Preserving Pennsylvania's Natural Heritage
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Preserving Pennsylvania’s Natural Heritage Lessons from Other States’ Efforts to Fund Open Space Protection PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center Preserving Pennsylvania’s Natural Heritage Lessons from Other States’ Efforts to Fund Open Space Protection Written by: David Masur, PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center Tony Dutzik, Sarah Payne, Travis Madsen, Timothy Telleen-Lawton, Frontier Group PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center Spring 2008 Acknowledgments PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center wishes to acknowledge the many staff of our sister organizations across the country for their contributions to this report, including: Christopher Phelps of Environment Connecticut, Pam Kiely of Environment Colorado, Mark Ferrulo of En- vironment Florida, Jennette Gayer of Environment Georgia, Max Muller of Environment Illinois, Brad Heavner of Environment Maryland, Danielle Korpalski of Environment Michigan, Erika Staaf of Environment New Hampshire, Doug O’Malley of Environment New Jersey, Elizabeth Ouzts and Margaret Hartzell of Environment North Carolina, Matt Auten of Environment Rhode Island, Luke Metzger of Environment Texas, and Dan Kohler of Wisconsin Environment. Thanks also to John Rumpler of Environment America for his guidance and insightful comments, Phineas Baxandall of U.S. PIRG for his review of the draft, the staff of Public Interest GRFX for their design assistance, and Susan Rakov of Frontier Group for her editorial assistance. The authors wish to thank Jan Jarrett of PennFuture and John Walliser of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council for reviewing the report. PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center thanks the William Penn Foundation for making this report possible. The William Penn Foundation, founded in 1945 by Otto and Phoebe Haas, is dedicated to improving the quality of life in the Greater Philadelphia region through efforts that foster rich cultural expression, strengthen children’s futures, and deepen connections to nature and community. In partnership with others, the Foundation works to advance a vital, just and caring community. Learn more about the Foundation online at www.williampennfoundation.org. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of PennEn- vironment Research & Policy Center. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided editorial review. Copyright 2007 PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center The PennEnvironment Research and Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting Pennsylvania’s air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help Pennsylvanians make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. Frontier Group conducts research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center, or for additional copies of this report, please visit our Web site at www.pennenvironment.org. Cover: The view from Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, Kempton, PA (Credit: by Krista Mackey, istockphoto.com) Layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Pennsylvania’s Threatened Natural Areas 4 Natural Treasures in Peril 4 Pennsylvania’s Preservation Programs 6 Learning from Other States 7 Funding for Land Preservation: Case Studies from 15 States 9 Colorado: Placing a Bet on Open Space 10 Connecticut: Ambitious Goals, Intermittent Progress 12 Florida: A Long-Term Commitment to Preservation 14 Georgia: Signs of Progress in Standing Up to Sprawl 17 Illinois: A Search for Stability in Preservation Funding 19 Maryland: Dedicated Preservation Funding Raided, then Restored 21 Michigan: Public Ownership Doesn’t Always Equal Protection 23 New Hampshire: A Move to Dedicated Funding 26 New Jersey: A History of Leadership in Preservation 28 North Carolina: A Variety of Approaches to Achieving an Ambitious Goal 30 Oregon: Protecting Natural Land through Planning and Purchases 33 Rhode Island: Winning the “End Game” for Preservation 35 Texas: Lack of Commitment Hampers Preservation Efforts 37 Washington: Consistent Capital Funding for Open Space Preservation 40 Wisconsin: A Commitment to Stewardship 42 Lessons for Pennsylvania 44 Notes 49 4 Preserving Pennsylvania’s Natural Heritage Executive Summary ennsylvania has a rich natural heri- Pennsylvania can learn from the ex- tage. Our Commonwealth is the home amples of other states that have dealt with Pof rugged mountain forests, world- land preservation challenges. In this re- class agricultural land, beautiful rivers and port, the PennEnvironment Research and streams, and countless places of history and Policy Center looks at the experiences of natural wonder. But much of Pennsylvania’s preservation programs in 15 states as they natural heritage is in peril—threatened have striven for consistent and adequate by sprawling development, the Common- funding for open space protection. wealth’s legacy of mining and industrial The experiences of those states sug- pollution, and other challenges. gest that future land preservation ef- In recent years, Pennsylvanians have forts in Pennsylvania should: responded to these challenges by investing in the preservation of threatened natural Plan for and finance preservation over areas. Through such programs as the En- the long-term. vironmental Stewardship Fund (Growing States in which funding for preservation is Greener I), Growing Greener II, and the subject to the annual state budget process Keystone Fund, the Commonwealth has have a more difficult time sustaining con- succeeded in preserving thousands of sistent and meaningful land preservation acres of farms, river and stream banks, and efforts. Consistent funding is important threatened natural lands. because there is often a very short window But sprawling development continues of opportunity during which threatened to threaten many of Pennsylvania’s most open spaces can be protected. The loss of precious natural lands. And the future of funding at a critical moment could result in Pennsylvania’s preservation efforts is in important natural areas being lost forever. doubt. With the Commonwealth’s five- The most effective way to ensure long- year commitment to the Growing Greener term stability in funding is to adopt multi- II program ending in 2011-2012, the Com- year programs paid for with bonds backed monwealth should plan now for the future by dedicated revenue streams. States such of its land preservation efforts. as Florida and New Jersey, which have Executive Summary established 10-year preservation programs challenges faced in achieving that target. funded through the issuance of bonds, These numerical goals enable government have been able to maintain momentum officials, preservationists and the public to for their preservation programs without evaluate the success of a state’s preservation having those efforts interrupted by fund- efforts, evaluate where those efforts may ing cuts during periods when state budgets be falling short, and devise strategies to are tight. address those shortcomings. The quality of land protected is as Create a dedicated funding stream. important as the quantity. State pro- States have created a variety of dedicated grams should focus on protecting lands funding streams for preservation pro- of high ecological and community value, grams—ranging from real estate taxes to for example, by prioritizing the protec- a percentage share of lottery revenue to a tion of contiguous parcels of open space. designated portion of the state’s general Washington, Florida and other states have sales taxes. In reality, however, no source developed systematic criteria by which they of funding is truly “dedicated” forever, and prioritize lands to be protected, ensuring legislators in several states have diverted that the investment of state funds delivers funding from these sources to fill short- the maximum benefit for the environment term budget holes. and state residents. The “dedicated” funding sources that appear least likely to be diverted are those Create funding mechanisms that align that are dedicated in the state constitution with preservation priorities. to land preservation or are used to secure Michigan obtains some of its funds for new revenue bonds. Constitutional provisions state land purchases through revenues from that dedicate specific funding sources to logging and other extractive activities on preservation programs are difficult to existing taxpayer-owned lands—a mecha- overturn. Issuing revenue bonds secured nism that undermines preservation goals. with a stable source of dedicated funding By contrast, Pennsylvania raises most of can make it difficult to divert funding from its preservation funds from “tipping fees” preservation activities while providing for garbage disposal and a portion of the consistent funding for preservation needs state’s real estate sales tax—two funding over a period of time. sources that align well with preservation In several states, dedicated sources are priorities. Several other states also use real not the main source of preservation fund- estate taxes to fund preservation efforts, ing, but still play a useful role in helping generating more revenue for preservation