide 2004 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 Open Space Conservation - A Cornerstone of Quality Communities CHAPTER 1: THE NEED TO CONSERVE OPEN SPACE .......................................................... 3 What Exactly is Open Space ................................................................................................... 3 Why Plan for Open Space Conservation ................................................................................ 3 The Benefits of Open Space ................................................................................................... 4 Social Benefits................................................................................................................... 4 Environmental Benefits ..................................................................................................... 5 Economic Benefits............................................................................................................. 5 The Role of Local and County Governments in Protecting Open Space ................................ 6 Local Comprehensive Planning......................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2: THE LOCAL OPEN SPACE PLANNING PROCESS ............................................. 9 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9 Legal Authority................................................................................................................... 9 Comprehensive Plan or Open Space Plan ............................................................................10 Purpose of Plan and Planning Area ...................................................................................... 11 State Programs .....................................................................................................................12 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) ...........................................................12 Hudson River Valley Greenway .......................................................................................13 Process ........................................................................................................................... 13 Planning Partners ............................................................................................................ 13 Local Government ...........................................................................................................13 Local Open Space Groups ..............................................................................................14 Land Trusts......................................................................................................................14 Conservation Advisory Councils (CACs) .........................................................................14 Environmental Management Councils (EMCs) ...............................................................15 Involving the Public and Key Community Land Users ....................................................15 Planning Charettes .......................................................................................................... 15 Procedures ......................................................................................................................16 Inventory.......................................................................................................................... 17 Overlay System ...............................................................................................................18 Product ............................................................................................................................18 CHAPTER 3: OPEN SPACE RESOURCES TO BE CONSERVED ........................................... 21 State and Federal Programs ........................................................................................... 21 Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................22 Species and Habitats .......................................................................................................22 How Can Open Space Planning Conserve Biodiversity .................................................. 22 What to Protect ...............................................................................................................22 Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 23 Forests ......................................................................................................................24 Open Uplands: Shrublands, Grasslands, Barrens and Farms .................................. 24 Cliffs and Caves ........................................................................................................25 Other Important Habitats .................................................................................................25 Shorelines .................................................................................................................25 Riparian Areas (Stream Corridors) ............................................................................25 Parks and Preserves .................................................................................................26 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................26 Protecting Water Resources with Open Space ...............................................................27 Flood Plains and Stream Buffers..................................................................................... 27 Wetlands .........................................................................................................................28 Groundwater Aquifers .....................................................................................................28 Lake Shores ....................................................................................................................29 Drinking Water Sources .................................................................................................. 29 Estuaries .........................................................................................................................30 Watershed Planning ........................................................................................................30 Working Lanscapes ..............................................................................................................31 Agricultural Resources ....................................................................................................31 Forest Resources ............................................................................................................ 31 Urban and Community Forestry ......................................................................................32 Recreational Resources ........................................................................................................32 Public Access ..................................................................................................................32 Local Parks and Open Spaces ........................................................................................ 33 State and Regional Open Space Lands .......................................................................... 33 Trails and Trail Systems .................................................................................................. 33 Scenic Resources .................................................................................................................34 Historic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Common Ground: Restoring Land Health for Sustainable Agriculture
    Common ground Restoring land health for sustainable agriculture Ludovic Larbodière, Jonathan Davies, Ruth Schmidt, Chris Magero, Alain Vidal, Alberto Arroyo Schnell, Peter Bucher, Stewart Maginnis, Neil Cox, Olivier Hasinger, P.C. Abhilash, Nicholas Conner, Vanja Westerberg, Luis Costa INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE About IUCN IUCN is a membership Union uniquely composed of both government and civil society organisations. It provides public, private and non-governmental organisations with the knowledge and tools that enable human progress, economic development and nature conservation to take place together. Created in 1948, IUCN is now the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network, harnessing the knowledge, resources and reach of more than 1,400 Member organisations and some 15,000 experts. It is a leading provider of conservation data, assessments and analysis. Its broad membership enables IUCN to fill the role of incubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools and international standards. IUCN provides a neutral space in which diverse stakeholders including governments, NGOs, scientists, businesses, local communities, indigenous peoples organisations and others can work together to forge and implement solutions to environmental challenges and achieve sustainable development. Working with many partners and supporters, IUCN implements a large and diverse portfolio of conservation projects worldwide. Combining the latest science with the traditional knowledge of local communities, these projects work to reverse habitat loss, restore ecosystems and improve people’s well-being. www.iucn.org https://twitter.com/IUCN/ Common ground Restoring land health for sustainable agriculture Ludovic Larbodière, Jonathan Davies, Ruth Schmidt, Chris Magero, Alain Vidal, Alberto Arroyo Schnell, Peter Bucher, Stewart Maginnis, Neil Cox, Olivier Hasinger, P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • III.B Regional Profiles: the Oneida County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Was Divided Into 6 Regions for the Planning Update Process
    Oneida County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 10/29/2013 4:43 PM Part IIIB: Regional Profiles III.B Regional Profiles: The Oneida County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee was divided into 6 Regions for the Planning Update process. These regions were developed to ease travel times for meetings and to foster existing relationships between municipalities. The Planning Regions are shown on the following map. III.B1: Information Collected for Each Municipality: a) Hazards: Each Region met 4 times between January and June of 2013 in order to collect data and share concerns about hazards and potential mitigation strategies. The initial meetings in January of 2013 were dedicated to identifying and profiling hazards of concern. A summary of the Hazards of Concern collected across the Regions is shown in the Table III.B.1 below. The Table is divided into two parts. In the upper portion, we are showing the Very High and High concern levels for both natural and other hazards as ranked by the Regions. Natural Hazards are shown in blue. In the lower portion of the Table, we are showing only the ranking for the Natural Hazards of Concern. Page 1 of 115 Oneida County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update 10/29/2013 4:43 PM Part IIIB: Regional Profiles Top 10 Hazards of Concern in Oneida County From Modified HAZNY in Oneida County HMPC Regions January -February 2013 Hazard Score Percentage Rank Concern Water Supply Contamination 521 100 1 Severe Storm 509 97.69673704 2 Ice Storm 500 95.96928983 3 Very High Tornado 488 93.66602687 4 Flood 482 92.51439539 5 Winter
    [Show full text]
  • CEDS Working Committee
    2016 - 2015 CEDS Annual Performance Report Blackhawk Hills Regional Council Northwest Illinois' Regional Planning Commission: serving the counties of Carroll, Jo Daviess, Lee, Ogle, Stephenson, and Whiteside. Blackhawk Hills Regional Council 102 East Route 30, Suite 3 Rock Falls, IL 61071 815.625.3854 www.blackhawkhills.com April 29, 2016 Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Blackhawk Hills Regional Council (formally known as the RC&D), I am pleased to present the 2015-2016 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Annual Performance Report and Update. This report contains information on the Blackhawk Hills Regional Council as it pertains to the Economic Development District. Included in this update are strategies for improving the district to benefit the counties and communities within the region. You will find attached our region’s list of priority projects modified annually from our most recently adopted 5-Year CEDS Document, as well as our immediate project list for those projects that are ready to start now if funds were available. In order to develop the strategies for improvement, Blackhawk Hills examines the area’s demographic and economic trends, as well as the needs of the communities and counties, on an annual basis. The focus of the District is to encourage local sponsors, through implementation of these strategies, to support and maintain the economic vitality of the region. The information contained in this report confirms the need for Blackhawk Hills to continue its involvement in promoting community planning, economic development, resource conservation and strengthening of partnerships through the county CEDS committees. Sincerely, Ron Colson Blackhawk Hills Regional Council President 02 East Route 30, Suite 3 Rock Falls, IL 61071 Phone 815-625-3854 Fax 815-625-4072 www.blackhawkhills.com BLACKHAWK HILLS REGIONAL COUNCIL The Blackhawk Hills Regional Council (formally known as Blackhawk Hills RC&D) serves the region as an Economic Development District (EDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Agriculture with Trees (Cawt) Project: Scaling-Up the Science and Practice of Conservation Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa
    CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE WITH TREES (CAWT) PROJECT: SCALING-UP THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA END OF PROJECT REPORT Draft 1: August 2012 JONATHAN MURIUKI, HAMISI DULLA, SAIDI MKOMWA, JEREMIAS MOWO AND THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION TEAM FUNDED BY: The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIDA/ICRAF/ACT Conservation Agriculture with Trees Final Project report | 1 Table of contents Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 2 List of abbreviations and acronymsAcknowledgements ............................................................ 4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 5 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Case study country selection .................................................................................. 9 1.3 Formation of the Project Implementation Team .................................................. 10 1.4 Project inception ................................................................................................... 11 2. SITUATION ANALYSIS ON CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE AND AGROFORESTRY IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Signals Human Disturbance Over Natural
    Ecological Indicators 34 (2013) 260–267 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Ecological Indicators jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind Floristic quality assessment signals human disturbance over natural variability in a wetland system a,∗ b c Jason T. Bried , Suneeti K. Jog , Jeffrey W. Matthews a Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, 195 New Karner Road, Albany, NY 12205, USA b Department of Natural Sciences, Northeastern State University, 610 N. Grand Avenue, Tahlequah, OK 74464, USA c Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: A common concern regarding the popular Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) method is whether the Received 1 October 2012 site floristic quality scores change with natural temporal and site-specific variability. The more ignored Received in revised form 19 February 2013 question is whether this background variability will confound the index of human disturbance. Using non- Accepted 16 May 2013 forested seasonal wetlands in the northeastern United States, we tested if two common indices of site floristic quality (FQAI, Mean CoC) provide clear signals of site condition relative to gradients of wetland Keywords: area and surface water depth, and consistent signals across time of year (early vs. late growing season), Conservatism geomorphic setting (connected vs. isolated), and vegetation community type (pine barrens vernal pond, Ecological condition wet sedge meadow, shrub swamp). Mean CoC is the coefficient of conservatism (a qualitative estimate Human disturbance Monitoring of species’ sensitivity to human disturbance) averaged across the native and exotic taxa observed at a Seasonal wetlands given site, and FQAI is the traditional Floristic Quality Assessment Index where Mean CoC is multiplied Vascular plants by square root of taxa richness.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Communities of New York State
    Ecological Communities of New York State by Carol Reschke New York Natural Heritage Program N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation 700 Troy-Schenectady Road Latham, NY 12110-2400 March 1990 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The New York Natural Heritage Program is supported by funds from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and The Nature Conservancy. Within DEC, funding comes from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Division of Lands and Forests. The Heritage Program is partly supported by funds contributed by state taxpayers through the voluntary Return a Gift to Wildlife program. The Heritage Program has received funding for community inventory work from the Adirondack Council, the Hudson River Foundation, the Sussman Foundation, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service (Finger Lakes National Forest), and each of the seven New York chapters of The Nature Conservancy (Adirondack Nature Conservancy, Eastern New York Chapter, Central New York Chapter, Long Island Chapter, Lower Hudson Chapter, South Fork/Shelter Island Chapter, and WesternNew YorJ< Chapter) This classification has been developed in part from data collected by numerous field biologists. Some of these contributors have worked under contract to the Natural Heritage Program, including Caryl DeVries, Brian Fitzgerald, Jerry Jenkins, Al Scholz, Edith Schrot, Paul Sherwood, Nancy Slack, Dan Smith, Gordon Tucker, and F. Robert Wesley. Present and former Heritage staff who have contributed a significant portion of field data include Peter Zika, Robert E. Zaremba, Lauren Lyons-Swift, Steven Clemants, and the author. Chris Nadareski helped compile long species lists for many communities by entering data from field survey forms into computer files.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Agriculture with Trees
    CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE WITH TREES GETTING STARTED Joseph Mutua, Jude Capis and Mieke Bourne © World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya , 2014 Prepared by: Dr. Joseph Mutua (Kenya Network for Dissemination of Agricultural Technologies, KENDAT) , Jude Capis, and Mieke Bourne (World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF) for the EverGreen Agriculture project Layout and Design by Danyell Odhiambo The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of World Agroforestry Centre. Articles appearing in this publication may be quoted or reproduced without charge, provided the source is acknowledged. All images remain sole property of their source and may not be used for any purpose without written permission of the source. The geographic designation employed and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Agroforestry Centre concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. What is conservation agriculture with trees? Conservation Agriculture With Trees (CAWT) is a practice that combines the principles of Conservation Agriculture with Agroforestry. CAWT involves the integration of crop- friendly trees, mainly high value agroforestry tree species and nitrogen fixing trees into the crop land with Conservation Agriculture practices. Conservation Agriculture (CA) is defined by FAO as an approach to managing agro- ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment. Conservation agriculture is characterized by three principles namely minimum tillage, maximum soil cover and crop rotation and/or association.
    [Show full text]
  • ELO Activity Report 2016
    Pantone 390 ACTIVITY REPORT 2016 CMYK 24 / 0 / 98 / 8 Pantone 364 CMYK 73 / 9 / 94 / 39 Pantone 390 CMYK 24 / 0 / 98 / 8 Pantone 364 CMYK 73 / 9 / 94 / 39 ACTIVITY REPORT 2016 Table of contents INDEX 2 FOREWORD 4 1. THE ELO FAMILY 5 2. ISSUES AND POLICIES 210 1 3. PROJECTS 319 1.1 ELO 6 2.1 CAP 11 3.1 Wildlife Estates 20 1.2. RISE 7 2.2 Biodiversity 12 3.2 PNI 21 1.3 FCS 8 2.3 Agricultural Innovation 13 3.3 Hercules 22 1.4 YFCS 9 2.4 Crop Protection 14 3.3 FORBIO 23 2.5 Climate Change 15 3.4 REVAB 24 2.6 Forestry / Cork 16 3.5 COFARM 25 2.7 Land Access 17 3.6 FEAL 26 2.8 Housing and Energy Efficiency Issues 18 3.7 AgriDemo-F2F 27 4 4. ELO AWARDS 428 4.1 Soil award 29 4.2 Belleuropa Award 30 6. COMMUNICATION 643 8. PARTNERS 849 4.3 European Bee Award 31 4.4 Boom van het Jaar 32 6.1 CountrySide 44 8.1 European Historic Houses Association 50 6.2 The ELO online 45 8.2 Europa Nostra 51 8.3 Future for Religious Heritage 52 8.4 Environmental Partnership Association 53 8.5 Rural Coalition 54 8.6 European Heritage Alliance 3.3 55 Pantone 390 CMYK 24 / 0 / 98 / 8 Pantone 364 5. EVENTS 533 CMYK 73 / 9 / 94 / 39 7. COOPERATION WITH THE EU INSTITUTIONS7 46 5.1 General Assemblies 34 5.2 European Tree of the Year 35 7.1 Intergroup Biodiversity, Hunting, 5.3.1 Forum for the Future of Agriculture 36 Countryside 47 5.3.2 FFA Vienna 37 7.2 Larges Carnivores 48 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Southeast Lake Ontario Basin: Tables 1
    SE Lake Ontario Table 1. Multi-Resolution Land Classification (MRLC) land cover classifications and corresponding percent cover in the SE Lake Ontario Basin. Classification % Cover Deciduous Forest 34.17 Row Crops 24.38 Pasture/Hay 15.53 Mixed Forest 11.01 Water 5.01 Wooded Wetlands 3.17 Low Intensity Residential 2.57 Evergreen Forest 1.32 Parks, Lawns, Golf Courses 1.07 High Intensity Commercial/Industrial 0.79 High Intensity Residential 0.60 Emergent Wetlands 0.24 Barren; Quarries, Strip Mines, Gravel Pits 0.11 SE Lake Ontario Table 2. Species of Greatest Conservation Need currently occurring in the SE Lake Ontario Basin (n=129). Species are sorted alphabetically by taxonomic group and species common name. The Species Group designation is included, indicating which Species Group Report in the appendix will contain the full information about the species. The Stability of this basin's population is also indicated for each species. TaxaGroup SpeciesGroup Species Stability Bird Bald Eagle Bald eagle Increasing Bird Beach and Island ground-nesting birds Common tern Unknown Bird Breeding waterfowl Blue-winged teal Decreasing Bird Breeding waterfowl Ruddy duck Increasing Bird Colonial-nesting herons Black-crowned night-heron Decreasing Bird Common loon Common loon Unknown Bird Common nighthawk Common nighthawk Decreasing Bird Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Black-throated blue warbler Stable Bird Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Cerulean warbler Increasing Bird Deciduous/mixed forest breeding birds Kentucky warbler Unknown Bird Deciduous/mixed
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification in Southeast Asia
    The Sixth International Soil and Water Assessment Tool Southeast Asia Conference 24-25 October 2019, Siem Reap, Cambodia Perspectives and experiences on Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification in Southeast Asia Yuji Niino Land Management Officer Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations A triple Challenge for agriculture • More food, in quantity, quality and diversity, everywhere for everyone (availability, acessibility, utilisation, stability) • Adapt to Climate Change • Contribute to mitigate Climate Change – Agriculture and Land use = 30% of emissions – Needs to be part of the solution ... Overlaps, Synergies and Trade-offs WSFS UNFCCC UNISDR UNCCD Global “Calories” “Carbon” “Disasters” “Soil” Objectives +Biodivesty, Human rights, Health, Trade, Education, ..... National International Food Security Climate Disaster Sustainable land National mitigation Resilience management Local adaptation Climate-smart agriculture: addressing multiple objectives What means Climate-Smart Agriculture? Transform agriculture to enhance the achievement of national food security and development goals in the light of global challenges ww.fao.org/climatechange/climatesmart Towards climate-smart agricultural landscapes Practices + Policies and institutions + Financing Agricultural Sector or Sub-sector and Practices Adaptation Mitigation Climate smart agriculture Crop Conservation agriculture x x x Integrated pest management x x x System for rice intensification x x x Livestock Improved
    [Show full text]
  • Central & Western New York
    Nature central & western new york FALL/WINTER 2011 ©Dennis Money The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and The Nature Conservancy protects 500 acres Message from Tom & Jim natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the of vital land and water on Sodus Bay lands and waters they need to survive. Board of Trustees Tom Lunt Orchard Park, Chair Jim Howe, Executive Director Tom Lunt, Chair Lew Allyn Naples, Florida The Nature Conservancy’s mission is to conserve the lands and waters on which Maria Bachich King Ferry all life depends. Our science solves complicated conservation challenges. Our collaborative approach helps us find common ground with communities, Barry Boyer East Aurora governments, landowners, and other partners. And our tenacity and focus Laurie Branch Olean get things done. Lina Echeverria, Ph.D. Corning Since 1957, The Nature Conservancy has been working strategically and John Fitzpatrick, Ph.D. Ithaca collaboratively to protect the lands and waters of Central and Western New Paul Fuller, M.D. Rome York. In addition to the projects featured on the following pages, here are some Bruce Gilman Ph.D. Canandaigua of our results from the last few months: Richard Hill, Emeritus Remsen • In Northern New York, we’ve hired a new staff person to oversee a coalition D. Bruce Johnstone, Ph.D. Buffalo that is battling invasive species like swallow-wort and water chestnut. It takes Victoria Kennedy Fayetteville well-coordinated and sustained efforts to prevent and control invasive species, Deb Koen Rochester and we’re confident that our partnership has the tools and capacity to get the Tony Lee Rochester job done.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: a Second Iteration
    Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration (Revised September 2000) Prepared by The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program 8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2301 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 759-8017 Copyright 2000 Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Toward A New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes In 1996, The Nature Conservancy’s Great Lakes Program launched a collaborative initiative to identify high priority biodiversity conservation sites in the Great Lakes region. This initiative was precipitated by the Conservancy broadening its focus beyond just rare and endangered species and natural communities. The Conservancy recognized that to effectively protect the full range of biodiversity, conservation efforts must include those species and natural communities that are more common and representative as well as those that are declining or vulnerable. Taking an Ecoregional Perspective To address this shift in focus, the Conservancy oriented its work based on ecoregions—large areas defined by the influences of shared climate and geology, the main factors that determine the broad-scale distribution of plants and animals.1 The Great Lakes ecoregion—which includes major portions of Canada and the United States—is one of 64 ecologically distinct regions of the continental United States. For each of these ecoregions, the Conservancy is developing a detailed plan that identifies the places that need to be protected to conserve native biodiversity for the long term. At many of these places, local communities, private landowners and an array of public and private entities are already leading important conservation efforts. The Great Lakes ecoregional planning initiative is a systematic approach that identifies all native species, natural communities and aquatic systems characteristic of the Great Lakes region and then determines how many of and where these elements of biodiversity need to be protected over the long term.
    [Show full text]