Attachment B-6

Draft Map Conservation Areas in the Upper Bolin Creek Watershed

Green Areas Represent: Floodplain & Stream Buffers Hardwoods Steep Slopes (>25%) Town & County Parks Private Conservation Lands Town-Dedicated Open Space Carolina North Open Space (Planned)

Feet 01,300 2,600 5,200 7,800 10,400

Attachment D-1

The Village Project Concept Plan for Carolina North

1

UNC photo

View looking south toward Downtown Chapel Hill & Main Campus 2

1 Attachment D-2

Purpose of this project

• Encourage UNC to incorporate community input through a collaborative process • Visually illustrate local stakeholder input to the Master Plan for Carolina North • Emphasize the importance of sustainable land use planning to achieve the University’s and the Towns’ goals for making Carolina North a model project for the 21st century

3

What is The Village Project?

• 501c3 nonprofit educational organization • Advocates for sustainable, livable & affordable cities and towns surrounded by healthy countryside • Our mission: working to help our fast-growing region develop more wisely • The Carolina North Concept Plan is the independent work of a group of volunteers

4

2 Attachment D-3

The Village Project at Work

• Publications • Concepts and models of urban form • “Charrette” and Design Workshop facilitation • Community Education and Advocacy

5

Key Features of Carolina North The Village Project Concept Plan • Multi-modal transportation program, reduced parking & car dependence; dedicated “fixed-guideway” public transit corridor • 260 acre footprint • 8000 homes, including 4000 single-occupant & 4000 small- scale family homes (1,2 & 3 bedroom); no single-family detached housing • Planning that avoids construction on permeable soils • Traditional downtown streetscape on MLK Blvd & Estes Drive • Built areas are separated by 200’ wide green corridors for wildlife, walking and biking • On-site food production • Horace Williams Rainbank: a public outdoor space that unifies the campus, connects it to the community, and serves as a rainwater storage reservoir 6

3 Attachment D-4

Design Principles for Carolina North Developed by the Village Project Based on UNC’s Program & Local Citizen Input • Human activity has local, regional and global impacts; the design of Carolina North should recognize the interdependence of human habitat and the natural world (UNC, Chapel Hill)

• Design to conserve land and natural resources (UNC, Chapel Hill, Carrboro) • Reduce the need for cars; provide efficient & reliable public transportation; connect streets; extend pedestrian and bike paths to all destinations (Chapel Hill, Carrboro) • Make available a range of housing types & prices, so that many of those who work at Carolina North can live there (Chapel Hill) 7

Design Principles for Carolina North Developed by the Village Project Based on UNC’s Program & Local Citizen Input

• Create a fully mixed-use community with housing, shops, workplaces, schools and gathering places that are essential for the daily life of the residents (UNC, Chapel Hill) • Include a wide variety of open space types, including, greens, parks, squares & small-scale agriculture (UNC, CH, Crbro) • Draw upon historic architectural legacy of the Towns & Main Campus (UNC, Chapel Hill) • Utilize greater density and building heights to conserve land & other natural resources (UNC, Carrboro) 8

4 Attachment D-5

Design Principles for Carolina North Developed by the Village Project Based on UNC’s Program & Local Citizen Input

• Lay out streets and buildings to maximize Solar Access (Chapel Hill, Carrboro) • Connect Carolina North to the surrounding community so that it is an asset and minimizes impacts of intense development on neighbors (CH) • Provide for the efficient use of water through preservation of natural drainage, rain harvesting & greywater recycling (UNC, Chapel Hill) • Design to mimic Nature’s processes in which nothing is wasted (Chapel Hill)

9

Village Project CN Ayr St Gross CN Concept Plan Data Master Plan Data

2060 Build-out totals 2060 Build-out totals • 260 acre Development Footprint • 260 acre Development Footprint • 5.9 million sf UNC Activity • 5.9 million sf UNC Activity • 730,000 sf Commercial Space • 300,000 sf Commercial Space • 90,000 to 360,000 sf for Schools • Community “School Site,” acreage • 82,000 sf Community Civic Uses unknown • 4000 Single Occupant Units • 100,000 sf Community Civic Uses (studio/dorm @ 450 sf) • 1800 Residential Units • 4000 Family Units • 17,000 Parking Spaces (1-3 bedroom @1000 to 1600 sf) • 6000 Parking Spaces

10

5 Attachment D-6

Site : Natural Features & Constraints Dwg J Carnahan & J Lelekacs Bruce, Sarah by

Buildable Areas Shown in White 11

Site: Carolina North Footprint

12 Dwg J Carnahan & Lelekacs Bruce, Sarah by

6 Attachment D-7

Strengths of the Ayers St Gross Master Plan for Carolina North

• 50-year build-out limited to about 260 acres • Development happens on mostly previously disturbed land • Street grid supports walking & connectivity • Mixed-use development pattern • Traditional streetscape along MLK Blvd. 13

Village Project Carolina North Schematic Plan

14 Dwg Bruce Sarah & J Carnahan by Carolina North Concept Plan by J Carnahan, Kathy Buck, Joanna Lelekacs & Patrick McDonough

7 Attachment D-8

Village Project Carolina North Detail Plan

15 J Carnahan Drawing

J Carnahan Drawing MLK Precinct

Size 89 acres UNC Institutional 2.4million sf UNC Support 20 acres Commercial 133,000 sf Community Civic 21,000 sf Residences Studio 860 Residences Family 150 Parking 1000 spaces on street 500 deck 500

16

8 Attachment D-9

MLK Precinct

Blocks used for surface parking during early phases convert to buildings later. Parking lot dimensions match building footprints, so that soils of future interior courtyards remain relatively undisturbed. The buildings are thus appropriately sized, to have underground parking, if needed. 17 Giles Blunden Sketch

MLK Precinct

Streetscape along Martin Luther King, Jr Boulevard

18 J Carnahan photo J Carnahan photo

9 Attachment D-10

MLK Precinct

J Carnahan Photo

Courtyards

Multi-Family Housing 19 J Carnahan Photo

Estes Precinct Estes + Core Precinct: Combined Data Total Land area: 83 acres UNC Institutional 3.5 million sf UNC Support 75,000 sf/1.5ac Commercial 220,000 sf Community Civic 21,000 sf Residences, studio 1100 Residences, family 850 Parking 1370 spaces 660 on-street 710 deck/ underground

20 J Carnahan Drawing

10 Attachment D-11

Estes Precinct Streetscape along West Estes Drive

David Bleicher Photo 21

J Carnahan Photo

Estes Precinct

P McDonough photo Places to Gather, Work & Shop. Places to live 22

J Carnahan Photo

11 Attachment D-12

Core Precinct

Estes + Core Precincts: Combined Data Total Land area: 83 acres UNC Institutional 3.5 million sq ft UNC Support 75,000 sf/1.5 ac Commercial 220,000 sq ft Community Civic 21,000 sq ft Residences, studio 1100 Residences, family 850 Parking 1370spaces total 660 on-street 710 deck/ underground

23 J Carnahan Drawing

Core Precinct Intensive Activity Taller Buildings Transformative Architecture

Stata Center ~ Frank Gehry, Architect Liao Yusheng photo

J Carnahan photo 24

12 Attachment D-13

ACROS Fukuoka ~ Designed by Emelio Ambasz, New York Core Precinct

Hundertwasser (1928-2000) “In the Meadows” Housing Complex Bad Solen, Germany 1990-93

Photographer - Hiromi Watanabe

Transformative architecture that incorporates plants into the building fabric for insulation, stormwater management, to soften the experience of masonry & metals, and humanize the built environment. 25 Photo ©Hundertwasser Archive, Vienna/Christa Kreutler Hundertwasser Architecture/Taschen

Southeast Village Size 18 acres Studio Residences 300 Commercial 87,000 sf Family Residences 430 Community Educational 90,000 sf Parking 554 spaces Community Civic 7,000 sf (154 on-street, 400 underground)

26

J Carnahan dwg

13 Attachment D-14

Southeast Village Community Spaces

J Carnahan Photo David Bleicher Photo 27

Southeast Village Neighborhood Amenities

J Carnahan photo

28 David Bleicher Photo J Carnahan Photo

14 Attachment D-15

Northeast Village

Size 18 acres Residences Studio 550 Residences Family 700 Commercial 90,000sf Community Ed 90,000 sf Community Civic 7,000 sf Parking 1,020 spaces (160 on-street, 720 deck, 140 underground

29

J Carnahan Drawing

Northeast Village

Residence with Services and Shopping Nearby

30

J Carnahan photo J Carnahan photo

15 Attachment D-16

Northeast Village Integrating Higher Density Residence with Civic Spaces and Plenty of Green

J Carnahan Photo J Carnahan photo 31

Horace Williams Rainbank

J Carnahan Drawing

13 acres Civic outdoor space 200ft wide by 2300ft long *Multi-purpose Public Recreational Space *Storage Reservoir for Harvested Rain 32 P McDonough photo

16 Attachment D-17

Horace Williams A Memorial to the Past Rainbank A Gift to the Future

J Carnahan33 photo

Horace Williams Rainbank A Place to Gather Promenade Contemplate

J Carnahan photo P McDonough34 photo

17 Attachment D-18

Carolina North Build-out

2020 2030 2040

2050

35 2060

Transportation at Carolina North

36 P McDonough photo

18 Attachment D-19

Community Input/Guidance

• “I don’t mean a decrease in the number of cars, I don’t mean a decrease in the number of parking spaces. I mean car-free.” -Citizen, 3/3/2004 Chapel Hill News

• “The Plan is an automobile-oriented design rather than a transit- oriented development. The Plan fails to take advantage of a major opportunity in Chapel Hill to start fresh with urban design that does not support and worsen auto dependency. The direction of the plan needs to be drastically changed…” – 10/11/2004 HWCC Comparison of UNC to HWCC Principles, Goals and Strategies • “Carolina North will be designed and built as a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-oriented development from the outset.” - HWCC Transportation and Land Use Goal 1A

37

Parking Ratios: Carolina North Vs. Existing Campus

• For NEW development on main campus: 1.3 spaces per 1000 Gross Square Feet (GSF) • Carolina North’s parking ratio: over 2.02 spaces per GSF • Make the current campus ratio a CEILING • Support lower parking ratio using TDM

38

19 Attachment D-20

Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

• TDM is the science of using regulation and market mechanisms to channel demand for transportation facilities in a way that increases efficiency of the existing system.

39

Photos By Patrick McDonough and www.pedbikeimages.org

Great TDM Strategies from UNC

• Fare Free Transit • Zipcars- wheels when you want them • Intra-campus routes: U, NU and RU • Vanpool subsidies and preferred parking •Commuter Daily Tar Heel Photo Alternatives Program (CAP) 40

20 Attachment D-21

Carolina North TDM Policies

• Let Minimum Monthly Parking Price = At Least 1.3 Times Monthly Transit Fare • Continue satellite park-and-ride lot program (Add lots NC 86 North of town, NC 54 West, 15-501 corridor) • Invest in off-site bike/ped infrastructure instead of investing in parking decks @ $7500/space • Maintain percentage of CN housing specifically for CN employees

41

Bus Transit at Carolina North

• Continue Fare-Free policy • 7 Minute Circulator Service Within Carolina North • Chapel Hill Transit Bus Service with CN as primary destination • High-frequency service from CN to Downtown Chapel Hill, UNC Hospital before rail service exists • Regional Buses should make direct

connection to CN from Durham & Chapel Hill Transit Photo elsewhere • Encourage Chapel Hill Transit to expand weekend service 42

21 Attachment D-22

Fixed Guideway Local Transit

15-501 Light Rail from Chapel Hill to Durham

• Long-range plans run from Dntn. Durham to UNC Hospital, then to CN • Continue via city streets and Carrboro rail spur to CN • Many examples of safe in- street running around U.S.

• NC 54 Corridor connection D Bleicher Photo should be made to Triangle Metro Center 43

Fixed Guideway Regional Rail

Regional Rail to Carolina North • Carrboro rail spur could be upgraded for Regional Rail access to CN • Fastest-growing towns for UNC employees are Mebane, Graham, Hillsborough Colorado Railcar Photo • Burlington to CN: 45-55 Minutes by rail

44

Patrick McDonough Photo

22 Attachment D-23

Parking Management : Buying Time to Plan for Transit

UNC Park Res Park Ratio Per Ratio Per UNC UNC Resident Other Total 1000 1000 Year GSF Spaces Spaces Spaces Spaces GSF GSF 2010 500000 1500 600 210 2310 3.00 2.76 2020 1500000 2800 1500 420 4720 1.87 2.02 2030 2500000 3400 2000 420 5820 1.36 1.00 2040 3500000 2500 2900 420 5820 0.71 0.80 2050 4500000 2000 3400 420 5820 0.44 0.73 2060 5900000 970 4451 424 5845 0.16 0.65

More Parking for UNC in Earlier Years
More Parking for Residents as Transit Investments Come Online 45

Water Resource Management at Carolina North

Principle 1: Mimic pre-development water quality & hydrology

•Avoid impacts thru Siting of development and buildings

•Minimize impacts thru Compact site design and

selection of J Carnahan photo building materials

•Mitigate impacts with Best Management Practices as the last resort

46 J Carnahan photo J Carnahan

23 Attachment D-24

Principle 2: Conserve Water Resources

• Capture precipitation in cisterns/rain barrels and green roofs • Include conservation in the planning & design of the entire project J Carnahan drawing • Divert and re-use greywater • When appropriate, treat wastewater on-site, using constructed wetlands and small-scale community systems J Carnahan photo J Carnahan

Constructed Wetland for 60-employee Facility in Chatham County 47

Community Supported Agriculture at Carolina North

• Community Gardens foster community interaction

• Locally grown food is Photos J Lelekacs more fresh • Greater variety available • Takes less energy to ship

48

J Carnahan photo

24 Attachment D-25

Community Supported Agriculture at Carolina North

• Best growing soils • Land cleared or in Pines • Minimal slopes • Outside stream buffers

49

J Lelekacs Dwg

Village Project Carolina North Detail Plan

J Carnahan Drawing 50

Carolina North Concept by J Carnahan, Kathy Buck, Joanna Lelekacs & Patrick McDonough

25 Saving the Goodliest Land

Saving the Goodliest Land A Five-Year Plan for Investing in North Carolina’s Land, Water, History and Future

June 2005 Table of Contents

Introduction and Summary of the Plan 1

Why Act Now? Rip Van Winkle is Awake. 4 Land Ownership Patterns are Changing Rural and Urban Areas Have Different Problems but Land and History are Critical to Both

North Carolinians Support Open Space Protection 7

Why Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Are Critical to North Carolina’s Future 8 Growing the Economy and Providing Jobs Protecting Public Health Enhancing Quality of Life Through Recreation, Historic Sites and Scenic Beauty Protecting Native Plants and Wildlife

Examples of Successful Projects that Invested in North Carolina’s Land, History and Future 14

State Funding Makes the Difference 17

Places that Matter: Five-Year Conservation Goals for Nine Types of Property 19 Rivers, Wetlands, Floodplains and Coastal Waters Working Farms Working Forests Local Parks and Trails State Parks and Trails Game Lands and Other Natural Areas Urban Forests Land Visible From Scenic Highways Historic Places

State Funding and Program Needs to Meet Five-Year Conservation Goals 31

Funding Options for Consideration 34

Saving the Goodliest Land 35

Acknowledgements 36 Table of Contents – Maps and Appendices

Maps M1 Map 1: Water Supply Watersheds and Other Bodies of Water to Receive Protection as High Quality Waters Map 2: Development Pressure on High Quality Farmland in North Carolina Map 3: Existing and Proposed State Forests and Forest Legacy Areas Map 4: Existing and Proposed North Carolina State Parks Map 5: North Carolina Game Lands and Wildlife Resources Commission Focus Areas Map 6: Terrestrial Ecoregions of North Carolina

Appendix A: Growing the Economy and Providing Jobs A1 Agriculture Tourism Forest Products Military Bases Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Watching Recruiting and Retaining Knowledge Workers Economic Impact of Restoration and Reuse of Historic Buildings

Appendix B: Protecting Public Health B1 Clean Water Clean Air Places to Exercise Flood Protection

Appendix C: Enhancing Quality of Life Through Recreation, Historic Sites and Scenic Beauty C1 Natural-Area Recreation Such as Hiking, Camping and Swimming in Lakes and the Ocean Viewing Scenery Local Recreation Such as Walking and Biking, Playgrounds, Swimming Pools and Soccer Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Watching Visiting Historic Sites

Appendix D: Protecting Native Plants and Wildlife D1

Appendix E: Summary of North Carolina Land Conservation Financing Study E1

Appendix F: Survey Results from Local Parks and Recreation Departments F1

Appendix G: Summary of Survey Results from Farmland Owner Poll – November 2003 G1

Appendix H: Summary of Survey Results from Public Poll – March 2004 H1

Appendix I: State Land Conservation Spending 1999-2004 I1 Introduction and Summary of the Plan

In 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh sent Lieutenant Ralph Lane and a group of surveyors to establish the first English colony in the New World. Adventuring off Roanoke Island, Lane’s men explored the mainland to the west and declared it “to bee the goodliest soile under the cope of heaven.”

That “goodliest soile” became North Carolina. Since then the farms, forests, fields, mountains, rivers, sounds and oceans have provided livelihoods for our citizens and astonished visitors with their beauty. Lane’s men were right: we truly live in the “goodliest” land.

Today, the quality of North Carolina’s natural and rural lands and its water are just as important as they were 400 years ago. • A significant amount of the state’s jobs and gross product depend on quality land and water including those in tourism, agriculture, forestry, fishing and on military bases. • Other businesses strongly consider quality of life and a healthy environment for their employees when they make decisions about where to locate. • Public health depends on safe drinking water, clean air and places to exercise. • Our quality of life is enhanced by the state’s parks and trails, places celebrating our history and the sheer beauty of the land. • North Carolina’s geographic diversity produces a special variety of native plants and animals that makes this one of the world’s ecological “hot spots.”

North Carolina is a “hot spot” for people. Between 1990 and 2000 our population grew by 21% and is expected to increase by 50% by 2030. You can travel almost anywhere in North Carolina and see firsthand the pressures our population creates on the land. More than one million acres of natural and rural land have been developed over the last decade. North Carolina lost more prime farmland between 1987 and 1997 than any other state except Ohio and Texas. And for the first time since the 1930s, falling forest acreage contributed to a decline in the volume of the state’s timber-growing stock.

To help protect these critical areas, the General Assembly created the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, Natural Heritage Trust Fund and Parks and Recreation Trust Fund. The General Assembly also set a goal of conserving one million acres of critical lands between 2000 and 2009. Significant progress has been made, but efforts have fallen short because of lack of funding. The Farmland Preservation Trust Fund has received no funding for the last two years. In 2004, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund had only $62 million in appropriations compared to $350 million in grant requests. Protecting our critical land is only going to get harder and more costly.

Because of the need to expand land and historic conservation efforts in North Carolina, several of the state’s leading nonprofit organizations joined together to form Land for Tomorrow in 2003.1 Their goals are to: • Build awareness of the importance of land conservation and historic preservation to North Carolina’s future. • Advocate for expanded funding to meet that need.

1 At the time this plan was developed, ten groups were members of Land for Tomorrow: American Farmland Trust, Conservation Trust for North Carolina, Land Loss Prevention Project, NC Community Development Initiative, NC Public Interest Research Group (NCPIRG), NC Recreation and Park Association, Preservation NC, The Conservation Fund, The Nature Conservancy NC Chapter and The Trust for Public Land. Since that time, many more organizations have become partners of Land for Tomorrow. An up-to-date list is available at www.landfortomorrow.org.

1 Land for Tomorrow began its work by interviewing business, government and nonprofit leaders from across the state and polling registered voters and farmland owners to learn more about what people in North Carolina think about conservation. We studied conservation finance techniques used in North Carolina and other states to develop a better understanding of options available to increase funding at the federal, state and local levels.

Based upon this information, research into land and historic properties in North Carolina and current programs to protect them, and advice from more than one hundred experts, the Coalition presents this report, Saving the Goodliest Land: A Five-Year Plan for Investing in North Carolina’s Land, History and Future.

This report: • Examines changes in land use and ownership that are creating economic, public health, ecological and quality of life challenges in urban and rural areas. • Recommends how the state can address these challenges by increasing funding for land conservation and historic preservation. • Recommends the following five-year conservation goals: • Rivers, Wetlands, Floodplains and Coastal Waters – 6,000 miles of stream banks and flood plains • Working Farms – 50,000 acres of productive farmland • Working Forests – 25,000 acres • Local Parks and Trails – 34,000 acres and needed trail and park facilities • State Parks and Trails – 60,000 acres and needed trails and facilities • Game Lands and Other Natural Areas – 150,000 acres • Historic Places –Restore 350 historic landmarks for public use and protect 3,000 acres of important archeological sites and land around State Historic Sites • Land Visible from Scenic Highways – 50,000 acres along the Blue Ridge Parkway and other scenic highways • Urban Forests – Increase tree canopy in areas that are not meeting air quality standards • Estimates that the projected cost to North Carolina state government to meet these conservation goals is an additional $200 million annually for five years which can be used to leverage federal, local and private matching funds. • Recommends creating one new initiative to help communities take advantage of their critical land and historic places to create sustainable jobs and a higher quality of life. • Recommends building on the State’s excellent existing conservation trust funds, One North Carolina Naturally program and the creative, vibrant work of local governments, nonprofits and community groups to accomplish these goals.

Land for Tomorrow presents this plan as a proposal for discussion. We hope that it will be used by legislators, state agency staff, and citizens and organizations to craft an action plan for saving North Carolina’s critical land and historic places and ensuring a bright future for our citizens and communities.

2 If we’re successful in this effort, our children and grandchildren will still think of North Carolina as the “goodliest land” with: • Clean air and water • Sustainable jobs and vibrant communities • Thriving farms and forests • Places to enjoy the beauty of North Carolina, to exercise, to hunt and fish • Places of historic significance and ecological value

In 1971, North Carolina voters approved Article XIV, Section V of the State Constitution, which mandates that we must use “every appropriate way to preserve as part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands and places of beauty.” Implementing Saving the Goodliest Land is the best way to follow through on that Constitutional commitment. We must protect North Carolina’s critical land and historic places now. There will be no second chance.

3

Why Act Now? Rip Van Winkle Is Awake.

By all accounts, North Carolina got off to a slow start. In the early 1800s, North Carolina became known as the “Rip Van Winkle” state because it was so remote and uninvolved compared to its fellow colonies.2

In the last thirty years, however, North Carolina has fully emerged from its Rip Van Winkle slumber. Three million more people live here now than in 1970, and the population is expected to grow by another 4.4 million by 2030 (Figure 1).3 In absolute numbers, North Carolina is the sixth-fastest growing state in the nation.4 For the period of 1990 to 2000, 97 of our 100 counties had an increase in population, some growing as much as 50%.5

Figure 1: Actual and Projected Population: 1970-2030

This rapid growth has brought many good things to North Carolina – jobs, cultural diversity and new ideas. But while our population is growing, our supply of land is not. Recent estimates indicate that North Carolina’s farmland and natural lands are being built into new subdivisions, shopping centers, offices and roads each year at a rate of 277 acres per day or one million acres each decade.6

Even with continued population growth, this loss of land is not inevitable. Our current patterns of development use a great deal more land per person than we did in the past. As a result, our cities and towns are spreading out into the countryside, and downtowns and older neighborhoods in many towns and cities are struggling. For example, in the Triangle area in 1950, only 122 acres were developed for every 1,000 residents. In 1990, that same number of residents used 353 acres of land (Figure 2).7

2 Powell, William S. 1989. North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 249. 3 North Carolina State Demographics, from US Census data, http://demog.state.nc.us/demog/projections.html 4 North Carolina State Demographics, from US Census data, http://demog.state.nc.us/demog/stgrl3a.html 5 US Census data, http://www.census.gov/ 6 One North Carolina Naturally website: http://www.enr.state.nc.us/officeofconservation/pages/impactfacts.html 7 Costa, Lorelei and Andrea Petersen. 2002. State of Open Space 2002: The Status of the Triangle’s Green Infrastructure. Triangle Land Conservancy. Raleigh, NC. www.tlc-nc.org.

4 Figure 2: Number of Acres Developed per 1,000 People in the Triangle Region, 1950 to 1990

Land Ownership Patterns Are Changing Three types of landowners that own substantial acreage in North Carolina are selling off land because of changes in their industries. This widespread sale of land provides North Carolina with a rare opportunity to permanently protect water quality and native plants and wildlife and to keep critical lands in productive agriculture and forestry.

Power Companies Key finding: Power companies are selling land acquired for hydropower generation along rivers and streams throughout North Carolina because of changes in their industry and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission re-licensing process. Currently, this land provides natural buffers that protect water quality, and the vegetation in these buffers may be cleared when the land is sold.

Recommendation: Protect buffers along rivers and streams to permanently protect water quality when power companies sell land along rivers and streams. Assess these lands to determine whether they have potential as parks, game lands and other natural areas.

Forest Products Industry Key Finding: Industrial timber companies are selling hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land, particularly in the coastal plain.

Recommendation: Work to keep this land in forest use, particularly when the land has been designated by the state as a “Forest Legacy” area because of its value to the forest products industry or as a “Natural Heritage” site because of its significant natural resources.

Tobacco Farms Key Finding: With the tobacco quota system now officially over, quota holders will be deciding over the next few years whether to keep farming their land. Thousands of acres in working farms may be sold for development, and farming communities may disappear if the state does not deal creatively with this change in agriculture.

Recommendation: Work to keep productive farmland available for farming through purchase of development rights (PDR) programs (described in more detail in Appendix A) and other programs to help make farming profitable.

5 Rural and Urban Areas Have Different Problems But Land and History Are Critical to Both Rural and urban areas in North Carolina face very different challenges. In the past fifty years, urban and suburban areas have prospered economically, while rural areas have faced dramatic economic declines. In fact, the disparity of income among these different areas of North Carolina has led Governor Michael Easley and others to talk about “two North Carolinas” and the importance of providing opportunity for everyone so that we can become “one North Carolina.”

Many rural counties in North Carolina face very high rates of unemployment and poverty, and they have trouble attracting clean industry and new residents because they are remote and often have struggling downtowns and old or minimal infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer systems. From 2000 through 2003, there were more than 73,000 layoffs in rural counties; 60,000 were in manufacturing. Eighteen rural counties lost population during that time, in large part due to these job losses. In 2003 ten rural counties had unemployment rates of 10% or greater.

On the other hand, these same rural counties are among the richest in natural and historic resources in all of North Carolina. With creative and strategic investments, these resources could become valuable economic assets and provide jobs and improved quality of life to citizens of these communities through heritage tourism, value-added agriculture, forestry, renovation and re-use of historic buildings, and other conservation-based economic activities.

Urban and suburban areas and some rural counties that are attracting tourists, retirees and second-home residents face very different challenges caused by rapid and unplanned growth. Population in North Carolina’s urban counties grew by 25% or 800,000 people from 1990-2000 and is projected to increase by another 50% by 2030. Land for Tomorrow focus groups conducted in Asheville, Raleigh and Wilmington found that traffic jams, water and air pollution and the loss of beautiful and historic landscapes worry citizens greatly.

These counties need help improving water and air quality, providing parks, trails and places to enjoy the outdoors, and preserving historic buildings and natural and rural land. Such investments will help urban and rapidly-developing rural communities maintain the quality of life that has made them economically successful and desirable places to live.

6 North Carolinians Support Open Space Protection

To learn what North Carolinians think about issues related to land, development, outdoor recreation and historic preservation, Land for Tomorrow conducted focus groups and a statewide poll.

In the fall of 2003, Land for Tomorrow conducted focus groups with citizens in Asheville, Raleigh and Wilmington, and the first question asked was what they like best and least about the communities in which they live. In all three areas, people talked about the beauty of the land and their love for North Carolina’s farmland, its mountains and coast. One Raleigh resident said, “This community is known for its greenery, and the building is wiping the green out.” Top concerns were traffic, air pollution and lack of planning to deal with all the development needed to support the people moving into the area.

Land for Tomorrow then conducted a statewide poll in early 2004 to better understand broad public opinion.8 More than 70% of respondents saw the following issues as very or somewhat serious in North Carolina: pollution of rivers and streams – 84% thought it was a serious problem loss of wildlife habitat – 75% thought it was a serious problem air pollution – 74% thought it was a serious problem loss of farmland – 73% thought it was a serious problem

Fifty-nine percent of North Carolinians agreed that we are losing land so fast that we must find a way to preserve open space, farmland and water supply areas. Eighty-six percent say that they would be likely to support increased funding if it would protect rivers and waterways, and 82% say that they would be likely to support increased funding if it would protect family farms and farmland.

Strong majorities also supported protecting land for many other purposes including: • historic sites • habitat for wildlife • scenic views • local parks • hunting and fishing • hiking and biking trails

Another measure of growing public support for land conservation is the amount of local bond money raised in North Carolina. Between 1998 and 2004, more than $180 million local dollars have been raised for open space protection through bond measures. Between 2000 and 2004, there were 14 local referenda across the state, with 13 of those measures passing. The 13 approved referenda passed by wide margins - an average of 64%.9 This trend is happening in other parts of the country too. Since 1996, 1,065 out of 1,376 conservation ballot measures have passed in 43 states, raising over $27 billion – a passage rate of 77%.10

8 Land for Tomorrow: Survey Results from Public Poll - March 2004. Available in Appendix H of the full report and through www.landfortomorrow.org 9 The Trust for Public Land. 2004. NC Land Conservation Financing Study. Available in Appendix E of the full report and on www.landfortomorrow.org 10 www.tpl.org; The Trust for Public Land and Land Trust Alliance publish a report each year called Land Vote: Americans Invest in Parks and Open Space which documents all of the ballot measures each year.

7 Why Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Are Critical to North Carolina’s Future

This section of the report summarizes our findings about how water, land and historic places impact the state’s economy, public health, quality of life and native plants and wildlife. After each summary of our findings, we present a recommendation about how to ensure that the benefits derived from our water, land and historic places are not lost now or to future generations. This summary of findings and recommendations are drawn from more detailed information on each topic presented in Appendices A through D at the back of this report.

Growing the Economy and Providing Jobs11 North Carolina’s water, natural and rural lands, and historic places are integral to the state’s economy. More than one third of the state’s gross product is generated by industries that depend on land and water such as agriculture, tourism, forestry, fishing, hunting and wildlife-watching, and jobs found on military bases.

Agriculture Key Finding: In North Carolina, agriculture generates almost $7 billion annually in cash receipts. North Carolina ranks among the top five states in the nation in items as diverse as tobacco, turkeys, sweet potatoes, hogs, trout, greenhouse and nursery plants, blueberries and pickling cucumbers. However, between 1987 and 1997, North Carolina lost more prime farmland to development than any state other than Texas and Ohio.

Recommendation: Maintain a critical mass of productive farms in agriculture through purchase of development rights (PDR) and other programs to keep agriculture profitable.

Tourism Key Finding: North Carolina is the sixth most visited state in the country in large part because visitors think of North Carolina as a “state where you can enjoy unspoiled natural beauty in a restful and relaxing atmosphere.” In 2003, visitors spent $12.6 billion and provided jobs for 183,220 North Carolinians. Heritage tourism is the fastest-growing sector in the tourism industry.

Recommendation: Protect beautiful views and clean water and air and provide a variety of natural and historic sites to visit in order to expand and protect North Carolina’s tourism industry.

Forest Products Industry Key Finding: Forest products, such as lumber, pine straw, pulp and paper, generate $3.7 billion of North Carolina’s gross state product. However, forest acreage decreased by one million acres between 1990 and 2001, primarily because forests have been developed around urban areas.

Recommendation: Protect forest land through purchase of development rights (PDR) and other programs to keep forestry profitable.

Military Bases Key Finding: North Carolina’s four military bases generate approximately $12 billion of our gross state product. One of the biggest problems facing military bases is development of once rural land surrounding their borders because it makes training exercises difficult and dangerous. The US Department of Defense considered development around bases and states’ efforts to prevent it as one of the main factors in its recent decision about which bases to close.

Recommendation: Prevent urban encroachment around North Carolina’s bases and their training grounds by protecting natural and rural land on their borders.

11 See Appendix A for a more complete description of the how land conservation and historic preservation benefit the industries listed in this section.

8 Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Watching Key Finding: Fishing, hunting and wildlife-watching are important economic drivers in North Carolina. Recreational anglers, hunters and wildlife-watchers spend $2.8 billion per year, and commercial fishing adds $103 million in nineteen coastal counties. Recommendation: Protect vegetated buffers along streams and estuaries to protect habitat for fish. Protect forests and farmland that provide important habitat for wildlife. Provide access to places to fish, hunt and watch wildlife, and encourage development of lodging, restaurants and other amenities for traveling sportsmen and wildlife-watchers. Recruiting and Retaining Knowledge Workers Key Finding: Recent research into location decisions of high- tech companies indicates that the best strategy for recruiting and retaining such companies is to build and maintain communities that appeal to “knowledge workers.” Among other things, such workers are interested in outdoor activities and the authenticity and uniqueness that come from historic buildings, established neighborhoods and unique natural and rural landscapes. Key Recommendation: Protect natural areas, historic places and rural landscapes and provide trails, parks and other amenities for outdoor activities in order to maintain the high quality of life valued by knowledge workers.

Economic Impact of Restoration and Reuse of Historic Buildings Key Finding: Restoration and reuse of historic buildings provides important economic benefits beyond being a draw for tourists and knowledge workers. Jobs, tax revenues and additional income and investments are created through the process of restoration. Key Recommendation: Invest strategically in restoration and reuse of historic landmarks that are open to the public to leverage jobs, private investment and other economic benefits. Places that Matter: Protecting the Economy and Jobs The table below shows which of nine types of places are critical to the industries described above. For more information about how these types of places contribute to each industry, please see Appendix A.

INDUSTRY BENEFIT Forest Fishing, Hunting, Knowledge PLACES THAT MATTER Agriculture Tourism Military Products Wildlife-Watching Workers Rivers, Wetlands, Floodplains and X X X Coastal Waters Working Farms X X X X X Working Forests X X X Local Parks and Trails X X State Parks and Trails X X X X Game Lands and Other X X X X X Natural Areas Urban Forests X X X Land Visible from X X X Scenic Highways Historic Places X X

12 See Appendix B for a more complete description of how land conservation and historic preservation benefit public health.

9 Protecting Public Health12 Clean Water Key Finding: More than 2,600 miles of streams in North Carolina do not meet water quality standards. An additional 25,260 miles have not been monitored enough to assess water quality. Recommendation: Protect land and vegetation along the banks of rivers and estuaries to keep polluted runoff from fields, lawns and roads from contaminating our water. Also protect wetlands from development because they purify the water. Clean Air Key Finding: North Carolina’s air quality has been steadily degrading. The federal government has ordered 32 counties to reduce levels of the pollutant ozone. Three of these counties also have higher concentrations of small particulate matter (PM 2.5) in the air than national standards consider safe. Recommendation: Protect and replant trees in areas with poor air quality to help reduce ozone and particulate matter in the air. Maintain at least 40% tree cover, ranging from 15% in central business districts to 50% or more in suburban residential areas. Places to Exercise Key Finding: Physical inactivity and poor diet combined have become the second-leading cause of preventable death in North Carolina. Medical costs associated with obesity now total $2.1 billion per year. Public health officials recognize that the design of many neighborhoods, which makes walking and biking difficult and dangerous, is a significant contributor to this epidemic. Recommendation: Build more parks, greenways and trails to provide convenient opportunities for physical activity. Restore and reuse public buildings such as schools in established, walkable neighborhoods to encourage physical activity among children and adults.

Reducing Flood Damage Key Finding: Hurricanes and tropical storms in the last ten years have illustrated the great cost in lives and property damage caused by flooding. Recommendation: Protect land and vegetation in floodplains and on steep slopes to reduce damage from flooding of buildings and resultant loss of life. Places that Matter: Protecting Public Health The table below shows which of nine types of places are critical to protect for clean water and air, exercise and prevention of flooding. For more information about how these types of places contribute to public health, please see Appendix B.

PUBLIC HEALTH BENEFIT Water Air Places to Flood PLACES THAT MATTER Quality Quality Exercise Prevention

Rivers, Wetlands, Floodplains and Coastal X X X X Waters Working Farms X Working Forests X X X Local Parks and Trails X X X State Parks and Trails X X X X Game Lands and Other Natural Areas X X X X Urban Forests X X X Land Visible from Scenic Highways X X Historic Places X

10 Enhancing Quality of Life13

Every five years, the NC Division of Parks and Recreation surveys North Carolina citizens to learn which outdoor activities they are participating in and which they would participate in if more opportunities were available. The most popular activities are ones that can be enjoyed by almost everyone, at relatively low cost. These activities include walking (75% of households participate), viewing scenery (71%), visiting historic sites (62%) and visiting natural areas (53%).

Natural-Area Recreation such as Hiking, Camping and Swimming in Lakes and the Ocean Key Finding: Walking for pleasure, beach activities, swimming in lakes and visiting natural areas are some of the most popular activities in North Carolina, and North Carolinians strongly support public funding to provide additional places for such activities. A record 13.2 million people visited North Carolina’s state parks in 2002, a 160% increase over the last 20 years.

Recommendation: Expand existing parks and create new parks in areas of the state without nearby natural-area parks to meet public demand for outdoor recreation.

Local Recreation such as Walking, Biking, Playgrounds, Swimming Pools and Soccer Key Finding: Popular facilities provided by local park and recreation departments include walking and biking trails, playgrounds, swimming pools and open areas for activities such as organized and unorganized sports activities, special events and a variety of programs for all ages. North Carolina’s growing population and the increase in obesity mean that local parks departments face a rapidly increasing need for their services.

Recommendation: Build more local parks, trails and recreation facilities to meet the need for active recreation and to provide safe and pleasant places to walk and bike.

Viewing Scenery Key Finding: Over 70% of North Carolinians report that driving for pleasure and viewing scenery are popular activities for their households.

Recommendation: Protect vistas from development along officially-designated scenic highways.

Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching Key Finding: Thirty-nine percent of North Carolinians like to hunt, fish or watch wildlife, but as forest and farms have been developed the diversity of species where many people live has declined and more and more land is off limits to hunting, fishing and exploring.

Recommendation: Protect habitat for fish and wildlife and provide places to hunt, fish and watch wildlife.

Visiting Historic Sites Key Finding: Sixty-two percent of North Carolinians visit historic sites each year, and there is strong support for public funding to restore and open additional historic sites.

Recommendation: Acquire, restore and open more historic sites to the public. Renovate and reuse public historic buildings such as court houses and school buildings to help maintain vibrant communities and slow new development on rural lands. Protective covenants on privately-owned historic buildings can also maintain their aesthetic and educational value to a community.

13 See Appendix C for a more complete description of how land conservation and historic preservation enhance quality of life.

11 Places that Matter: Enhancing Quality of Life The table below shows which of nine types of places provide North Carolina’s citizens places to recreate, view scenery, hunt and learn about history. Appendix C provides a more complete description of how each of these types of places enhances quality of life.

QUALITY OF LIFE BENEFIT Natural-Area Local Recreation Hunting, PLACES THAT Visiting Recreation such as such as Walking, Viewing Fishing, MATTER Historic Hiking, Camping, Biking, Soccer, Scenery Wildlife- Sites Swimming Playgrounds Watching Rivers, Wetlands, Floodplains and X X X X Coastal Waters Working Farms X X Working Forests X Local Parks and X X X Trails State Parks and X X X Trails Game Lands and X X X X Other Natural Areas Urban Forests X X X Land Visible from X X Scenic Highways Historic Places X X

12 Protecting Native Plants and Wildlife14

Key Finding: North Carolina has some of the most extraordinary natural habitats in the world. Four of our five “ecoregions” are considered “globally outstanding” by international scientists, but 18% of North Carolina’s native species are in danger of extinction and only small percentages of the state remain in natural habitat.

Recommendation: Protect and restore large blocks of unfragmented natural habitat in order to save our extraordinary ecosystems and the native plants and wildlife that depend on them.

Places that Matter: Protecting Native Plants and Wildlife The table below shows which of nine types of places are needed to ensure that our native species of plants and wildlife flourish in North Carolina. Appendix D provides a more complete description of how each of these types of places protects native plants and wildlife.

PLACES THAT MATTER Habitat for Native Plants and Wildlife Rivers, Wetlands, Floodplains and Coastal Waters X Working Farms X Working Forests X Local Parks and Trails X State Parks and Trails X Game Lands and Other Natural Areas X Urban Forests X Land Visible from Scenic Highways X Historic Places

14 See Appendix D for a more complete description of how land conservation protects native plants and wildlife.

13 Examples of Successful Projects that Invested in North Carolina’s Land, History and Future

Seventy years ago, the federal government showed extraordinary foresight when it invested in several grand conservation projects envisioned by North Carolinians. Some examples are the Blue Ridge Parkway and Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Umstead State Park in Raleigh. These projects have paid huge returns on the original investment – in economic development and jobs, in enjoyment for citizens and visitors alike, in protection of native plants and wildlife. In fact, these places are often the ones that come to mind when people think of North Carolina.

At the time, those projects required massive federal dollars. Now, we’ve developed many other conservation tools and partners to help share the work and cost. Land and buildings can be kept in private hands, protected through conservation easements and protective covenants. Local governments, nonprofit land trusts, community development groups and historic preservation organizations can own and manage land, easements and buildings.

All across North Carolina, governments and community groups and nonprofits are taking action to protect water quality, build trails to help people exercise and improve air quality, protect working farms and forest land, create new parks and historic sites and protect land around military bases. These projects have the potential to mean as much to North Carolina as those completed seventy years ago. In the four years between 1999 and 2003, all these entities together protected 280,342 acres of land15 and numerous historic buildings.

One of the most extraordinary things about these projects is that almost all provide multiple benefits to a community. For example, a project may begin as a means to protect water quality, but in the end it may also provide a place for people to walk and enjoy the outdoors and for native wildlife to flourish. It may also bring income to the community through farming, forestry or tourism, or by helping it attract new businesses. Here are some examples of recent projects that have made a difference:

• In 1999, Bryson City leaders came together to assess the major needs in their community. They were very concerned about problems with their aging water system and the number of vacant buildings in their once vibrant downtown. The challenge was to find the capital needed to address these problems. With technical assistance from The Conservation Fund and Land Trust for the Little Tennessee, they decided to sell a permanent conservation easement to the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund that restricts future development in their water supply watershed, which is adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. They will use the funds from sale of the easement to upgrade their water system and revitalize the downtown business district. Through the easement, they will also protect public health and their economy by preventing inappropriate development in the watershed that might impact their water quality and disrupt wildlife and recreation in the park, the town’s most important economic asset.

• In 1995, a farm in the heart of the Sutphin Mill farming community on the Chatham-Alamance County line went on the market. Land prices had been rising fast enough in this community located halfway between the Triad and the Triangle that no farmer could afford to buy it. Other farmers were very concerned about the effect a housing development might have on their own ability to farm. They knew they needed a group of farms together to keep other associated businesses, such as feed and tractor stores, profitable. They also worried that new neighbors might complain about farm practices like pesticide use and slow-moving machinery on the roads. They turned to the Piedmont

15 2004 Annual Report: NC Million Acre Initiative. Office of Conservation and Community Affairs, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. http://www.enr.state.nc.us/officeofconservation/

14 Land Conservancy and American Farmland Trust to help them find a solution. By piecing together funding from a variety of sources, the Piedmont Land Conservancy was able to purchase the farm at fair market value, place permanent restrictions within the deed on any future non-agricultural development on the farm, and then resell it at its farm value to a farmer. This project was so successful that four other Sutphin Mill farmers have since entered into similar agreements, and more than 500 acres of farmland have now been permanently protected.

• The Roanoke River in northeastern North Carolina is the “largest intact bottomland hardwood swamp forest east of the Mississippi. Mistletoe and Spanish moss decorate majestic cypress trees and towering tupelos. Blossoms of cardinal flowers blaze in shafts of sunlight underneath. The area is home to black bear, river otter, white-tail deer, bobcat, beaver and mink. Over 200 bird species have been sighted in the river corridor, including bald eagles, barred owl, osprey, and anhinga. Coupled with the hundreds of great egrets and great blue herons nesting in the region, it is a birdwatcher’s paradise. The River is renowned for its abundance of striped bass, largemouth bass, black crappie, lunker catfish, gar and bowfin.” 16 For many years, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, and The Nature Conservancy have worked cooperatively to protect land along this river because of its extraordinary natural habitats and diversity of wildlife and native plants. They have partnered with Dominion Power and the US Corps of Engineers to manage water flow through dams to mimic the natural flow of the river while still generating needed power. But the river has been difficult for many people to access and enjoy unless they were willing to don hip waders for the swamps or had a sturdy fishing boat. Roanoke River Partners is a new nonprofit working to change that by building elevated camping platforms on the river and its tributaries. Eleven of these are now in place, including a luxury model with screening to keep the mosquitoes away!

• According to the NC Advisory Commission on Military Affairs, construction of houses and other developments around military bases is the most critical problem facing North Carolina’s military. New neighbors often complain about noise and safety concerns, and they make it difficult for the military to train its soldiers. In recent years, the Army and the Marines have partnered with The Nature Conservancy, US Fish and Wildlife Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission to protect land around Fort Bragg and Camp LeJeune. TNC, USFWS and NCWRC want to protect and restore the extraordinary natural habitat that surrounds these bases, and the military welcomes the assurance that if the land remains in natural habitat they will not have many neighbors on their borders. One recent project that illustrates the value of this partnership is the permanent protection of a 2,500-acre tract surrounded on three sides by Camp LeJeune that was slated for a 3,000 home subdivision with two golf courses. The land has now become a new addition to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission’s game lands program.

• Turning the abandoned American Tobacco railroad line into a trail has been a dream for many years of Triangle Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (TRTC), and, through a regional effort, that dream is coming true. The railroad ran more than 23 miles from Bonsal in western Wake County through Chatham County into downtown Durham. Now, thanks to the efforts of TRTC and Durham and Wake County’s Parks Departments, the trail bustles with life as walkers, runners and bikers exercise and commute on the miles of completed trail. TRTC is now working with Chatham County to help raise the funds needed to link the Durham and Wake sections. The trail is enhanced by the renovation of the historic American Tobacco factory and warehouses, a model mixed-use historic redevelopment project, at the terminus of the trail.

16 http://www.roanokeriverpartners.org/Basin/RiverBasin.htm

15 • “Visitors who follow the scenic ribbon of the Blue Ridge Parkway along mountain ridges are treated to views of the most interesting landforms and natural resources in North Carolina’s mountains. It is little wonder that the Parkway is the most popular National Park in the United States, annually attracting over 14 million visitors and up to $2.3 billion for the local economy. The Parkway’s importance goes beyond its national popularity and is deeply rooted in the culture of the Blue Ridge. It is the unifying element engendering a shared regional identity. However, the protected land along the Parkway averages only 800 feet wide. Much of the land adjacent to the Parkway is privately owned, and residential and commercial development is encroaching, threatening the scenic beauty treasured by millions.”17 Conservation Trust for North Carolina and a number of local land trusts and national conservation groups have been working with the National Park Service to acquire land and easements in some of the most scenic stretches. Their work is helping to ensure that this historic park loved by all Americans retains its extraordinary beauty.

• Glencoe Mill Village,18 built in 1880 on the Haw River near Burlington, was one of the last water powered mills to be built in the state. The 105-acre site still includes the old mill complex, 32 of the original mill houses, the mill store, office, lodge, other associated buildings and more than a mile of frontage on the Haw River including half a mile of undeveloped land. In 1998, Preservation NC purchased the vacant property and developed a master plan for the site with the help of nearly 90 architects and other design professionals. Among the goals of the master plan are preserving the historic structures, conserving open space along the Haw River as a park, and encouraging the development of compatible infill houses and other buildings. Almost all the original mill houses have now been sold to private families, and several new infill houses have been built including one that was selected by Country Living magazine as its 2002 House of the Year. Sidewalks, bike trails and walking paths are being built and street trees planted thanks to a US Department of Transportation grant. An experienced developer is rehabilitating the mill into apartments and commercial space. The restoration of this historic place has already contributed more than $10 million to the economy of Alamance County, and it is reusing land productively rather than impacting rural or natural land that has never been developed. The mill also has the potential to be a major tourist destination. Local preservationists dream of a museum village where visitors can learn about textiles’ influence in the post-war South. Glencoe may someday be an attraction on the scale of Old Salem.

• Rocky Mount has served as the home-base for many locally-driven businesses over the years, but by the late 1980s the once-thriving downtown area had deteriorated. The Rocky Mount- Edgecombe Community Development Corporation, in partnership with a number of other groups and government agencies, has worked to revitalize the community by renovating historic buildings for offices, commercial and retail space and senior housing. Housing and economic development programs have created jobs, small businesses and community development. Special events and festivals now draw thousands of visitors to the city and the region.

• In 2003, Princeville, the nation’s first town incorporated by freed slaves after the Civil War, turned human devastation by Hurricane Floyd into something positive when it purchased eleven acres for the new Riverside Heritage Park. The site had been a mobile-home park in the floodplain of the Tar River before the hurricane swept everything downstream. The Trust for Public Land helped Princeville apply for funding from the Lowe’s Foundation and the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund to construct playgrounds, picnic areas, sports fields and a historic walking trail along the river. The park will not only meet citizens’ tremendous need for recreational areas; it will also help prevent devastation of lives in the future when the river inevitably floods again.

17 http://www.ctnc.org 18 http://www.presnc.org

16 State Funding Makes the Difference

The organizations and governments involved in the projects described above cobbled together funds from a variety of sources to make them happen. In many cases, however, one or more of the state’s conservation trust funds was the first funding partner – the one whose early encouragement and financial commitment gave those involved the courage to dream, plan and pull the project together. Promised grant funds from the state helped leverage funding from other sources including federal and local governments and private donors.

To its great credit, the NC General Assembly has had the vision to create these funding sources and, in 1999, to vote to save one million additional acres in the state by year-end 2009.

North Carolina’s four conservation trust funds are: • NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund ($62 million per year) About half the funds are granted to state and local governments and nonprofit land conservancies to acquire land and easements along rivers and streams to protect water quality. The other half are granted to local governments to upgrade wastewater and stormwater systems. Of the eight projects described in the previous section, four have received some funding from CWMTF. • NC Farmland Preservation Trust Fund ($0 in FY 2003 and 2004) When funds have been appropriated, this trust fund has provided funding to land trusts and local governments to purchase development rights from farmers such as the Sutphin Mill project described above. • NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund (approximately $15 million per year) This fund makes grants to state agencies to purchase land of great natural or cultural significance for parks, game lands and state historic sites. Three of the projects described above received funding from NHTF. • NC Park and Recreation Trust Fund (approximately $40 million per year) This fund makes grants for state and local parks and for beach access. Grants are made for land acquisition and for construction and restoration of facilities. Two of the projects described above received funding from PARTF.

The General Assembly has also provided: • Funding for historic properties (approximately $21 million in FY 03-04) These funds are frequently earmarked for specific historic properties across the state that are in public use. In FY 03-04, the General Assembly provided funds to the NC Rural Economic Development Center for a grants program to renovate vacant buildings in rural areas to create jobs.

In addition, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources has created: • One North Carolina Naturally ($0 appropriated for this purpose) This initiative promotes and coordinates the long-term conservation of North Carolina’s threatened land and water resources and tracks progress on the Million Acre initiative. NC DENR’s Office of Conservation and Community Affairs manages the program by leading the development and implementation of a comprehensive statewide conservation plan involving government agencies, private organizations, landowners and the public. One NC Naturally also provides support for development of regional open space plans, providing assistance through regional meetings and resource materials.

17 These trust funds and programs have had a tremendous, tangible impact throughout North Carolina. Every single county has benefited, and the grants have helped:

• Grow the economy and provide jobs. • Protect public health by protecting water and air quality, providing places to exercise and preventing loss of life and property from flooding. • Protect North Carolina’s extraordinary diversity of native plants and wildlife. • Enhance our quality of life by providing places to enjoy the outdoors and learn about history.

In addition, one dollar spent by the four trust funds has leveraged an average of $1.30 from other state, local and federal dollars, yielding $2.30 in spending power – more than doubling the state’s investment.

Given their impact, the demand for funding from the state’s conservation trust funds is immense, and they are not able to meet the growing need as more and more communities develop visions about how they can make a better future by investing in their land and history. The Clean Water Management Trust Fund, for example, is now only able to fund one of every eight proposals it receives. And although the state has increased its rate of land protection, it is only saving land at a little more than 60% of the rate needed to meet the Legislature’s goal of protecting one million acres between 1999 and 2009.

18 Places that Matter: Five-Year Conservation Goals for Nine Types of Property

In previous sections we identified nine types of places that need to be protected for the future of North Carolina. In this section, we provide more information about each of these places that matter:

• Rivers, Wetlands, Floodplains and Coastal Waters • Working Farms • Working Forests • Local Parks and Trails • State Parks and Trails • Game Lands and Other Natural Areas • Urban Forests • Land Visible from Scenic Highways • Historic Properties

This section begins with Table 1 which summarizes a conservation goal and funding needs for each type of place, lists what funding is available now and calculates the gap in funding needed to meet the goal. Following the table, we present more complete information about the conservation goals for each property type, including:

• The public benefits that come from protecting that type of property. • Priority areas for protection within all the North Carolina places of that type. • A five-year protection goal in acres, miles or buildings for each type of place. • The techniques used to protect that type of place. • The total amount of funding needed to meet the five-year protection goal. • An explanation of how Land for Tomorrow developed the protection goal and cost estimate.

19 Table 1: Five-year Goals, State Funding Sources and Funding Gap for Places that Matter Facility Inventory Land Needs Needs Needs State Funding PLACES THAT MATTER Total Funding Needs acres/$ $ $ Sources19 Rivers, Wetlands, 6,000 miles Floodplains and Coastal $500 million CWMTF $500 million Waters 50,000 acres Working Farms $110 million FPTF $110 million Working Forests 25,000 acres $55 million $55 million 34,000 acres $1,800 Local Parks and Trails $2,259 million PARTF, CWMTF20 $459 million million 60,000 acres $100 PARTF, NHTF, State Parks and Trails $300 million $200 million million CWMTF 150,000 Game Lands and Natural $15 acres $255 million CWMTF, NHTF Areas million $240 million

>tree canopy Urban Forests $2 million $17 million 21 $15 million

Land Visible from Scenic 50,000 acres $150 million Highways $150 million

Renovate 350 3,000 acres NHTF, annual Historic Places buildings $3 million $268 million $10 million appropriation $255 million

$3.9 billion over five $2.155 $20 TOTAL NEED $1.7 billion years billion million ($780 million/year)

$0.7 billion over five TOTAL FUNDING years ($138 million AVAILABLE NOW in FY 03-04)

$3.2 billion over five FUNDING GAP years

19 Abbreviations defined: FPTF – NC Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, CWMTF – NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund, PARTF – NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, NHTF – NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund 20 Other smaller funding sources include: NC Division of Public Health, NC Health and Wellness Trust Fund, NC Department of Transportation, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources trail fund 21 A grants program for street tree planting is available through the NC Division of Forest Resources.

20 Rivers, Wetlands, Floodplains and Coastal Waters

Protection will provide the following benefits: • drinking water quality protection • protection of commercial and recreational fishing industries • protection of wildlife habitat • protection of wetlands • protection of recreational activities such as swimming, canoeing and rafting • reduction of loss of life and property through flooding • long-term financial savings because it is more cost-effective to protect our waterways than to restore them once they are impaired

Priority areas for protection (Map 1): • streams in water supply watersheds • non-impaired streams in the headwaters of watersheds • streams where rare species live • buffers should be adequate for water quality protection • if other benefits are added such as a greenway trail, the buffer should be widened to provide all the desired benefits

Techniques to protect streams, wetlands, floodplains and coastal waters: Streams, wetlands and coastal waters are protected by ensuring that buffers of natural vegetation are protected around them to prevent sediment and pollutants from reaching the stream and to slow the erosive flow of stormwater. Perpetual vegetative buffers can be ensured by purchase of the land or an easement on the land by a nonprofit land conservancy or government agency. Depending on the needs of the landowner, the land or easement can be sold at fair market value or donated to qualify the landowner for tax benefits.

Five-year goal: Double the current rate of protection from 3,000 miles to 6,000 miles of stream buffers in a five-year period. Meeting this goal would protect water quality in an additional 17% of the state’s streams.

Total funding estimate to meet goal: $500 million over five years ($125 million per year)

Source of goals and funding estimates: This goal was developed after consultation with staff of the Clean Water Management Trust Fund. Currently, the trust fund is only able to fund about 20% of the applications it receives because of limited state funding. Based on knowledge of recent grant applicants and the projects for which they are seeking funds, Clean Water staff believes local governments and nonprofit organizations have the capacity to work with landowners to at least double the rate of protection if funding were available. Funding estimates were developed by doubling the amount of funding needed to protect 3,000 miles.

21 Working Farms

Protection will provide the following benefits: • protection of agricultural jobs, agricultural traditions and way of life • protection of prime agricultural soils, productive farms and farming opportunities for the future • protection of scenic views • job opportunities from tourism that attracts visitors to farms and places that sell local agricultural produce • farms and forests are preferred neighbors of military bases • may protect water quality and wildlife habitat • purchase of development rights from working farmers also provides o an alternative to selling land for development o a source of capital to help farmers plan for the future o more affordable farms for young farmers trying to break into the business

Priority areas for funding (Map 2): Farms with productive agricultural soils in areas where there is a critical mass of other farms and agricultural-support businesses such as feed stores and tractor suppliers. Recently, 2,675 farmers have enrolled more than 200,000 acres of farmland in “voluntary agricultural districts.”22 Farmland within these districts should also receive priority for funding because of the commitment to the future of farming shown by participants.

Techniques to protect farmland: Working farms have been successfully maintained through a variety of techniques, including purchase of development rights programs, planning and technical assistance, marketing and market development, crop diversification and enterprise development assistance. Purchase of development rights (PDR) programs keep the land in private ownership and allow continued agricultural use but restrict buildings and other development on the property with the exception of new agricultural buildings. Depending on the needs of the landowner, PDRs may be purchased by a government agency or by a nonprofit land trust at fair market value, or the landowner may donate the easement and qualify for charitable tax benefits. Planning, marketing and technical assistance are critical to help protect North Carolina’s working family farms.

Five-year goal: Protect 50,000 acres of productive farmland.

Total funding estimate to meet goal: $110 million over five years ($22 million per year)

Source of goals and funding estimates: This goal was recommended by American Farmland Trust and Conservation Trust for North Carolina as a challenging but achievable five-year goal based on their experience working with farm owners. As this program builds, farmers will need to be informed about options and governments and conservation nonprofits will need to build their capacity to work with farmers. If this five-year start- up program is successful, experience in other states indicates that farmer interest in PDR is likely to increase dramatically. The funding estimate is based on American Farmland Trust’s calculation of the average price per acre paid for PDR in other states.

22 Voluntary Agriculture Districts (VADs) designate areas where commercial agriculture is encouraged and protected. They provide a series of benefits to farmers willing to restrict non-agricultural development for ten years. See Appendix A for more information about these programs.

22 Working Forests

Protection will provide the following benefits: • protection of the land base of the forest products industry • places for hunting • habitat for many species of native plants and wildlife • buffers around military bases and flyways • water quality protection

Priority areas for funding (Map 3): The NC Division of Forest Resources has identified eight areas across the state as “Forest Legacy Areas” because of their diverse ecosystems and traditional forest industries.

Techniques to protect working forests: In most instances, working forests are protected through purchase of development rights (PDR) programs that keep the land in private ownership and allow continued management and harvesting of timber, but restrict buildings and other development on the property (although in some instances landowners retain the right to build one or two homes). Depending on the needs of the landowner, PDRs may be purchased by a government agency or by a nonprofit land trust at fair market value, or the landowner may donate the easement and qualify for charitable tax benefits.

Five-year goal: Protect 25,000 acres of forest land within Forest Legacy Areas

Total funding estimate to meet goal: $55 million over five years ($11 million per year)

Source of goals and funding estimates: This goal was recommended by members of the Steering Committee of Land for Tomorrow as a challenging and achievable goal based on their experience working with working-forest landowners. As this program builds, landowners will need to be educated and governments and conservation nonprofits will need to expand their organizational capacity to work with these landowners. The funding estimate is based on an average PDR price per acre of $2,200, the same estimate that we have used for PDR for working farms.

If this five-year start-up program is successful, experience in other states indicates that landowner interest in PDR programs is likely to increase dramatically, and it will be possible to substantially increase the number of acres of working forest protected per year.

23 Local Parks and Trails

Protection will provide the following benefits: • Places to exercise to improve health and reduce obesity • Trails for recreation and non-motorized transportation • Community gathering places for recreation, relaxation and fun • Economic benefits from festivals, sports tournaments and other events • Parks can also protect o water quality o air quality o habitat for native wildlife and plants o historic and natural resources o places of beauty in urbanizing areas

Priority areas for funding: Parks, recreation centers and trails near population centers to make it easy for citizens to gather for recreation, relaxation and fun and to exercise regularly to improve health and control weight

Techniques to provide more local parks and greenways: Parks and greenways are usually developed on purchased land or land set-aside through the development process by local land use regulation.

Five-year goal: Help local communities implement their park and trail plans.

Total funding estimate to meet goal: $2.3 billion over five years ($460 million per year)

Source of goals and funding estimates: One hundred and eight of the state’s 218 local parks and recreation departments responded to a 2004 survey by Land for Tomorrow about their needs for additional land and new and renovated park facilities (the results are summarized in Appendix F). These departments seek to add 34,000 acres of park land at an estimated cost of $459 million, restore buildings at a cost of $344 million and build new facilities at a cost of $1.458 billion. The goals and funding estimates presented are the total acreage and dollar amounts listed in these surveys.

24 State Parks and Trails

Protection will provide the following benefits: • places to walk, picnic, camp, canoe and enjoy the outdoors that are easily accessible to North Carolinians • ensure that North Carolina’s unusually diverse native species of plants and wildlife thrive along with a growing human population • protection of water and air quality • natural lands are a preferred neighbor of military bases • jobs generated by visitors to the parks • protection of outstanding examples of North Carolina’s diverse archeological, scenic and geological resources • places to exercise to improve health and reduce obesity • places for people to study ecology and natural sciences

Priority areas for funding (Map 4): • enlargement of existing State Parks to meet public demand for trails and recreational opportunities and protect important archeological, biological, scenic and geological resources • Land and facilities for the 44 new parks and natural areas proposed by the NC Division of Parks and Recreation in its New Parks for a New Century plan

Techniques to create more parks and natural areas: In most instances, state parkland is acquired outright by the NC Division of Parks and Recreation or other park agency. When landowners want or need to sell their land or an easement, the property can be purchased at fair market value.

Five-year goal: 60,000 acres (approximately 1/3 of acres identified for new and expanded state parks) and new and renovated facilities

Total funding estimate to meet goal: $200 million for land, $100 million for park facilities ($60 million per year)

Source of goals and funding estimates: In 2004, the NC Division of Parks and Recreation estimated that it could acquire this much land and provide these facilities to implement a sizeable portion of the New Parks for a New Century plan. Cost estimates were based on the Divison’s recent experience in acquiring land.

25 Game Lands and Other Natural Areas

Protection will provide the following benefits: • conservation of habitat for native wildlife and plants, including endangered species • depending on the sensitivity of species to be protected, land may be available for managed timber harvest, hunting, fishing and natural resource recreation such as hiking and canoeing • safe places for an increasingly urban population to hunt game species • a source of wood products from timber harvest • places for everyone to enjoy the outdoors during non-hunting seasons • protection of water quality • hunting land is a preferred neighbor of military bases

Priority areas for funding (Map 5): • Places identified as Natural Heritage Areas by the NC Natural Heritage Program • “Core preserves” large enough to provide habitat for species such as bobcat that range over vast territories • “Corridors” of natural habitat to link two or more “core preserves” • Funding to conduct inventories of natural heritage sites in the 31 counties that have not yet been thoroughly inventoried

Techniques to provide more natural areas and game lands: Game lands and other natural areas can be protected by several state and nonprofit agencies, including the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the NC Plant Protection Program of the NC Department of Agriculture and many nonprofit land conservancies. In addition, some of North Carolina’s public game lands are privately owned and managed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission by agreement with the landowner. When landowners want or need to sell their land or an easement, the property can be purchased at fair market value. Other landowners may be able to donate their land.

Five-year goal: To protect 150,000 acres and complete natural heritage inventories for all North Carolina counties

Funding estimate to meet goal: $240 million over five years for land protection and $15 million over five years for inventories ($51 million per year)

Source of Goals and Funding Estimates: If funding were available, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission estimated in 2004 that it could more than double its rate of land protection from 60,000 acres to 125,000 acres in a five-year period. Estimated funding needs are based on WRC’s experience with recent land purchases across the state. The recommended goal was increased by 25,000 acres to account for the interest and capacity of other agencies, such as the NC Department of Agriculture’s Plant Protection Program, and many local governments and conservation nonprofits in protecting important natural heritage sites.

26 Urban Forests

Protection will provide the following benefits: • improved air quality in urban areas • reduced heating and cooling costs because of increased shade and wind breaks • scenic beauty in urban areas • homes for wildlife in urban areas • water quality protection from forests along urban streams

Priority areas for funding: Urban forests in the 32 counties required by the US Environmental Protection Agency to reduce ground-level ozone and very small particulate matter suspended in the air (PM 2.5)

Techniques to protect and create urban forests: Planting and caring for street trees, protecting buffers of vegetation along streams, requiring trees in parking lots and increasing building density within cities so that surrounding land can be maintained in a natural state

Five-year goal: American Forests recommends that communities east of the Mississippi maintain overall tree canopies of 40% or more by establishing tree cover of at least 50% in suburban residential areas; of at least 25% in urban residential areas; and of at least 15% in central business districts.

Goals for the next five years would be to: • calculate tree canopy percentages in all North Carolina cities and counties that are not attaining EPA air quality standards • provide matching grants to help these communities increase tree canopy coverage in urban residential and central business districts by at least two percentage points. (Funding to increase and protect tree canopy in suburban and rural areas will be provided by protection of other places that matter)

Total funding estimate to meet goal: Over five years, $2 million for inventories of tree canopy coverage and $15 million for matching grants ($3.4 million per year)

Source of goals and funding estimates: The NC Division of Forest Resources administers a federal program which makes small grants to communities for urban forestry and tree planting. In 2005, that program distributed approximately $300,000 in grants. This funding would allow the Division to work with counties and cities to inventory their urban forests and develop plans for how to enhance them. It would then provide ten times the currently available funding to help counties and cities implement those plans.

27 Land Visible from Scenic Highways

Protection will provide the following benefits: • scenic views for people to enjoy in both urban and rural areas • protection of historic landscapes along scenic rural highways • jobs and other economic benefits from tourism

Priority areas for funding: • protection of forests, farms and fields that are easily viewed from the Blue Ridge Parkway and other designated scenic highways

Techniques to protect views from scenic highways: The land visible from a scenic highway can be mapped. In areas of steep topography, like much of the Blue Ridge Parkway, many properties are only partially visible. However, some of the visible properties may be many miles from the road. Easements that prevent development on the visible portions of a property can be purchased or donated according to the needs of the landowner.

Five-year goal: To protect 50,000 acres visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and other designated scenic highways

Total funding estimate to meet goal: $150 million over five years ($30 million per year)

Source of Goals and Funding Estimates: Conservation Trust for North Carolina estimated the capacity of land trusts and governments to protect critical lands along scenic highways based on the work it and other land trusts are doing protecting land along the Blue Ridge Parkway.

28 Historic Places

Protection will provide the following benefits: • opportunities for people to learn more about North Carolina’s history and culture • jobs and other economic benefits from heritage tourism • business and economic development through downtown revitalization • protection of scenic places in both rural and urban areas • health benefits from increased walkability of towns and cities • reuse of existing public infrastructure, reducing the cost of public investment in roads, water, sewer, schools etc. • enhanced local government tax base • reduced development pressure on undeveloped land by reuse of existing buildings • reduced consumption of natural resources and energy needed for new construction

Priority areas for funding: • renovation and repair of significant historic properties that are routinely open to the public, including courthouses, schools, auditoriums, State Historic Sites, local government facilities, nonprofit museums, arts facilities, campus landmarks and other similar properties • improved accessibility for the handicapped in historic public buildings • environmental abatement for historic public buildings • protection of battlefields and land adjacent to State Historic Sites • protection of key archeological sites identified by the NC Department of Cultural Resources • capitalization of local and statewide revolving funds that acquire endangered historic properties and resell them with restrictive covenants to private owners • funding for inventories of historic properties

Techniques to protect historic properties: Properties open to the public on a regular basis are usually purchased and maintained by governments and nonprofit organizations. On historic landscapes such as battlefields around State Historic Sites, easements that allow continued farming or forestry are usually the appropriate technique. Depending on the needs of the landowner, such properties and easements can be purchased or donated.

Five-year goal: • Protection of 3,000 acres of land adjacent to State Historic Sites and at archeological sites of state significance • Substantial renovation of 100 significant historic landmarks routinely open to the public • Repairs and improved handicapped accessibility for 250 additional landmarks routinely open to the public • Capitalization of local and statewide revolving funds • 45 architectural inventories and updates

29 Total funding estimate to meet goal: $268 million over five years ($53.6 million per year) including • $250 million for restoration and repair of historic landmarks that are open to the public • $10 million for land and easement acquisition around State Historic Sites and archeological sites of state significance • $5 million for revolving fund capital to buy and resell historic properties for private ownership • $3 million for inventories of historic properties

Source of Goals and Funding Estimates: In 2004, the NC Department of Cultural Resources provided goals and cost estimates for 1) protecting land around State Historic Sites, 2) renovating state-owned and other historic properties, 3) protecting archeological sites and 4) conducting historic inventories. Preservation NC provided goals and funding estimates for restoration, repair and improved accessibility of historic landmarks and for revolving fund capital needs.

30 State Funding and Program Needs to Meet Five-Year Conservation Goals

After developing goals for the amount of land and number of historic properties to protect over a five-year period and estimating how much it would cost to reach those goals, Land for Tomorrow assessed the state’s land conservation and historic preservation programs to determine: • how much additional funding would be needed from the state and • whether the state’s conservation funding programs would need adjustments if we hope to: o achieve dramatic increases in the rate of land protection and historic preservation and o help communities use the protected land and historic places to strengthen their economies, create jobs and enhance public health and quality of life

Additional State Funding Needed In the previous section, we estimated that it would cost $3.9 billion to accomplish the five-year conservation goals that we recommend. We estimate that this funding need can be met if the State of North Carolina provides an additional $1 billion over five years for a total funding level of $1.7 billion over five years.

We estimate that the State’s total $1.7 billion would leverage an additional $2.2 billion in federal, local and private sources. Our leverage estimate is based on the state conservation trust fund’s record of leveraging $1.30 for every $1.00 they grant and on information developed by UNC’s Environmental Finance Center on the cost of achieving the State’s million acre protection goal. This leveraging capacity would mean that the State’s $1.7 billion would leverage $2.2 billion to meet the total $3.9 billion need.

Recommended Program Adjustments As we explained in earlier sections of this report, North Carolina has developed an excellent system of funding land conservation that is efficient, encourages local initiative and invests in outstanding projects. We strongly recommend that this system be kept substantially as it exists today. Adjustments will be necessary, however, to help these programs handle the increased workload that would come from these larger conservation goals. We therefore recommend:

• Building the capacity of the state’s conservation programs to handle the increased work load required to efficiently and effectively protect more land and historic properties and to administer more grant funding.

• Promoting continued authority of the trust fund boards to review grant applications against their established criteria.

In addition, a careful comparison of our conservation goals against the funding guidelines of each trust fund clearly showed that several of the nine types of properties do not have adequate or reliable funding sources. We also discussed how more could be done statewide to use land conservation and historic preservation efforts to provide jobs and enhance quality of life for all citizens. We therefore recommend:

• Providing reliable state funding by dedicating funding sources and/or through a bond referendum. Because land and historic protection projects can take years of planning and negotiations to complete, stable funding sources are critical to the overall success of these efforts. Several of our state funding sources are funded through annual appropriations and are, therefore, too unreliable to support effective, efficient programs.

• Providing funding sources for all nine types of “places that matter” identified in this report. In particular, farmland, working forests, urban forests and land visible from scenic highways have almost no funding now. No dedicated funding exists for restoration of historic properties, and only limited dedicated funding exists for protection of rivers, wetlands, floodplains and coastal waters.

31 • Creating and expanding programs to help communities strengthen their economies and provide jobs by taking advantage of the economic value of their protected land and historic places. . As we reviewed programs and talked with experts, it became clear what an important role One North Carolina Naturally has to play in the State’s land conservation and historic preservation programs. We are therefore recommending that the program receive a portion of the recommended funding so that it can:

• Provide state leadership to encourage local governments and private organizations, donors and landowners to do their part.

• Increase visibility of state, local and private conservation programs.

• Expand the state agencies and interest groups involved in land conservation and historic preservation. Land and history are critical to North Carolina’s economy, public health, quality of life and protection of wildlife. However, government agencies and nonprofit organizations actively involved with the trust funds are limited primarily to state agencies within the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, land conservation nonprofits and local parks and recreation departments. To implement the changes recommended in this report, a broad base of support and involvement is needed beyond the land conservation and parks community. Members of the tourism, economic development, public health, agriculture and historic preservation communities, for example, all have a stake in land conservation and historic preservation and should be actively involved.

• Develop a plan for which land and historic properties are the most important to protect. Local plans and preferences should have a major influence on determining state priorities, and North Carolina should continue to help local organizations and governments develop and implement local plans.

• Monitor progress on meeting goals and communicate those to the public.

• Provide planning and implementation funding to economically-distressed communities, including tier one and two counties, and to multi-county projects to help them take advantage of the economic and quality of life benefits of land and historic preservation projects.

Finally, we discussed low-income counties’ concerns about losing part of their property-tax base when land is purchased for conservation. To address this concern, we are recommending that:

• Low-income (tier one and two) counties be reimbursed for lost property taxes with one-time compensation of ten times the annual loss in taxes if property is purchased fee simple through a trust fund.

Finally, we discussed and recommended funding levels for each of the following purposes: • Coordination and planning • An initiative to help communities use their land and historic assets to create jobs • Clean water and air • Natural and cultural heritage • Parks and recreation • Working farms and forests

32 Table 2: Existing and Proposed Funding Levels for Land Conservation, Historic Preservation and Investment in Communities and Jobs

Annual Funding Level Proposed Proposed Program Purpose Current Additional Total Funding/Year Funding/Year Funding/Year Provide leadership for land conservation and historic preservation in North Carolina; coordinate work of all NC departments and trust funds in Coordination and land and historic preservation; $0 $3 million $3 million Planning encourage participation by local governments and nonprofits; evaluate North Carolina’s progress in protecting important land and historic properties

New initiative to fund creation and retention of jobs and related Job Creation economic and community through Land development in ways that $6 million $30 million $36 million and Historic promote land conservation, Resources historic preservation, parks and recreation, and related facilities and programs

Enhance and restore degraded water, protect unpolluted water, contribute toward network of Clean Water and urban tree cover, riparian buffers $116.5 $62 million $54.5 million Air and trails for water and air million quality improvement and other environmental, educational and recreational benefits Protect the state’s ecological $15 million (plus Natural and diversity and cultural heritage and $15 million annual $62.5 million $92.5 million Cultural Heritage inventory the natural areas and appropriations for historic properties of the state historic properties) Improve and expand state and Parks and local parks and provide access to $40 million $20 million $60 million Recreation coastal and estuarine waters

Working Farms Conservation and protection of and Forests farm and forest land and viable $0 $30 million $30 million agricultural communities

$200 million/yr $138 million/yr OR $338 EXISTING AND PROPOSED STATE FUNDING OR $700 million/5 yrs million/year $1 billion/5 yrs

33 Funding Options for Consideration

Land for Tomorrow urges the state to establish increased and dedicated funding for these critical programs. We are ready to work with state leaders to investigate alternative funding sources. To provide some preliminary ideas, we describe below funding sources used in two other states well known for their innovative conservation programs: Florida and New Jersey.23

In addition, Appendix E contains the Executive Summary of a 2004 report by The Trust for Public Land with a fuller explanation of many funding options. In 2001, the Environmental Finance Center at The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill also prepared a study of financing options for the Million Acre Initiative.24 The complete reports can be accessed through the Land for Tomorrow website: www.landfortomorrow.org.

Florida: Florida has provided steady and generous conservation funding since 1990 when Governor Bob Martinez created a blue-ribbon commission to evaluate Florida’s environment. The commission warned that Florida would lose three million acres of wetlands and forests by the year 2020 and concluded that the most effective way to protect the environment was to increase the level of funding for land protection programs. Governor Martinez then proposed Preservation 2000, a $3 billion fund based upon $300 million in bond funds over ten years, backed by a documentary stamp tax. In 1998, with support from Governor Jeb Bush, voters approved by 72% an amendment to the constitution extending the state’s authority to issue bonds for conservation and recreation. The following year, the Legislature passed the Florida Forever Act which, like Preservation 2000, provides $3 billion over 10 years.

New Jersey: In 1998, New Jersey citizens voted to dedicate $98 million each year for ten years from the state sales and use tax towards Governor Christie Whitman’s goal of preserving one million acres. The act also authorized the issue of as much as $1 billion in revenue bonds that would be repaid through the dedicated sales and use tax. If the million acre goal is met, 40 percent of New Jersey will be preserved as open space. Another innovative feature of New Jersey’s program is that it encourages local governments to do their share to protect open space by authorizing counties and municipalities to establish voter-approved Open Space Trust Funds supported by property taxes. As evidence of the success of this program, 39 local governments in New Jersey held referendums in November 2003 alone. Seventy-seven percent of those referendums passed.

23 An excellent source of information about funding programs in other states is the website of The Trust for Public Land. www.tpl.org under Conservation Finance/State Funding Profiles. Information presented here is from that website. 24 Whisnant, Richard, Richard Norton and Jeremy Firestone. 2001. Costs and Financing Options for the North Carolina Million Acre Initiative. Environmental Finance Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

34 Saving the Goodliest Land

When North Carolina was primarily a rural state, it seemed that the beauty of our land and its ability to provide food and fiber, clean water and places to enjoy the outdoors would always be there. In the early part of the 20th century, North Carolina was not a prosperous state, but our natural environment and small, close-knit communities gave North Carolinians a great sense of pride and love for their home. That pride and love have continued as rapid growth during the last fifty years has changed our state dramatically. It has brought greater wealth to some parts of the state and provided many opportunities to improve the quality of life for our citizens. But the loss of natural and rural land and historic places are now beginning to hurt us economically, pollute our air and water, lessen our quality of life and threaten our native plants and wildlife.

This plan lays out steps that North Carolina can take to protect its land, water and history. Over five years, it would:

o Protect 375,000 additional acres of critical land across North Carolina o Protect water quality in 6,000 miles of unprotected streams and rivers o Build trails and facilities for state and local parks o Restore 350 historic landmarks in public use o Invest in job creation and community development that conserves land and historic places

If we are successful, our children and grandchildren will still think of North Carolina as the “goodliest land” with: o Clean water and air o Sustainable jobs and vibrant communties o Thriving farms and forests o Places to enjoy the beauty of North Carolina, to exercise, to hunt and fish o Places of historic significance and ecological value

But if we want this future for North Carolina, we need to act now. Saving these critical places will only get harder and more costly.

North Carolina’s future depends on land for tomorrow.

35 Acknowledgements

This report represents the ideas and knowledge of many people who shared their expertise and vision about how to expand the state’s programs for land conservation and historic preservation and make them even more valuable to the state’s economy, public health, quality of life and native plants and wildlife.

The recommendations for five-year goals for the “places that matter” and for enhancements to the state’s programs for promoting land and historic protection are the work of the members of the founding Steering Committee of Land for Tomorrow:

Crawford Crenshaw, Chair, Land for Tomorrow Steering Committee Gerry Cohn, American Farmland Trust Edgar Miller and Reid Wilson, Conservation Trust for North Carolina, representing NC land trusts Elizabeth Ouzts and Christine Wunsche, NC Public Interest Research Group (NCPIRG) Mike Waters, NC Recreation and Park Association Myrick Howard, Preservation NC Mikki Sager, The Conservation Fund David Knight, Katherine Skinner and Angie McMillan, The Nature Conservancy Will Abberger, David Proper and Mack Paul, The Trust for Public Land

While the Steering Committee developed its recommendations, several people shared their expertise by attending meetings regularly. They are:

Paul Meyer, NC Association of County Commissioners Bill Holman, NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund Jim Cummings, NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Lewis Ledford, NC Division of Parks and Recreation and NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund Dave McNaught, Environmental Defense Anita Watkins and Kim Hibbard, NC League of Municipalities Linda Pearsall, NC Natural Heritage Program and NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund

Since we completed the first draft of the recommendations, three other people have joined the Steering Committee, and they have helped Land for Tomorrow think more deeply about how land conservation and historic preservation can create jobs and strengthen communities across North Carolina, including in minority and low-income communities. Thanks to:

Abdul Sm Rasheed and Ebonie Alexander, NC Community Development Initiative Savi Horne, Land Loss Prevention Project

Kristin Walker, Craig Koller and Tamara Cheng, who worked as Stanback interns at The Nature Conservancy in the summer of 2004, were invaluable to this project – brainstorming, doing background research and drafting sections of the report.

36 Barrett Brewer provided many of the historical facts in the document and gave it a coherent structure. She patiently worked with me on many rewrites from the fall of 2004 until spring 2005. Bryant Cole of the Garrison-Cole Group helped format and print the report in an attractive, readable and affordable way.

Amy Tidovsky-Wolfe, the lead fundraiser for Land for Tomorrow, has been a huge help through our talks about the project and its potential impact on North Carolina.

Many others commented on the written report when it was in draft stages, participated in our forum in October 2004, and attended Land for Tomorrow meetings. Special thanks to Fred Annand, David Brook, Lorelei Costa, Jean Crews-Klein, Cara Crisler, Jeff Crow, Bill Crowell, Salinda Daley, Boyd Devine, Martin Eakes, Chris Estes, Jeff Fisher, Bill Flournoy, Bill Gilmore, Gerry Hancock, Mary Henderson, George Hess, Ben Hitchings, Sig Hutchinson, Diana Kees, Bob Keohane, Will McDow, David Meredith, Paul Meyer, Ed Morris, members of the Natural Heritage Trust Fund board, Barry New, Jimmy Newkirk, Wib Owen, Lynn Padgett, Shellie Pfohl, Jane Preyer, Doug Rader, Johanna Reese, Tony Reevy, Richard Rogers, Sandra Rodriguez, Bill Ross, Scott Pohlman, Peter Sandbeck, Bob Slocum, Millie Smith, Rodney Swink, Larry Thompson, Dave Toms, Kris Thornburg, and Dan Whittle.

As we finished the report in spring 2005, Land for Tomorrow hired the public relations firm CapStrat, and they have helped us tremendously in our work. Thanks to Leslie Bevacqua Coman, Kelly Lucas Calabria, Steve Meehan and Jim Protzman.

Last, but not least, special thanks to our funders. The board and staff of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation have been everything one would hope for in a donor: generous and supportive through the life of the project. They share suggestions based on their experience and vision and are respectful of the knowledge and skills of our member groups.

Other generous donors who made this report possible are: Michael and Laura Brader-Araje, the Blumenthal Foundation, Cemala Foundation, Marion Stedman Covington Foundation, Crosland Inc., Educational Foundation of America, Amy Grissom, Ruth Ann Grissom, Hillsdale Fund, Mary Norris Preyer Oglesby, Jane Preyer and Rich Preyer.

Kate Dixon Director, Land for Tomorrow

37 Map 1: Water Supply Watersheds and Other Bodies of Water to Receive Protection as High Quality Waters

Map provided by One North Carolina Naturally, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. M1 Map 2: Development Pressure on High-Quality Farmland in North Carolina

Map provided by: M2 Map 3: Existing and Proposed State Forests and Forest Legacy Areas

Map provided by One North Carolina Naturally, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. M3 Map 4: Existing and Proposed North Carolina State Parks

Map provided by One North Carolina Naturally, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. M4 Map 5: North Carolina Game Lands and Wildlife Resources Commission Focus Areas

Map provided by One North Carolina Naturally, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. M5 Map 6: Terrestrial Ecoregions of North Carolina

Map provided by The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Chapter. M6 Appendix A

Appendix A: Growing the Economy and Providing Jobs

Natural and rural lands and historic properties are an indispensable part of the infrastructure that drives North Carolina’s economy and creates jobs: • Two of North Carolina’s oldest and largest industries, agriculture and forestry, grow their products from the soil. • Other industries, including tourism, military bases and fishing, are dependent on the healthy, beautiful and quiet environment that comes from natural and rural land. Historic sites and communities that retain elements of their historic character are also popular draws for tourists and citizens alike. • Scenic beauty, historic sites and places to enjoy the outdoors help recruit and retain high tech workers in North Carolina. • Renovation and reuse of historic buildings also provide construction jobs, save on landfill costs and reduce the conversion of rural land that is valuable for other industries such as agriculture, forestry and tourism.

Agriculture

Key Finding: Agriculture generates almost $7 billion annually in cash receipts to North Carolina’s economy. North Carolina ranks among the top five states in the nation in items as diverse as tobacco, turkeys, sweet potatoes, hogs, trout, greenhouse and nursery plants, blueberries and pickling cucumbers. However, between 1987 and 1997, North Carolina lost more prime farmland to development than any state other than Texas and Ohio.

Agriculture has been a major part of North Carolina’s economy for hundreds of years. Some of the state’s earliest crops included corn, beans, peas, squash, wheat and tobacco.1

Today agriculture is still a major industry in North Carolina, generating more than $6.9 billion in cash receipts in 2003.2 In fact, North Carolina has the seventh largest farm industry in the United States.3 Our farmers produce over 80 different commodities, ranking among the top five states in the nation in items as diverse as tobacco, turkeys, sweet potatoes, hogs, trout, greenhouse and nursery plants, blueberries and cucumbers for pickles.4 As they adjust to changes in the farm economy, including those caused by declining demand for tobacco and an increasingly competitive world marketplace, our farmers are experimenting with new crops and products, such as truffles5 and specialty pork.6

A major threat to the long-term viability of farming in North Carolina is the rapid development of prime agricultural soils, particularly those close to urban markets. Although we cannot know how farm economies will change in the future, we do know that good soils will always be one of the bases of a successful agricultural industry. Creation of fertile soils takes thousands of years. If we allow these soils to be bulldozed and paved, we will destroy a precious resource forever.

In 1987, North Carolina had 6,907,800 acres of prime farmland,7 the best land for productive farming.

1 Powell, William S. 1989. North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 131-133. 2 NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2000-2003. Farm income: cash receipts from farming by commodity. www.agr.state.nc.us/ stats/cashrcpt/cshcomyv.htm 3 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service: http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/stathigh/2003/econindex.htm 4 NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. How NC agriculture compares with other states, 2002 production. www.agr.state.nc.us/ stats/nc-rank/ncrallyr.htm 5 Collins, Kristin. Some NC growers hope pricey fungi save the farm. August 2, 2004. The News & Observer, Raleigh. 6 Houston, Susan. Porks’ new pitch. March 14, 2004. The News & Observer. Raleigh. 7 Farming on the Edge: Sprawling Development Threatens America’s Farmland. 2002. American Farmland Trust. www.farmland.org.

A1 Appendix A

Ten years later, in 1997, 335,000 or 4.8% of these acres were developed.8 North Carolina lost more prime farmland to development in those years than any state other than Texas and Ohio. Map 2 from American Farmland Trust’s study Farming on the Edge shows areas of high quality farmland in the state under the greatest development pressure.9

In addition to the permanent loss of prime soils, development of farmland creates other problems which drive up costs and lower profits for farmers and related businesses. When a number of farms are developed in a traditional farming community, it can be difficult for the remaining farmers to drive their equipment on the roads due to increased traffic. They must deal with complaints about farming practices from new neighbors. Local feed stores, tractor dealerships and other farm services may go out of business as farms in the area close down, and the remaining farmers must drive long distances to get the services they need. All these additional costs may be enough to drive a farm out of business and continue the cycle of farms being sold for development.

Key Recommendation: To sustain a strong agricultural industry, we must keep a critical mass of productive farmland available for agricultural use.

Fortunately there is a way to protect high-quality farmland while also helping farmers transition to new business models. Several states in the country, including Maryland, Pennsylvania and Vermont, have developed farmland protection programs to save prime soils and maintain a vibrant farm economy10 by providing funding for purchase of development rights (PDR) programs.

PDR programs allow farmers to be compensated for a voluntary agreement to permanently restrict future non-agricultural development on the land. A restriction is placed on the deed of the land, ensuring that the land will forever be available for agricultural use. Farmers enter into the agreement voluntarily and are compensated for their development rights so that they do not lose equity in their farm. Because the development rights have been removed from the land, which remains in private hands and may still be sold or passed along to heirs, the farm is valued at a price that reflects its agricultural value, rather than its development value.

The cash paid to farmers through these programs helps farmers and the agricultural industry in a variety of ways. Farmers seeking to develop new value-added enterprises can use the cash to reinvest in the farm and new businesses. Aging farmers can pay off debts or provide for their heirs. Heirs who want to keep the farm benefit because estate taxes may be lower on protected farms. Finally, young farmers who need affordable land to enter the profession benefit because protected farms are available at a lower price than unrestricted land.

8 Ibid. 9 High-quality farmland is defined by American Farmland Trust as 1) soils classified by US Department of Agriculture as “prime farmland” and 2) farmland that is used to grow vegetables, grapes and horticultural crops, including fruits, nuts and berries that have unique soil and climactic require- ments. Areas shown on the map in red have greater than the statewide average of high-quality soils and also are experiencing a rate of development greater than the statewide average, providing they had at least 1000 acres developed between 1992 and 1997. 10 The National Assessment of Agricultural Easement Programs, a joint project of American Farmland Trust and the Agricultural Issues Center, Univer- sity of California, Davis. 2004. www.aftresearch.org/PDRdatabase/NAPidx.htm

A2 Appendix A

A recent survey conducted of farmers who used Kentucky’s PDR program reveals that 93% feel that the PDR program has helped them keep their property in agriculture. They have used the funds they received from selling their development rights in a variety of ways including paying down debt (52% of farmers), purchasing farm equipment (41%), constructing or improving buildings on the farm (39%) and retaining ownership of the property for agriculture (39%).11

North Carolina has only taken the first tentative steps toward a PDR program through the NC Farmland Preservation Trust Fund (FPTF), which was created by the NC General Assembly in 1986. FPTF grants, as well as several county-level farmland protection funds that have been established recently, can be used as matching dollars to draw funds from the federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program. However, since 1986, only $5 million from state, federal and local funds has been used for PDR programs. Of that $5 million, just a little over half, $2.6 million, came from state funds. 12 With an increased state allocation to the FPTF, North Carolina would be eligible for additional federal funding.

In November 2003, the Land for Tomorrow Coalition conducted a poll of 400 owners of farmland to learn more about their interest in farmland protection techniques.13 Only 39% were familiar with the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund. However, when given a brief explanation of PDR, 64% of farmers thought it sounded like a good idea. The poll also revealed the need to act quickly as 84% of respondents were 50 or older, and 48% say their children will not farm the land they own in the future. Fifty-six percent say the only people buying farms in their area are developers.

Another indication of farmer interest in protecting working farms is the increase in the number of Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VADs) in North Carolina. First authorized in 1985 by the NC Legislature, VADs allow counties to adopt farmland preservation ordinances which designate areas where commercial agriculture is encouraged and protected. They provide a series of benefits to farmers willing to restrict non-agricultural development for ten years. Thirty-nine North Carolina counties are participating in this voluntary program. Over 2,300 farms covering 200,000 acres had enrolled as of June 2004.14 VADs are a good first step towards farmland preservation, but they are non-binding and have limited time periods.

Other states have already taken bold steps to help their farmers and agricultural communities on a larger scale. Of the states that have strong farmland protection programs, Pennsylvania is most similar to North Carolina in terms of the size of its agricultural economy (Table A1). 15 Since Pennsylvania launched its first PDR program in 1988, it has protected 274,000 acres, 3.5% of its total farm acres and a full 7% of its prime farmland acres. North Carolina’s program is two years older than Pennsylvania’s program, and yet we have protected only 2% of the amount of land that Pennsylvania has (274,000 v. 5,704 acres). Pennsylvania has made its investment in the future of its farming economy at a total cost of only $3.42 per state resident. 16

11 Maurer, Richard C. 2004. Use of funds from the Kentucky Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements Program: Results from the survey of PACE participants. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky – College of Agriculture. Available through www.farmland.org. 12 Conservation Trust for North Carolina. 2004. Report on the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund to the Environmental Review Commission of the NC General Assembly. 13 Land for Tomorrow. November 2003. Survey results from farmland owner poll. See Appendix F of this report or www.landfortomorrow.org. 14 Upton, George et al. 2004. NC voluntary agricultural districts: a progress report. American Farmland Trust. www.farmland.org/southeast/northcaro- lina.htm 15 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. State summary highlights. 2002 Census of Agriculture. www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/ us/index1.htm 16 PDR statistics from American Farmland Trust, September 2003, www.farmland.org

A3 Appendix A

Table A1: North Carolina and Pennsylvania Agricultural and PDR Statistics, 2002 North Carolina Pennsylvania Acres in farms 9,079,001 7,745,336 Acres of prime farmland17 6,572,800 3,856,700 # of farms 53,930 58,105 Acreage per farm (avg.) 168 133 Market value of agricultural products $6.96 billion $4.26 billion Prime acres lost 1987-199718 335,400 244,600 % Farm acres lost 3.7% 3.2% Acres protected 5,704 274,000 % Farm acres protected 0.1% 3.5% PDR funding $5.0 million $603 million Cost of PDR per capita $0.05 $3.42

Tourism

Key Finding: North Carolina is the sixth most visited state in the country in large part because visitors think of North Carolina as a “state where you can enjoy unspoiled natural beauty in a restful and relaxing atmosphere.” In 2003, visitors spent $12.6 billion and provided jobs for 183,220 North Carolinians.

In the late 1930s North Carolina began its first advertising campaign designed to attract visitors to the state. Before leaving office in 1940, Governor Clyde R. Hoey observed that tourism during the previous four years had grown from a $36 million to a $102 million industry.19

Today tourism is a vital component of the state’s economy. In 2003 North Carolina was the sixth most visited state in the United States, with 49 million tourists. That year, visitors spent $12.6 billion, provided jobs for 183,220 North Carolinians and generated $1.1 billion in taxes to state and local governments.20

Why do people choose to visit North Carolina over other destinations? Surveys reveal that visitors think of North Carolina as a “state where you can enjoy unspoiled natural beauty in a restful and relaxing atmosphere.”21 The state uses beautiful landscape images from rural communities and natural areas around the state in its advertising campaigns.

The NC Division of Tourism, Film and Sports Development publishes a list each year of the state’s top 25 tourist attractions.22 Fourteen of these attractions depend on the beauty of our natural lands, the small towns and rural crossroads that welcome visitors and historic landscapes and structures that define our state (Table A2). The long-term economic viability of these places depends on the land, the scenery and sense of community remaining intact.

17 High-quality farmland acreage as of 1997, provided by American Farmland Trust. www.farmland.org 18 Farming on the Edge: Sprawling Development Threatens America’s Farmland. 2002. American Farmland Trust. www.farmland.org. 19 Powell, William S. 1989. North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 497. 20 Travel Industry of America. US Travel Data Center and TravelScope surveys. 2003 and 2002 data. http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/econ/facts.asp 21 Minges, Lynn D. 2004. Keeping North Carolina tourism in the winners’ circle. Governor’s Conference on Travel and Tourism. 22 NC Department of Commerce. 2003. Top Attractions in North Carolina. http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/top/default.asp

A4 Appendix A

Table A2: Top Land and Historic Tourist Attractions in North Carolina , 2003 Rank Attraction Visitors (millions) 2 Blue Ridge Parkway 13.7 3 North Carolina State Parks 11.3 4 Great Smoky Mountains National Park 9.4 6 Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2.8 9 North Carolina Historic Sites 1.7 11 Biltmore Estate Not published23 12 NC Museum of Natural Sciences 0.75 13 Wright Brothers National Memorial 0.7 14 NC Zoological Park 0.6 15 NC Aquariums 0.6 17 Guilford Courthouse National Military Park 0.5 19 Chimney Rock Park Not published 20 Grandfather Mountain Not published 22 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site 0.2

Key Recommendation: Protecting beautiful views and clean water and air and providing a variety of natural and historic sites to visit are vital components of efforts to grow and protect North Carolina’s tourism industry.

North Carolina, like many states, is promoting heritage tourism as a means to increase tourism revenue in both rural and metropolitan areas.24 Heritage tourism is travel that is motivated by a desire to experience the authentic natural, historic and cultural resources of a community or region. On average, a heritage tourist spends $631 per trip versus $457 per trip by the typical traveler.25 Examples of recent projects to promote heritage tourism in North Carolina include:

• Cherokee Heritage Trails (www.cherokeeheritagetrails.org) – This website and a book of the same name provide detailed information about places to visit within the Cherokee Reservation in western North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia. • Craft Heritage Trails (www.handmadeinamerica.org/tourism/) – Eight scenic back road tours take you to craft studios, galleries, lodging, restaurants, historic and natural sites in the mountains of western North Carolina. • Charles Kuralt Trail (www.northeast-nc.com/kuralt/) – This trail helps visitors explore eleven national wildlife refuges and a national fish hatchery in northeastern North Carolina. The roads in the area are marked to direct visitors to the sites, and kiosks at each refuge provide information about trails, driving tours and native plants and wildlife. • NC Civil War Trails (www.nccivilwar.com/ncvatrailssystem.htm) – Eight driving tours take visitors to Civil War-era sites and museums throughout the state. • Roanoke River Paddle Trail (www.roanokeriverpartners.org) – This canoe trail, which now has eleven camping platforms, was constructed by the nonprofit Roanoke River Partners to increase appreciation of the Roanoke River and provide tourism infrastructure for small businesses in communities along the Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound.

23 NC Division of Tourism does not publish attendance figures for private attractions. 24 NC Department of Commerce web site, http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/heritage/ 25 Travel Industry Association of America. 2001. Report on Cultural and Historic Tourism.

A5 Appendix A

• Sandhills Agriculture (www.sandhillsagriculture.com) – This website funded by the Golden Leaf Foundation advertises farm stands, farm markets and other attractions in Anson, Montgomery, Moore and Richmond counties. • Yadkin-Pee Dee Lakes Project (www.lakesproject.org) – The goal of this project is to promote the seven counties along the Yadkin and Pee Dee rivers and the Uwharrie National Forest as North Carolina’s “Central Park” – a rural hub for outdoor recreation and tourism near the state’s three largest metropolitan areas.

One of the economic advantages of building a strong, widespread heritage tourism industry in North Carolina is that the natural and historic resources on which it is based cannot move elsewhere. Grandfather Mountain, Cape Hatteras and the Biltmore Estate are here to stay. These three sites are great examples of what can be done to protect important places and build a vibrant tourism industry around them. The sites are special, accessible and welcoming, and the communities in which they are based provide hotels, restaurants and stores so that visitors have places to stay and a variety of other activities to enjoy when they visit.

North Carolina has many extraordinary sites across the state that can provide important economic benefits to their communities if they are protected, made accessible and needed amenities are provided to help visitors enjoy their stay. Lynn Minges, Executive Director of the NC Division of Tourism, Film and Sports Development says “[h]eritage tourism is a viable economic tool particularly for our more rural areas. Often, our smaller communities can have great success in attracting visitors who bring important revenue to their local economies when the community identifies, develops and markets their unique heritage and cultural resources.”26 Enhancing North Carolina’s programs to help communities protect and provide access to their natural and historic assests would be a great investment in North Carolina’s economic future and quality of life.

Forest Products

Key Finding: Forest products, such as lumber, pine straw, pulp and paper, generate $3.7 billion of North Carolina’s gross state product. However, forest acreage decreased by one million acres between 1990 and 2001, primarily because forests have been developed around urban areas.

North Carolina’s vast forestland has long been recognized for its economic significance. In 1622, John Pory from Virginia predicted that, when the pines of the North Carolina region were tapped, England would no longer have to depend on the Scandinavian countries for naval stores – tar, pitch and turpentine. By 1768, 60% of the naval stores exported from the colonies were from North Carolina.27

North Carolina has the ninth largest forest product industry in the country based on forest-related earnings.28 In 2002, 52,000 North Carolina workers harvested and produced forest products such as lumber, pine straw and pulp and paper worth $3.7 billion in gross state product.29

North Carolina is still predominantly a state of forests; timberland (or “working forests”) accounts for 17.7 million acres (57%) of the state’s land.30 However, forest acreage has fallen by one million acres (5.6%) since

26 NC Division of Tourism, Film and Sports Development Press Release. July 02, 2003. http://www.commerce.state.nc.us/publicaffairs/releas- es/07022003_Heritage.htm 27 Powell, William S. 1989. North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 135. 28 American Forest and Paper Association. 2001. US forest facts and figures. Chapter 14: Products and production. www.afandpa.org. Ranking is based on 1998 data. 29 US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. Gross state product of North Carolina. These figures include gross state product from the following indus- tries: 1) forestry, fishing and related activities, 2) wood product manufacturing and 3) paper manufacturing. www.bea.doc.gov. 30 Brown, Mark J. 2002. Forest statistics for North Carolina. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin, SRS-88. p. 1. This report, which is conducted approximately every ten years since 1938, defines timberland as “forest land capable of producing 20 cubic feet of indus- trial wood per acre per year and not withdrawn from timber utilization” (e.g., parks and wilderness areas). p. 11.

A6 Appendix A

1990, primarily because forests have been developed around urban areas.31 The US Forest Service and the NC Division of Forest Resources had been predicting a loss of forest land in the next forty years, but this conversion was much more rapid than projected.32

The vast majority (78%) of North Carolina’s forests are owned by private individuals, families and non-timber companies.33 An additional 8% of the state’s timberland is owned by industrial forest companies such as International Paper and Weyerhaeuser. The remaining timberland is in public ownership, much of it in the state’s four national forests, its military bases and on state game lands managed by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.

Figure A1: Change in Timberland Acreage, 1990 to 2001

The loss of North Carolina timberland is happening for two reasons. First, in the 1990s, forest acreage held by private landowners declined by 700,000, primarily because forestland was developed around urban areas. Second, industrial timber companies, such as International Paper and Weyerhaeuser, sold 33% of their timberland, and they now own only 1.5 million acres. The growing stock, particularly in hardwood trees, on the industry’s remaining lands also decreased in the 1990s.34

More than 90% of the timber industry’s remaining acreage is in the coastal plain, and many of these tracts are now on the market.35 This large-scale change in ownership is a concern because subdivision of the land will make forest management more expensive, and it will also expose rare and vulnerable natural habitats to potential development. The State of North Carolina is working with nonprofit conservation groups to protect some of these tracts that have rare ecosystems or are adjacent to other public lands. However, limited funds are hampering the effort to acquire land quickly enough to meet the timber industry’s time frame.

31 Ibid. p. 1. 32 McDow, Will. 2004. North Carolina forests at a crossroads: selected results of the 2002 forest statistics of North Carolina. Environmental Defense, Raleigh, NC. www.environmentaldefense.org/go/NCforestrystats. McDow compares the results of the US Forest Service 2002 forest statistics cited above with predictions in Wear, David N. and John G. Greis. 2002. Southern Forest Resource Assessment, US Forest Service Technical Report GTR SRS-53. 33 Ibid. p. 1. 34 Brown, Mark J. 2002. Forest statistics for North Carolina. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin, SRS-88. p. 71-2. 35 Martin, Edward. April 2004. Wood that they could: thinning their holdings, timber companies clear the way for Wall Street to find a slow-growth stock. Business North Carolina.

A7 Appendix A

Key Recommendation: A sustainable forest products industry depends on maintaining land on which to grow trees.

A sustainable timber industry depends on maintaining land on which to grow trees. In addition, large blocks of forest, unfragmented by houses or major roads, make management and harvesting more practical and economical. North Carolina ranks among the top five states for the number of homes bordering forest land.36 Adjacent homes increase the risk of death and major property losses from wildfires. Controlled burns, an important management technique, can also become difficult when homes are too close or if smoke might reduce visibility on a highway.

Where should North Carolina focus its efforts to conserve timber land? The NC Division of Forest Resources and the Department of Forestry, NC State University identified eight “Forest Legacy” areas as high priorities for conservation. These areas have an active timber industry; contain large blocks of contiguous forest; are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses; and provide other important forest benefits such as habitat for rare species, scenic and cultural resources and opportunities for public recreation (Map 3).37

Purchase of development rights (PDR) programs allow forest owners to be compensated for a voluntary agreement to restrict permanently future non-forest development on the land. A restriction is placed in the deed of the land. Forest owners are compensated for their development rights so that they do not lose equity in their land. Because the development rights have been removed from the land, which remains in private hands and may still be sold or passed along to heirs, the land is valued at a price that reflects its forest value, rather than its development value.

Military Bases

Key Finding: North Carolina’s four major military bases generate approximately $12 billion of our gross state product. One of the biggest problems facing our military bases is development on once rural land surrounding their borders which makes training soldiers difficult and dangerous. The US Department of Defense used such development and states’ efforts to prevent it as one of the key factors in its decisions about which bases to close in the near future.

North Carolina’s first military base was founded in 1918, when 127,000 acres of desolate sand hills and pine trees were designated as a US Army installation. Adequate water, rail facilities and the Carolina climate lent themselves to Army needs, and Camp Bragg emerged as a field artillery site on August 21, 1918. It was named in honor of Confederate General Braxton Bragg, a former artillery officer and North Carolinian.

Congress decided in February 1922 that all artillery sites east of the Mississippi River would become permanent Army posts. The camp was redesignated as Fort Bragg, September 30, 1922. Today Fort Bragg and neighboring Pope Air Force Base form one of the largest military complexes in the world.38

Since that time, military operations in North Carolina have expanded, and North Carolina is now home to four major military bases: • Fort Bragg Army Base and Pope Air Force Base in Cumberland County • Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base and New River Air Station in Onslow County • Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in Craven County • Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Wayne County

36 NC Division of Forest Resources. 2004. Forestry Summit Report: Sustaining Working Forests. p. 4. 37 Blank, Gary. 1999. Conserving North Carolina’s Forests: Assessment of the Need for the Forest Legacy Program. NC Division of Forest Resources. 38 http://www.bragg.army.mil/history/Default.htm

A8 Appendix A

Approximately $12 billion of North Carolina’s gross state product is generated by our military bases. These four bases provide over 333,000 jobs for North Carolinians, with 262,000 of these jobs directly related to military operations and an additional 68,000 government contract jobs.39 In addition, the bases stimulate an additional 84,000 jobs from economic activity associated with military spending.40 The impact of the military is felt in every county in the state, and the impact is understandably magnified in the southeastern part of the state where the four military bases are located.

Military bases need large areas so that soldiers can simulate what they will encounter on a battlefield. Soldiers must fly planes, drop bombs, parachute, shoot rifles and navigate through woods and swamps by day and night. The military has traditionally managed risk and noise associated with training by conducting these activities as far from civilians as possible.

One of the problems facing military bases all over the United States is development of houses and businesses on once rural land surrounding their borders. New neighbors often complain about aircraft noise and ammunition, making it difficult for the military to train and upgrade to more powerful and louder planes and other equipment. The Navy’s proposal to locate an “outlying landing field” for new F/A-18 Super Hornets in North Carolina rather than Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach was motivated by an interest in moving flights away from the suburbs now surrounding Oceana. 41

North Carolina’s military bases are facing these problems also. Fort Bragg, for example, had to stop using a particular drop zone for paratrooper practice after a large apartment building was built nearby.42 The NC Advisory Commission on Military Affairs, co-chaired by General Hugh Shelton (retired) and Troy Pate, found that “encroachment into high noise and accident potential zones was singled out as the most critical issue facing our military bases. As such, it threatens the long-term viability of our bases at a time when their continued presence in our State is vital for both national defense and economic development.”43

Key Recommendation: To ensure the continued presence of our four military bases we must prevent urban encroachment around the bases and their training grounds.

Closure of any of North Carolina’s bases would be an economic blow to the entire state. One of the best ways to ensure their continued value to the military is to prevent urban encroachment around them.

Fortunately, preventing urban encroachment does not mean that neighboring land can no longer provide important benefits for North Carolinians. Farms and woodlands are good neighbors of military bases as are natural environments managed primarily for native plants, wildlife and water quality with occasional recreational and hunting use. In fact, some of the state’s most outstanding natural areas are found at Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg.

The NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources has developed a list of priority areas for protection near the four largest military bases – these areas total 19,500 acres.

39 Brockett, S. Richard, Adam Cooper, Dana J. Gauland, and Erin Francisco. 2004. North Carolina Statewide Military Impact Study. Prepared for the NC Advisory Commission on Military Affairs by East Carolina University Regional Development Services and Regional Economic Models, Inc. in cooperation with NCSU Economic Development Partnership. www.ecu/edu/rds/ The Brockett study analyzes the impact of all military bases, DoD contracts, and military and veteran retiree benefits on North Carolina’s economy. Because our focus is on the economic impact of undeveloped land, we have reported only the impact of the four largest military bases rather than the total impact of military operations across the state. 40 Ibid. 41 Price, Jay. Battle crosses state lines. Washington County airfield would help Virginia Beach’s noise problem. March 15, 2004. The News and Observer. 42 Ibid. 43 Pate, Troy. Letter to Governor Michael Easley. March 25, 2003. As found in the SWOT Analysis (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats). Report for the NC Advisory Commission on Military Affairs. May 2003 by John A. Berndt

A9 Appendix A

Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Watching

Key Finding: Fishing, hunting and wildlife-watching are important economic drivers in North Carolina. Recreational anglers, hunters and wildlife-watchers spend $2.8 billion per year, and commercial fishing adds $103 million in nineteen coastal counties.

As North Carolina awoke from its Rip Van Winkle period in the mid-1800s, fishing was one of the most important industries. Shad and herring fisheries along the Roanoke and Pamlico rivers were busy and thriving sites. The fish were salted down or smoked, packed in hogsheads and shipped out.44

Fishing, hunting and watching wildlife are still important to North Carolinians – both economically and to our quality of life. Below is a summary of the economic impacts of these activities. More information about their impact on quality of life is included in Appendix C.

Thirty-nine percent of North Carolinians participate in wildlife-associated recreation: hunting, fishing or wildlife-watching (which is defined as activities with a primary purpose of observing, feeding or photographing wildlife or fish). Thirty-two percent watch wildlife, and 17%, including many who also watch wildlife, are sportsmen.

In addition, many visitors to North Carolina also participate in these activities, bringing tourist dollars to fuel North Carolina’s economy. Sixteen percent of anglers who traveled out of state to fish in coastal waters came to North Carolina in 2002 and 2003.45 Total expenditures on these activities by residents and non-residents were $2.8 billion in 2001 (Table A3).46

Table A3: Expenditures and % of Days Spent on Activity by Non-Residents in 2001 Activity Total Expenditures % Non-Residents Wildlife Watching $1.179 billion 23%47 Fishing $1.076 billion 12% Hunting $556 million 2%

Total $2.811 billion

Commercial fishing is an important economic activity in nineteen coastal counties. In 2002, its economic impact was $103 million. Recently, the most economically important commercial species were hard blue crabs, shrimp and southern flounder.48 In 2003, North Carolina accounted for 24% of the hard blue crab catch in the nation, and 68% of the pounds of all fin- and shellfish caught commercially in the South Atlantic (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and the east coast of Florida).49

44Powell, William S. 1989. North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 309. 45 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Fisheries of the United States 2003. “US Marine Recreational Fisheries: US Recreational Number of Anglers and Trips by States, 2002 and 2003.” P. 49. 46 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. State Overview. Preliminary Findings. 47 Ibid. p. 27. The survey asked respondents about wildlife-watching at their homes and other places besides their homes. This figure represents the percent of survey respondents who watch wildlife in North Carolina at places other than their homes who are not North Carolina residents. 48 Burgess, Christine C. and Alan J. Bianchi. 2004. An Economic Profile Analysis of the Commercial Fishing Industry of North Carolina Including Profiles for State-Managed Species. NC Division of Marine Fisheries, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Morehead City, NC. 49 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Fisheries of the United States 2003. “US Commercial Landings: US Domestic Landings, By Region and By State, 2002 and 2003.” P. 6.

A10 Appendix A

North Carolina has a “competitive advantage” over many states in its potential to build a larger, more profitable economy based on wildlife-watching, fishing and hunting. We have the eighth largest number of bird species in the country. Overall, the diversity of our native plants, fish and wildlife has led international scientists to declare four of our five ecoregions among the most significant in the world (See Appendix D for more information). With 2.9 million acres of water, North Carolina has the largest estuarine system on the Atlantic coast.

However, the state’s water quality problems and the rapid development of farms and forest are a threat to North Carolina’s capacity to grow its wildlife, fishing and hunting industry. • Water quality problems are reducing the abundance of fish in North Carolina. For example, the NC Division of Marine Fisheries has listed more than fifteen species of coastal and estuarine fish and shellfish as threatened, including Southern Flounder, River Herring, American Shad, Eastern Oyster and Blue Crab.50 More than 2,600 miles of streams in North Carolina are not meeting water quality standards (see Appendix B for more information). • Populations of Northern Bobwhite Quail, a popular game species, have fallen by 73% nationwide since 1966 because changes in farming practices dramatically reduced the type of “early-successional” habitat they depend on.51 Many species of songbirds, such as the prairie warbler, are also dependent on this type of habitat. (The NC Wildlife Resources Commission is working with private landowners in three areas and on almost 4,000 acres of state game lands to improve habitat for these species through a new program called Cooperative Upland-habitat Restoration and Enhancement (CURE)). • Eighteen percent of the state’s native plants and wildlife are vulnerable to extinction because of development of the lands on which they depend (see Appendix D for more information).

Key Recommendation: The viability and potential for growth of wildlife-watching, hunting and fishing depends on maintaining diverse, accessible wildlife habitats and high water quality in our rivers, estuaries and ocean. One of the best ways to address threats to water quality and loss of wildlife habitat is to protect vegetated buffers along streams and estuaries and forests and farmland that provide important habitat for wildlife.

One of the best ways to address these threats and grow the industry is to protect important wildlife and fish habitats, and to make the land accessible whenever possible. Key ways to accomplish these goals are to: • Protect vegetated buffers along rivers, streams and coastal waters • Use purchase of development rights (PDR) programs to protect farms and working forests. Landowners may then lease their land for hunting or wildlife-watching as a way to supplement their income (See the sections on agriculture and forest products earlier in this appendix for more information about PDR programs). • Provide funds to allow the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and other state agencies, local governments and land trusts to purchase important natural habitats that can be opened for hunting, fishing or wildlife watching.

50 NC Division of Marine Fisheries. 2003. Stock Status Report. http://www.ncfisheries.net/stocks/index2k3.html. 51 Helsinki, Ronald R. 2001. How Much is Enough for 2002? A Regional Wildlife Habitat Needs Assessment for the 2002 Farm Bill. Wildlife Man- agement Institute. P 20

A11 Appendix A

Recruiting and Retaining Knowledge Workers

Key Finding: Recent research into location decisions of high tech companies indicates that the best strategy for recruiting and retaining such companies is to build and maintain communities that appeal to high-tech or “knowledge workers.” Among other things, such workers are very interested in outdoor activities and the authenticity and uniqueness that come from historic buildings, established neighborhoods and natural and rural landscapes that identify the place as being different than any other.

In an effort to bring together research and industry to benefit the entire state, the Research Triangle Park was created in 1958. The unique idea for the Park was based on a tenant recruitment plan focused specifically on “high tech” industry to supplement the state’s dependence on older industries.52 As one of the preeminent research parks in the country, Research Triangle Park is one of the state’s most valuable economic development tools because it allows North Carolina to compete on an international level for knowledge-based companies and workers.

The first of three strategic goals of the NC Department of Commerce is to “keep North Carolina competitive for high-value, technologically competitive industries and companies.”53 How can North Carolina be successful in meeting this goal? In the past, the focus of economic development officers has been on recruiting companies. Now recent research is leading some communities to focus on a different strategy. Instead of focusing on the companies, some economic development officers have begun focusing on building communities that will attract and retain high-tech or “knowledge workers.”

Esteemed economist and management expert Peter Drucker is credited with first documenting the importance of knowledge workers in the 20th and 21st century economy. Building on those theories, Paul Romer writes that the activities of knowledge workers “will lead to the biggest gains for business and for society as a whole.”54 New research by Richard Florida and colleagues at Carnegie Mellon reveals that if a community can keep a pool of trained knowledge workers, companies will choose to locate there, and some workers will even start new firms to generate more employment.

“Access to talented and creative people is to modern business what access to coal and iron ore was to steelmaking. It determines where companies will choose to locate and grow, and this in turn changes the ways cities must compete….Creative people, in turn, don’t just cluster where the jobs are. They cluster in places that are centers of creativity and also where they like to live.” 55

Florida is not alone in his ideas about attracting workers, not just companies. Harvard economist Edward Glaeser has written about Boston’s ability to re-invent itself and maintain a strong economy despite downturns in its traditional manufacturing industries. Boston was able to regain strength by becoming a hub for the information economy, and Glaeser credits four reasons for that success. One of these reasons was Boston’s “ability to attract residents, not just firms.”56

52 Powell, William S. 1989. North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 530-531. 53 http://www.ncccommerce.com/categories/aboutus.htm 54 Romer, Paul. Beyond the knowledge worker. January/February 1995. Worldlink. 55 Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books. P. 6-7. 56 Glaeser, Edward. September 2003. Reinventing Boston: 1640-2003. Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper Number 2017. Pg 7. http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2003papers/HIER2017.pdf

A12 Appendix A

What are knowledge workers looking for in a place to live? They are looking for places with: • many opportunities for creative work in their fields, • a diverse and creative lifestyle including music and art, technology and outdoor activities, • places to meet people like themselves but also a diversity of other types of people, • authenticity and uniqueness which comes from historic buildings, established neighborhoods, natural and rural landscapes that identify the place as being different than any other.57

Key Recommendation: To recruit and retain knowledge workers, we must protect key natural areas, historic properties and rural landscapes and provide trails, parks and other amenities for outdoor activities.

“My focus groups and interviews with Creative Class58 people reveal that they value active outdoor recreation very highly…The Creative Class people in my studies are into a variety of active sports, from traditional ones like bicycling, jogging and kayaking to newer, more extreme ones like trail running and snowboarding.”59

Investments in the kinds of amenities that appeal to knowledge workers benefit others in the population as well. Urban parks, bike lanes, greenways and trails for walking will last for generations.60

Across North Carolina, people are starting to think about and use this strategy.61 In fact, NC Secretary of Commerce Jim Fain says that “fostering attractive communities prepared for economic development success” is one of the cornerstones of North Carolina’s economic development strategy.62 Increased investment in land protection will be one important way to foster attractive communities that appeal to all citizens, including knowledge workers.

Economic Impact of Restoration and Reuse of Historic Buildings

Key Finding: Restoration and reuse of historic buildings provide important economic benefits beyond being a draw for tourists and knowledge workers. Jobs, tax revenue, and additional income and investments are created through the process of restoration.

Previous sections of this appendix have mentioned the importance of historic buildings, landscapes and communities to tourism and the recruitment of knowledge workers. Appendix B discusses how continued use of historic public buildings such as schools in established, walkable neighborhoods can help children and adults be more active and healthy in their daily lives. Appendix C discusses the high value that North Carolinians place on the opportunity to visit historic sites.

57 Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books. p. 223-231. 58 Ibid. p. 8 and 327-329. Florida defines “creative class” as people involved in the following occupations: computers; mathematics; architecture; engineering; life, physical, and social sciences; education; training; libraries; arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media; management; business and financial; legal; healthcare; high-end sales and sales management. He estimates that 38 million Americans, 30% of all employed people, belong to this new class. 59 Ibid. p. 173. 60 Ibid. p. 293-4. 61 Recent examples of interest in Richard Florida’s research in North Carolina includes his 2003 lecture at the NC Museum of Art, mention of his re- search at the 2004 Governor’s Conference on Tourism, and the mention of his work by Jim Goodmon, 2004 Tar Heel of the Year . (January 1, 2004, The News & Observer, Raleigh). 62 North Carolina: The state of minds. 20 January 2003. Fortune Special Section on US Regions.

A13 Appendix A

Restoration and reuse of historic buildings can have economic impacts beyond those detailed above. In a study of the economic impact of historic preservation in North Carolina, Donovan Rypkema looked at 529 restoration projects that qualified for a federal tax credit for historic preservation.63 These projects represented $467 million in private investments. They also created 7,134 jobs, added $139 million of additional household income and generated $51 million in income taxes paid by construction workers and business income taxes of nearly $15 million. And these are the direct benefits, without accounting for the indirect economic impact of those dollars as they are spent by construction workers and others involved in the projects.

63 Rypkema, Donavan D. 1997. The Impact of Historic Preservation on the North Carolina Economy. Preservation North Carolina. p. 7.

A14 Appendix B

Appendix B: Protecting Public Health

Clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and opportunities for physical activity and exercise are the most basic requirements for everyone’s health, adults and children alike. Natural and rural land helps ensure that these necessities are available to everyone. Protecting wetlands and floodplains can also prevent loss of life and property from flooding.

Clean Water

Key Finding: More than 2,600 miles of the streams in North Carolina do not meet water quality standards. An additional 25,260 miles have not been monitored enough to assess water quality.

In 1995, when photos of dead fish floating in the Neuse River hit the national news, many North Carolinians became aware for the first time how extreme and widespread our water quality problems had become. Although the state has undertaken some important initiatives to improve water quality since then, more work is needed to protect North Carolina’s streams and rivers.

The NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) classifies all streams and rivers by how people use them. Are they used for drinking water? Do people swim in them? Do they have vibrant, healthy populations of fish, mussels and other aquatic life? DWQ then attempts to monitor the water chemistry and aquatic life at regular locations along each stream to ensure that the water is clean enough to meet its intended use.

Almost 70% of our streams are not monitored enough to assess water quality (Figure B2), but of those streams that are, 2,649 miles (24%) do not meet water quality standards (Figure B1).1 If water quality in the unmonitored streams and rivers is similar to that found in the monitored streams, it is possible that up to

Figure B1: Percent of Stream Mileage with Impaired Water Quality

1 NC Division of Water Quality. NC Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report), Public Review Draft. April 27, 2004. Table 3-8, p. 44. In the graph in this report, categories 1 and 2 are classified as attaining quality standards; category 3 is repre- sented as insufficient data; categories 4-6 are classified as impaired water.

B1 Appendix B

Figure B2: Percent of Stream Mileage with Insufficent Data to Assess Water Quality

Figure B3: Sources of Pollution in Impaired Streams

B2 Appendix B

8,710 miles (24%) of our streams and rivers may be so polluted that they cannot be used for their intended purpose, be it drinking, swimming or habitat for fish and other aquatic life.

Why is the water in our rivers and streams degraded? Of the miles of streams that are known to be impaired, by far the largest sources of pollution are sediment and nutrients, like nitrogen, running off lawns, pavement and through storm sewers in urban areas and off crop and pasture land in rural areas (Figure B3).2 When streams are stripped of the buffer of vegetation along their banks, rain washes soil, debris and pollutants into the water, making it unhealthy for human use. Fish and other aquatic life are smothered and poisoned.

Key Recommendations: Maintaining buffers of trees and other vegetation along streams is one of the most effective ways to keep polluted runoff from fields, lawns and roads from contaminating our water. It is also important to protect wetlands from development because they help purify water.

Because of the seriousness of North Carolina’s water quality problems, the state has mandated that a 50-foot width of vegetated buffer be maintained where it already exists in several of the state’s river basins.3 Wetlands are regulated by the US Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality.

The vegetated buffer areas are important to slow water flow and trap and absorb sediment and nutrients before they reach the stream. The reduced water velocity also means that the stream banks are less likely to erode away.

Retaining a buffer of trees and shrubs along streams and rivers keeps pollution from reaching the water and therefore reduces the cost of water treatment. For example, in 1999 the city of Gastonia, North Carolina authorized revenue bonds in order to buy a tract of land 1,000 feet upstream from a Mountain Island Lake intake. By protecting such a key watershed, Gastonia was able to save up to $250,000 annually in water- treatment costs.4

The NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), a state agency which provides funding to protect stream buffers, uses DWQ’s information about impaired streams, pristine waters and drinking water sources5 to set priorities for spending their limited dollars (Map 1). Between 1997 and 2003, the CWMTF has funded protection of 2,908 miles of river banks, 8% of the total in the state.6

Although this is an impressive accomplishment in seven years, thousands of miles of streams and river banks remain unprotected.

In addition to maintaining buffers along our streams and rivers, it is also important to water quality that we protect wetlands from draining and ditching. Wetlands are “areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year.”7 Like buffers along streams, wetlands naturally remove pollutants and sediment from stormwater, and they retain large amounts of rainwater, reducing the impacts of floods downstream.8

2 Ibid. Table 3-10. p. 46. Major sources of impairment of freshwater streams and shorelines. 3 The buffers are mandated on all streams in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins and on the main stem and lake shore lines of the Catawba River below Lake James to the South Carolina border. Rules are published in 15A NCAC 2B.0233 (Neuse), .0243 (Catawba) and .0259 (Tar-Pamlico). 4Trust for Public Land, “2000 Watershed Report: Building Green Infrastructure,” Mountain Island Lake: Safeguarding a Pristine Reservoir, 1999. 5 For information about the NC Division of Water Quality’s surface water classifications see http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html 6 River bank mileage is calculated as twice the stream mileage as streams have two banks. 7 Environmental Protection Agency. What Are Wetlands? www.epa.gov 8 Environmental Protection Agency. Wetlands and People. www.epa.gov

B3 Appendix B

In the mid 1970s, 5 million acres (15%) of North Carolina were wetlands, but 1.2 million of those acres were drained, ditched or otherwise destroyed by the mid-1980s, the highest acreage loss in the entire Southeast.9 Wetland loss slowed after the 1980s because of stronger protection programs,10 but efforts to continue protecting and restoring degraded wetlands are critical to North Carolina’s environment, water quality and reducing loss of life and property from flooding.

Clean Air

Key Finding: North Carolina’s air quality has been steadily degrading. The federal government has ordered 32 counties to reduce levels of the pollutant ozone. Three of these counties have higher concentrations of small particulate matter (PM 2.5) in the air than national standards consider safe.

North Carolina’s air quality grew much worse in the 1990s and 2000s (Figure B4),11 endangering human health particularly in young children who are active outside; construction workers, runners and others who work and exercise outdoors; and those with asthma and other respiratory diseases.12 In 2003, North Carolina had the 13th worst air pollution in the country, measured by the number of days that our citizens breathe air that does not meet federal air quality standards.13

Figure B4: Numbers of Counties in Violation of Ozone Air Quality Standards

9 Hefner, J.M. et al. Southeast Wetlands: Status and Trends, Mid-1970s to Mid-1980s. A 1994 Cooperative Publication by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. http://wetlands.fws.gov/Pubs_Reports/Sewet/ 10 Dahl, Thomas E. 2000. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 1986 to 1997. US Fish and Wildlife Services, Washing- ton, DC. 11 Data derived from NC Division of Air Quality “Ozone Design Value Maps” http://daq.state.nc.us/monitor/data/o3design/ 12 Environmental Protection Agency. Smog – who does it hurt? What you need to know about ozone and your health. www.epa.gov/airnow/health/ smog1.html 13 Environmental Defense. Scorecard: The pollution information site. www.scorecard.env-releases/cap/rank-states-risk.tcl The information on this site is derived from the US Environmental Protection Agency Air Quality System database and the National Emission Trend database.

B4 Appendix B

In North Carolina’s Piedmont, hot days and nights with little wind trap pollutants from cars and let them build to dangerously high levels in the summer. In our mountains, rugged peaks capture pollutants wafting from power plants in North Carolina and thirteen other states.

Because we cannot control North Carolina’s weather or topography, the primary solution to North Carolina’s air quality problems must be to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the air, particularly from motor vehicles and power plants. North Carolina has taken first steps toward this goal. In 2002, the NC Legislature passed the Clean Smokestacks Act, which requires that power plants reduce their emissions by 75% over the next five to ten years. In 2004, state and local governments in 32 counties were developing plans for reducing ground-level ozone (smog) and PM 2.5 (very small particulates suspended in the air) under order of the US Environmental Protection Agency.14

Key Recommendation: A secondary, but very important, strategy to reduce ozone and particulate matter in the air is to maintain and replant trees in areas with poor air quality. American Forests recommends that urbanizing areas in the Southeast maintain at least 40% tree cover, ranging from 15% in central business districts to 50% or more in suburban residential areas.

A secondary strategy that some local governments here and in other states are using to help improve air quality is to increase the amount of tree cover in polluted areas. Trees and other vegetation help improve air quality by:15 • reducing levels of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide (CO2 and NOx), pollutants that cause ground- level ozone. Trees and other vegetation use the nitrogen and carbon in these gases to grow. • providing shade to lower temperatures in urban areas. The gases that are the components of ground- level ozone react together more readily when temperatures are high. • reducing the reliance on use of air conditioning. • capturing air-borne particulates on their leaves.

In 1991, American Forests measured tree cover in 440 communities and found that tree canopy covered more than 60% of the town in most established communities in the southeastern United States. Ten years later they discovered that forest cover had decreased in 40 communities by an average of 21% because of sprawling development patterns.16 They recommend that towns and cities aim for an average tree cover of at least 40% -- with a minimum of 15% tree cover in central business districts, 25% in urban residential areas and 50% in suburban residential areas – because of the important environmental benefits that trees provide.17

In addition to planting and maintaining trees on streets and building lots, communities can help reduce air pollutants by conserving natural forests within city limits. These areas can have a greater impact on air quality than their size might indicate because of the density of tree coverage. A study in Boulder, Colorado, for example, found that although its natural forests along streams represent only six percent of the city’s acreage, they provide 13% of the city’s forest canopy cover and remove 13% of the pounds of air pollutants removed each year by trees.18

14 http://www.epa.gov; http://daq.state.nc.us/ 15 City of Boulder Water Conservation Office. 2002. Calculating the Value of Boulder’s Urban Forest. Chapter Four: Air Quality, Pollution, and Trees. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/boulder/urbanforest/ 16 American Forests. 2003. New study reveals dramatic national tree loss. www.americanforests.org/news/display.php?id=120 17 American Forests. Setting urban tree canopy goals. www.americanforests.org/resources/urbanforests/treedeficit.php 18 City of Boulder Water Conservation Office. 2002. Calculating the Value of Boulder’s Urban Forest. Chapter Four: Air Quality, Pollution, and Trees. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/boulder/urbanforest/

B5 Appendix B

Several local governments in North Carolina are using urban reforestation and land conservation to help reduce air pollution. The Fayetteville area is trying a variety of strategies including expanded land acquisition in watershed areas, planting additional trees, inventorying green space and investigating a “conservation subdivision option” to protect natural land as part of the development process.19 The Centralina Council of Governments, which represents nine counties in the Charlotte area, encourages planning and projects to protect trees for air quality and other environmental benefits.20

Places to Exercise

Key Finding: Physical inactivity and poor diet combined have become the second-leading cause of preventable death in North Carolina. Medical costs associated with obesity now total $2.1 billion per year. Public health officials recognize that the design of modern neighborhoods, which makes walking and biking difficult and dangerous, is a significant contributor to this epidemic.

Obesity, caused by physical inactivity and poor diet, has become the second-leading cause of preventable death in North Carolina, causing 10,000 premature deaths in 2000 alone.21 Between 1992 and 2002, the percent of obese North Carolinians grew from 13.4% to 22.5% of the population (Figure B5).22

Figure B5: Percent of Obese Adults in North Carolina, 1992-2002

19 Planning Today for Clean Air Tomorrow: Bi-Annual Progress Report of the Early Action Compact in the Fayetteville Metropolitan Statistical Area, North Carolina. An agreement of partnership by USEPA Region 4, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Cumberland County Commissioners. December 31, 2003. Available at www.epa.gov 20 Tree Planting Standards. Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life program of the Centralina Council of Governments. http://www.centralina. org/seql/actionitems/treestandards/index.htm 21 NC Division of Public Health, Physical Activity and Nutrition Unit. Blueprint for changing policies and environments in support of increased physi- cal activity. www.EatSmartMoveMoreNC.com 22 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Surveillance System. Trends Data: North Carolina, Obesity: By Body Mass Index, 1990- 2002. www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/map-page.htm

B6 Appendix B

Eighty-two percent of North Carolinians do not get the recommended amount of exercise.23 Physical inactivity contributes strongly to heart disease, stroke, diabetes, asthma, some types of cancer and complications of pregnancy, and it is a central factor behind the alarming increase in overweight and obesity24 all across America. Medical treatment of obesity and health problems caused by it now cost $2.1 billion per year in North Carolina and $75 billion across the United States.25

This dramatic loss of health and life led the Surgeon General to declare obesity a national “epidemic,” 26 and public health practitioners are searching for ways to combat it.

Why are North Carolinians so inactive and increasingly overweight? Public health scientists recognize three major causes: 1) we are consuming more calories, 2) we have less active lifestyles because of sedentary jobs and the amount of time we spend traveling in cars and 3) the design of modern neighborhoods makes walking and biking difficult and dangerous.27 Figure B6 illustrates the dramatic changes over the last 20 years in the average amount of time that Americans spend walking and driving in a car.28

Key Recommendation: More parks, greenways and trails are needed to provide convenient opportunities for physical activity. Restoration and reuse of public buildings such as schools in established, walkable neighborhoods can also encourage physical activity among children and adults.

Figure B6: Trends in Auto Dependency in 20 Years

23 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, State Center for Health Statistics, NC-DHHS, 2000 as reported in Blueprint for changing policies and environments in support of increased physical activity. www.EatSmartMoveMoreNC.com 24The National Institute of Health (NIH) defines overweight as a body mass index of greater than 25 and obesity as a BMI greater than 30. 25 Finkelstein, Eric A. et al. State-level estimates of annual medical expenditures attributable to obesity. January 2004. Obesity Research. North Ameri- can Association for the Study of Obesity. 26 US Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity. pp. 1,2. 27 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Obesity and the Environment. and Center for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Nutrition and Physical Activity. Factors contributing to obesity: biological, behavioral, and environmental factors associated with overweight and obesity. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/contributing_factors.htm 28 Active Living By Design. A primer on active living by design. P.4. www.activelivingbydesign.org

B7 Appendix B

Combating inactivity will take a multi-faceted approach, but many leading public health organizations29 now strongly advocate making our communities more pedestrian- and bike-friendly and improving access for all citizens to parks, trails and greenways. Research has demonstrated that increasing access will lead more people to exercise.30 One study of residents of six diverse North Carolina counties showed that access to trails and other places to exercise increased by 25% the number of people who exercise at least three times a week.31

North Carolina has much work to do to develop a system of parks, trails and other safe and pleasant walking routes close to most people’s homes. One measure of the need is a statewide poll which revealed that, on average, the nearest trail that those surveyed knew about was more than 20 miles from their homes – clearly more than can be conveniently driven for regular exercise.32

A task force of national experts on urban parks recommends that residents be able to walk to a park or greenway within 10 minutes in dense urban areas or bike within 10 minutes in spread-out sections of cities and towns.33 Denver has shown that reaching such a goal in a modern, sprawling city is possible. More than 90% of its citizens now live within six blocks of a park or natural area, and the City is working to reduce this distance to four blocks or about one-third of a mile. Denver has also rigorously defined these blocks as “walkable,” meaning that “people can get to the park without crossing a highway, railroad track, or body of water.”34

Renovation and reuse of historic public buildings can also help people get the exercise they need when the buildings are in established neighborhoods with sidewalks and safe, short walking distances to homes, shopping and work. For example, many older schools are surrounded by existing neighborhoods with good sidewalks so that it is safe for children to walk and bike to school. Such accessibility not only reduces busing costs, it also helps children be active.

29 The Center for Disease Control, the Surgeon General office, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, the NC Division of Public Health - Physical Activity and Nutrition Unit, and Active Living by Design at UNC-Chapel Hill are among the most prominent. 30 Center for Disease Control. Effective Population-Level Strategies to Promote Physical Activity from the Guide to Community Preventive Services. www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/recommendations.html 31 Huston, Sara L. et al. 2003. Neighborhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. American Journal of Health Promotion. Vol. 18, No. 1. p. 58-69. The counties surveyed were Cabarrus, Henderson, Pitt, Robeson, Surry and Wake. 32 Moore, Roger L. et al. 1998. North Carolina Statewide Trail and Greenway Survey. Conducted by the NCSU Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management for the NC Division of Parks and Recreation. 33 Harnik, Peter. 2003. The Excellent City Park System: What Makes It Great and How to Get There. Trust for Public Land, San Francisco, CA. p. 23. 34 Ibid. p. 25.

B8 Appendix B

Flood Protection

Key Finding: Hurricanes and tropical storms in the last ten years have illustrated the great cost in lives and property damage caused by flooding.

The importance of restricting development in floodplains became crystal clear in 1999 in the aftermath of hurricanes Dennis and Floyd. The combined rainfall of the two September hurricanes pummeled the coastal plain of North Carolina, and raging rivers and streams destroyed an unprecedented number of homes and businesses. Over 38,000 homes were declared eligible for $88.3 million in rental assistance. The Small Business Administration also extended $316.7 million in home loans to 8,851 applicants within the 66 counties that were declared disaster areas. The cost of providing temporary housing has exceeded $48 million. Five years later, 1,272 families are still waiting for permanent residences.

Key Recommendation: Protection of land and vegetation in floodplains and on steep slopes is an important tool to prevent flooding of buildings and resultant loss of life. After Hurricane Floyd, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) set about buying damaged homes and businesses in flood prone areas to prevent them from being rebuilt and damaged again in future floods. At present, 1,888 units have been approved by FEMA for purchase at a cost of $135.3 million. Another 2,534 units, worth $136.1 million, are currently under State and FEMA review. Although purchasing these buildings and restricting future development in the floodplain may seem expensive in the short-term, in the long-term it will reduce property damage and save lives. In addition, replanting vegetation in a floodplain will improve water quality, improve habitat for native plants and wildlife and provide places for walking, fishing and enjoying the outdoors.

B9 Appendix C

Appendix C: Enhancing Quality of Life through Recreation, Historic Sites and Scenic Beauty

Parks, historic sites and natural and rural lands are integral to the quality of life in North Carolina. Each year, millions of people walk, hunt, learn, picnic, camp, fish, drive, canoe and play ball in North Carolina’s parks, game lands, forests and historic sites. Their lives are enriched as they experience the state’s beauty and learn more about the natural world and our human history.

Every five years, North Carolina surveys citizens to learn what outdoor activities they are participating in and which they would participate in if more opportunities were available. The survey also asks citizens which of these activities should be given highest priority for public funding. The most popular activities are ones that can be enjoyed by almost everyone, at relatively low cost. These activities involve viewing, experiencing and learning about nature and history (Table C1).1

Table C1: Most Popular Outdoor Activities Households Number of Occasions/Year Each Household Activity2 Participating (%) Participates (Avg.) Walking for Pleasure 75 50 Driving for Pleasure 72 33 Viewing Scenery 71 31 Beach Activities 69 11 Visiting Historical Sites 62 3 Swimming (in Lakes, Rivers, 54 8 Oceans) Visiting Natural Areas 53 7 Attending Sports Events 52 9 Picnicking 52 4 Visiting Zoos 51 1 Fishing (Freshwater) 50 10 Use of Open Areas 41 8 Swimming (in Pools) 40 10 Fishing (Saltwater) 38 5 Attending Outdoor Cultural 35 2 Events Bicycling for Pleasure 32 11 Other Winter Sports 31 1 Camping (Tent or Vehicle) 29 3 Softball/Baseball 28 6 Hunting 28 6 Use of Play Equipment 28 6 Power Boating 26 6 Jogging/Running 24 14 Basketball 24 7 Nature Study 22 9 Golf 22 7

1 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), p. II-17, http://www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/resource/scorp/scorp_ch2.pdf 2 Ibid. p. II-18, II-20. Includes activities within top 20 in either households participating or number of occasions per year each household participates.

C1 Appendix C

Although many North Carolinians report enjoying outdoor activities, most would be interested in participating even more frequently if more opportunities were available. A recent survey found, for example, that one reason that North Carolinians do not use trails as much as they would like is that, on average, the nearest trail that they know about is more than 20 miles away from their homes.3

North Carolinians also support public funding to provide the land and facilities needed for many of these activities (Table C2).4

Table C2: Demand and Funding Support for Outdoor Activities Support for Public Funding of Interest in Participating More Often if More Activity Additional/Improved Facilities Opportunities/Facilities Available Walking for High High Pleasure Fishing (Freshwater) High High Beach Activities High High Camping (Tent or High High Vehicle) Picnicking High High Attending Outdoor High High Cultural Events Visiting Natural High Moderate Areas Visiting Historical High Moderate Sites Use of Play High Moderate Equipment Bicycling for Moderate High Pleasure Swimming (in Moderate High Pools) Hunting Moderate Moderate Viewing Scenery Moderate Moderate

In North Carolina, “natural resource-based” outdoor recreation such as trail walking and hiking, viewing scenery, nature study, picnicking, camping, boating and swimming in lakes and rivers is primarily provided by the state and federal governments in state and national parks and forests. Hunting and fishing opportunities are provided on state game lands and on national forests. Ball fields, swimming pools, playgrounds, basketball courts and other active recreation sites are primarily provided by local governments and the private sector.5 Historic sites are maintained by all levels of government as well as by private groups.

Across the state, government agencies and nonprofit citizen groups have developed plans to provide the outdoor opportunities that North Carolinians are seeking.

3 Moore, Roger L. et al. 1998. North Carolina Statewide Trail and Greenway Survey. Conducted by the NCSU Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management for the NC Division of Parks and Recreation. 4 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, p. II-25, II-26, www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/resource/scorp/scorp_ch2.pdf 5 Ibid. p. II-2.

C2 Appendix C

Natural-Area Recreation Such as Hiking, Camping and Swimming in Lakes and the Ocean

Key Finding: Walking for pleasure, beach activities, swimming in lakes and visiting natural areas are some of the most popular activities in North Carolina, and North Carolinians strongly support public funding to provide additional places for such activities. A record 13.2 million people visited North Carolina’s state parks in 2002, a 160% increase in the last 20 years.

North Carolina has a long history of supporting state parks. In 1915, Representative Gaston P. Deyton of Yancey County introduced a bill authorizing the appointment of a commission to acquire a portion of Mount Mitchell and the creation of “a public park for the use of the people of North Carolina.” Mount Mitchell became the first state park created in the country.6

Almost 100 years later, North Carolina has a diversity of state parks, national parks and national forests that provide opportunities for the public to walk, swim at lakes and beaches, visit natural areas, fish and camp. Visitation to these parks and forests has been rising. A record 13.2 million people visited North Carolina’s state parks in 2002, a 160% increase over the last 20 years.7

Key Recommendation: To meet public demand for outdoor recreation, additional state parkland is needed to enlarge existing parks and to create new parks in areas of the state that do not have nearby state parks now..

Because increased public use can damage sensitive natural areas and overcrowding can reduce visitors’ enjoyment, the NC Division of Parks and Recreation has been developing plans to expand the state’s park system.8

In addition to providing places for the public to enjoy the outdoors, State Parks are also mandated9 to protect representative examples of North Carolina’s archaeological, geological, biological, scenic and recreational resources. To meet this mandate, the NC Division of Parks and Recreation undertook an analysis of the natural resources in the state to determine which are not adequately represented in the state parks system. They identified 108 themes that represent the natural diversity of North Carolina, such as mountain bogs, brownwater floodplains and longleaf pine savannas. Only 29 of these themes are adequately represented in the parks system now.10

In keeping with increased use of state parks and based on its analysis of natural resource themes and public demand for more recreational areas, the NC Division of Parks and Recreation developed its New Parks for a New Century plan which identifies 13 potential new state parks, 33 potential state natural areas and one potential state recreation area (Map 4). If all 47 sites are added, the size of the state park system would double and make parks easily accessible to a larger percentage of the state’s population.11

6 Powell, William S. 1989. North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 449-450. 7 NC Division of Parks and Recreation. March 5, 2003. NC State Parks report record visitation in 2002. www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/parknews/ releases/3_5.html/ 8 NC Division of Parks and Recreation. Systemwide Plan for the North Carolina State Parks System, 2000-2005. p. VI-1. www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/ swplan/home.html 9 State Parks Act of 1987 (G.S. 113-447 through 113-44.14) 10 NC Division of Parks and Recreation. Systemwide Plan for the North Carolina State Parks System, 2000-20005, Chapter IV. www.ils.unc.edu/ parkproject/swplan/home.html 11 I bid. IV 14-15. Based on a 1986 study of distances traveled by visitors to state parks, the NC Division of Parks and Recreation defines a park’s primary service area as counties within a 50-mile radius. Analysis revealed that four areas had few parks within that radius: 1) Mecklenburg, Union and surrounding counties; 2) Guilford, Alamance and surrounding counties; 3) Cherokee, Clay and surrounding counties; and 4) Lenoir, Pitt, Wayne and surrounding counties.

C3 Appendix C

Viewing Scenery

Key Finding: Over 70% of North Carolinians report that driving for pleasure and viewing scenery are popular outdoor activities for their households.

North Carolina has 45 scenic highways designated by the NC Department of Transportation and two national scenic highways, the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Cherohala Skyway. These routes display the diversity and beauty of the entire state.12

Of these routes, the most well known and popular place for driving for pleasure and viewing scenery is the Blue Ridge Parkway. In 2002, almost 14 million people visited the Parkway, and the average parkway visitor in North Carolina spent $172 per day or $603 during the average 3.5-day trip.13

Key Recommendation: Protecting vistas from development along officially-designated scenic highways ensures that their beauty is not lost.

Scenic highways, by definition, are long and narrow which means that most of what is visible is outside highway control. Along the Blue Ridge Parkway, for example, land use has changed dramatically since the road was built. In 1948, there were 40,000 farms along the parkway. Now, there are 10,000.14

Development is encroaching upon the Blue Ridge Parkway and can greatly diminish the scenic views and sweeping landscapes that make this area so special. A recent survey revealed that half of the visitors would stop visiting completely if views were to diminish past a certain point.15

The Design Research Center at NC State University has been mapping land visible from the parkway to help direct conservation efforts toward the most important views,16 and several statewide and local land trusts have been working with the National Park Service to protect land identified in this map.17

Local Recreation Such as Walking and Biking, Playgrounds, Swimming Pools and Soccer

Key Finding: Popular activities provided by local parks include walking and biking trails, playgrounds, swimming pools, open areas for activities such as kite-flying, sunbathing and picnicking, softball, baseball and basketball. North Carolina’s growing population and the increase in the percent of the population that is obese means that local parks departments face a rapidly increasing need for their services.

Great cities and towns are known for their parks. Parks are playfields, ecology labs, kite flying fields, exercise trails, streams, amphitheaters for concerts and plays, greenway trails, gardens, wildlife habitat and quiet places to sit and enjoy a beautiful day.

12 NC Department of Transportation. NC Scenic Highways. 144 p. Also see America’s Byways website: www.byways.org 13 Matthews, Leah G. et al. 2003. Blue Ridge Parkway scenic experience project phase 2 final report. Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation. 65 p. www.nps.gov/blri/pphtml/documents.html 14 Ibid. p. 7. 15 Ibid. 16 Fes, John et al. 1995 to present. Visual sensitivity mapping of Blue Ridge Parkway viewsheds. NC State University, School of Design, Design Research Center. 17 For information about efforts to protect the Blue Ridge Parkway, see website of Conservation Trust for North Carolina, www.ctnc.org

C4 Appendix C

North Carolina has a proud tradition in its local parks system. Our state has been a leader in visionary parks planning. Raleigh created the first greenway plan in the nation in the 1970s. As Raleigh’s greenway has grown, its vision has also spread throughout the world and improved quality of life in thousands of towns and cities.

Many of the most popular outdoor activities in North Carolina are traditionally provided by city and county park systems. Because of the rapid growth in our population, county and municipal park systems across North Carolina are struggling to meet the burgeoning demand for parks.

Key Recommendation: More local parks and trails are needed to meet the need for active recreation and to provide safe and pleasant places to walk and bike.

Local parks and recreation departments need funding for three purposes: to acquire land for new and expanded parks, to renovate and enlarge outdated facilities and to build new facilities. To assess the magnitude of the need for park land and facilities in North Carolina, we surveyed the 218 city and county parks departments about their needs.

One hundred and eight responded and identified $2.2 billion of need (see Appendix F for a list of needs by park department). Four hundred and fifty-nine million dollars are needed to acquire 34,000 acres of land, and $1.8 billion is needed for new and renovated facilities.

Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Watching

Key Finding: Thirty-nine percent of North Carolinians hunt, fish or watch wildlife, but as forests and farms have been developed the diversity of species where many people live has declined and more and more land is off limits to hunting, fishing and exploring.

When North Carolina was primarily a rural state, most people had easy access to places to hunt, fish and observe wildlife, but as forests and farms have been developed the diversity of species where many people live has declined and more and more of the remaining land is off limits to hunting, fishing and exploring.

Fishing, hunting and wildlife-watching are still very popular activities in North Carolina. Thirty-nine percent of North Carolinians hunt, fish or watch wildlife. Hunting and fishing are enjoyed by 17% of the population. Thirty-two percent, including some who are also sportsmen, like to observe, feed or photograph fish or wildlife. Many of these do so at their homes, but 27% of them also travel to do so.18

The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) helps meet the need for hunting and fishing by managing nearly two million acres of land for hunting, trapping and fishing. In the 2004-2005 season, 343,266 of these acres were owned by WRC, and the remainder were managed by WRC on land owned by the US Forest Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, other state agencies and private companies such as Progress Energy. 19

Public places to watch wildlife are provided by a much broader diversity of agencies and organizations, from State Parks to National Forests to municipal greenways to nature preserves owned by private land trusts.

18 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: State Overview. Preliminary Findings. 19 NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Visit a public game land this fall. October 15, 2004. Press release. http://216.27.49.98/news_stories/pg00_newsrelease/pg00_oct04_6.htm

C5 Appendix C

Key Recommendation: We need to ensure that sufficient land is available for hunting, fishing and wildlife- watching.

To meet the need for additional wildlife habitat and hunting land, WRC has identified areas where they hope to acquire land (Map 5). Criteria used to identify critical tracts include wildlife habitat value and the availability of hunting land, particularly in urbanizing areas where people are finding it more difficult to hunt and fish. When deciding how much land to acquire and which areas to open to hunting, safety of hunters and neighbors are important factors in the decisions.

Local parks and greenways, close to people’s homes, can be important and valued places for people to watch and learn about wildlife that thrives in urban and suburban settings. Local governments in North Carolina are interested in protecting more than 34,000 acres of land for local parks and greenways.

To observe species of wildlife that are more secretive or rare, it is necessary to visit natural areas that provide the habitat for that particular species. The NC Natural Heritage Program has published inventories of the most important natural areas in 68 of North Carolina’s 100 counties, and most of the other counties have been studied to some degree through inventories of regional ecosystems such as the Albemarle Pamlico Estuarine system. To date, the Natural Heritage Program has documented 1,500 individual sites of national, state and regional significance.20 Four hundred of these, totaling 1.57 million acres, have been protected, but 1,100 more, totaling one million acres, are as yet unprotected.21 State and local governments and nonprofit conservancies use the inventories to prioritize areas for protection.

Visiting Historic Sites

Key Finding: Sixty- two percent of North Carolinians visit historic sites each year, and there is high support for public funding to restore and open additional historic sites.

Across the state, people are working to preserve North Carolina’s farms, archeological sites, mills and mill villages, county court houses, lighthouses, rural communities and downtowns that tell the story of this state and how we are different than other places.

Historic sites are maintained and opened to the public by a variety of government agencies and by private historic organizations. In North Carolina, there are 27 state-run historic sites ranging in age from Town Creek Indian Mound to the USS North Carolina Battleship.22 The National Park Service operates seven historic sites and trails including the Carl Sandburg home, Wright Brothers Memorial and Trail of Tears Historic Trail.23 One of our most popular historic sites, the Biltmore Estate, is operated by a private for-profit company, and more than 400 other historical properties and museums are operated by private nonprofit groups, including Bellamy Mansion Museum in Wilmington, Hope Plantation in Bertie County, the Hayti Heritage Center in Durham, the Greensboro Historical Museum, Old Salem in Winston-Salem, and the C. Grier Beam Truck Museum in Cherryville.

Many historic properties that are not open to the public are also very important to our quality of life because of how they contribute to the sense of place and fabric of a community. North Carolina has over 2,100 listings on the National Register of Historic Places, and about 45 new nominations are submitted each year.

20 NC Natural Heritage Program. www.ncnhp.org. 21 Data computed by NC Natural Heritage Program. E-mail correspondence from Scott Pohlman on June 30, 2004. 22 NC Historic Sites. Preserving the past for all people. http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/sections/hs/default.htm, May 24, 2004 23 National Park Service. List of national parks in North Carolina. http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parksearch/state.cfm?st=nc

C6 Appendix C

Approximately 85% are privately-owned and 15% publicly-owned. Five percent are considered nationally- significant properties.24

About 300 of the 2,100 National Register sites are historic districts, some of which contain several hundred contributing historic buildings or sites. Types of districts include residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, archeological sites, industrial complexes, mill villages and rural farming districts. The National Park Service estimates that approximately 30,000 historic properties are listed in the National Register either as individual listings or as contributing properties within districts.25

People often think of urban areas and individual buildings when they think of historic sites, but North Carolina has seven rural historic districts on the National Register and 35 more that are being considered for registry. These districts encompass larger collections of historic farms and surrounding fields and forests, including the 13,400-acre Lake Landing Plantations Historic District in Hyde County. Historic sites in rural areas are among the most threatened in North Carolina.

Key Recommendation: To maintain the historic value of these sites, it is important to preserve both the structures and the landscape which surrounds them.

Many of North Carolina’s historic sites are endangered because resources are so limited for restoration and reuse and because of rapid development of land around them. For many historic sites, preservation of the surrounding landscape is as important as preservation of the structures. House in the Horseshoe in rural Moore County, Town Creek Indian Mound in the Pee Dee River Valley, the Biltmore Estate in Asheville and Somerset Place in Washington County would be greatly diminished if the landscapes around them did not resemble what they did at the time when history was first made at the site.

Critical needs in the next five years include:

Landscapes around NC Historic Sites Many of North Carolina’s 27 State Historic Sites are in areas that are developing. For example, the last major Civil War battle raged in 1865 across 6,000 acres near Bentonville in rural southern Johnston County. Now the rural landscape in that area, just a few miles off I-95, is changing as houses and industries expand. The Bentonville Historic Site which protects only 5% of the original battlefield acreage has developed a plan to acquire scenic and farmland easements on an additional 1,200 acres to ensure that the most important battle sites and views are protected.

Archeological Sites The NC Office of State Archeology has identified many important archeological sites that are vulnerable to vandalism or to inadvertent destruction. These sites range from early Native American villages to battlefields to historic industrial sites. The Office of State Archeology proposes protecting these sites by acquiring easements and land.

Restoration, Repair and Improved Accessibility for Historic Sites Open to the Public Usually, the largest expense involved in operating historic sites that are open to the public is restoration and maintenance of the structures. Many more properties could be protected and accessible if funding were available to help governments and non-profits with these costs. In addition, many public historic buildings such as courthouses and schools need renovations to bring them up to current building and accessibility codes.

24 NC State Historic Preservation Office. 2000. The National Register of Historic Places in North Carolina: Facts and Figures. http://www.hpo.dcr. state.nc.us/nrfacts.htm 25 Ibid.

C7 Appendix C

Revolving Fund Most historic properties are best managed by private individuals who live, work in and care for them while protecting their historic and scenic value for the public. In North Carolina, sixteen historical nonprofit organizations have used revolving funds to protect more than 1,000 private historic buildings from demolition and decay. They use the revolving funds to purchase the property. After closing, they place a permanent historic covenant on the property, ensuring that the key historic features of the building will be protected by future owners. They then resell the property to owners willing to use it within the restrictions in the covenants.

Establishing a state revolving loan fund that organizations and governments could borrow against to purchase properties could greatly expand the number of properties protected. Funds borrowed for purchase would be repaid when the property is re-sold and then re-used to protect another threatened property.

Inventories of Significant Historic Sites Governments and historic preservation organizations use inventories of the most important structures and sites in North Carolina to prioritize their work and educate the public and property owners about significant properties. North Carolina has not yet completed inventories of the most important historic sites in 42 counties, and many older inventories need updating to survey properties that were not yet old enough to be eligible for listing when the inventory was first completed.

C8 Appendix D

Appendix D: Protecting Native Plants and Wildlife

Key Finding: North Carolina has some of the most extraordinary natural habitats in the world. Four of our five “ecoregions” are considered “globally outstanding” by international scientists, but 18% of North Carolina’s native species are in danger of extinction and only small percentages of the state remain in natural habitat.

Because nature does not conform to the political lines drawn on a map, ecologists define ecological areas based on natural ranges. These ranges or “ecoregions” denote areas that have distinct natural communities and species, geology, climate, land use and hydrology. Ecologists have designated 76 river-based or “freshwater” ecoregions and 116 land-based or “terrestrial” ecoregions in North America.1 Two of the freshwater ecoregions and three of the terrestrial ecoregions are found in North Carolina.

Biologists consider North Carolina’s two freshwater ecoregions among the most biologically diverse ecoregions in the world. The ecoregion in North Carolina’s Appalachian Mountains contains the highest level of freshwater diversity in North America and is possibly the most diverse temperate freshwater ecoregion in the world.2 It has an extraordinary 231 fish species, and new species continue to be discovered. The conditions that have engendered this region’s distinct fish fauna have also produced unusually large numbers of other aquatic species including 125 mussel and 65 crayfish species. The World Wildlife Fund considers this ecoregion endangered by every category of threat facing flowing-water systems: impoundment, channelization, pollution, sedimentation and urbanization.3

North Carolina’s other freshwater ecoregion includes all the rivers and streams that flow into the Atlantic. Like the Appalachians it is unusually diverse compared to other temperate coastal ecoregions with more than 177 fish species, 59 mussels and 56 crayfish. Among 48 species of native fish found only in North Carolina are the Cape Fear shiner and the Waccamaw silverside, killifish and darter. New species may yet be discovered as this is the least studied ecoregion – “a veritable black hole of life history knowledge for fishes.”4 The World Wildlife Fund considers the natural habitats in this ecoregion among the most critically endangered in North Carolina. At least 47 species of fish and mussels are at risk of extinction. Major threats include urban development, channelization, agricultural runoff and other nonpoint pollution and introduction of non- native species.

As they have done with freshwater habitats, biologists have also divided North Carolina’s land-based or terrestrial habitats into “ecoregions” that they can compare with ecoregions in other parts of the world. Our terrestrial habitats are also some of the most biologically diverse places on earth. We have 79 amphibians, more than any other state in the nation. Salamander species are particularly diverse in the Appalachian Mountains, and frogs and toads in the coastal plain. We rank sixth in the number of freshwater fishes; and eighth in the number of birds. We have a greater diversity of mammals than any state east of Texas.5

1 Abell, Robin A. et al. 2000. Freshwater Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press. And Ricketts, Taylor H. et al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press. 2 Abell, Robin A. et al. 2000. Freshwater Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press. p. 212. “The Appalachian region is one of the oldest and least-disturbed landscapes on earth, having undergone slow erosion as a once-mighty range as high as the Himalayas. When ancient super-continents broke up around 200 million years ago, this vast mountain system broke into pieces and remnants drifted to present-day Greenland, Ireland, Great Britain, Norway, and North America. This last portion, by far the largest, today stretches from northern Alabama to Newfoundland. The native plants and wildlife in the northern Appalachians were covered by glaciers only ten to fifteen thousand years ago, so the ecosystems there are young in geologic terms. In contrast, the southern Appalachians have had a relatively stable landscape for 375 million years. In addition, species diversity has been encouraged by the area’s geology: when the mountains were formed, the rock was folded in such a way that long, nearly continuous ridges and valleys were created. Because it is difficult to move from one valley to another, individuals of the same species were isolated from one another and more likely to evolve into new species specific to the valley in which they lived. The result is that the southern Appalachian Mountains exhibit extraordinary levels of biodiversity, probably the highest in the temperate world.” 3 IIbid. p. 224. 4 Ibid. p. 225. 5 Stein, Bruce A. 2002. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity. NatureServe. www.natureserve.org. Tables F,G,I and J.

D1 Appendix D

Two of our three terrestrial ecoregions, the Southern Blue Ridge and the Piedmont ecoregions, are the only “Temperate Broadleaf Mixed Forest Eoregions” in North America to be listed as globally outstanding.6 (Map 6) This ranking means that they are exceptional among all such forests in the world because of their diversity and rarity of species.7

In addition to being “globally outstanding,” the Southern Blue Ridge ecoregion is considered one of six biological “hot spots” in the United States.8 This distinct area forms a center of richness and rarity because of the number of plants and animals that live here. Ecologists describe the history and unique nature of the Appalachians in this way:

Individual watersheds and peaks in the Appalachian chain, isolated by millions of years and boasting benign environmental conditions, provided a perfect setting for the evolution of unique species of plants, invertebrates, salamanders, crayfishes, freshwater mussels and fishes.

Southern Appalachian forests represent the last American stronghold of a forest type once widespread in the Northern Hemisphere. Strangely, the only other relict of these ancient forests to have escaped the ravages of time and climate change is thousands of miles away, in eastern China.9

Surprising to some, the ecoregion of North Carolina’s Piedmont is also considered globally outstanding because its natural diversity is enhanced by species from the equally diverse Appalachians to the west and the longleaf pine forests to the south. This ecoregion also boasts 3,635 native herbaceous and shrub species, the highest number in North America.10

Ecologists consider North Carolina’s third terrestrial ecoregion, the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, “regionally outstanding,” which means that its species diversity and rarity are outstanding when compared to the other 30 ecoregions of its type within North America (Map 6). Among its outstanding features, our coastal region contains the most diverse assemblage of freshwater wetlands in North America. River swamp forests with towering bald cypress and gum trees, pocosins11 and Carolina bays12 are some of the most fascinating and beautiful features of this area. As North Carolinians have experienced many times, these habitats are dynamic, with frequent hurricanes and floods in the bottomlands, coastal plains and maritime habitats, and fire historically prevalent in the drier areas. This interaction of moisture and fire creates tremendous species diversity.13

6 Ricketts, Taylor H. et al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America. Island Press. For the general reader of Saving the Goodliest Land, we have simplified the ecoregion names used in Ricketts et al. Appalachian/Blue Ridge Forests Ecoregion (Key #16) is here called Southern Blue Ridge ecoregion and the Southeastern Mixed Forests Ecoregion (Key #22) is here called Piedmont ecoregion. 7 Ibid. p. 33. 8 Stein, Bruce A. et al. 2000. Precious Heritage:The Status of Biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press. p. 190-191. 9 Ibid, p. 190-191 10 Ricketts, Taylor H. et al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America. Island Press. p. 263-267. In Ricketts et al., this ecoregion is called Middle Atlantic Coastal Forests (Key #50). 11 Pocosins, from an ancient Algonquin term for “swamp on a hill,” are extensive, flat, damp, sandy or peaty areas far from streams with a scattered growth of pond pine and a dense growth of mostly evergreen shrubs, that taken together, resemble a heath scrub community. Ricketts, Taylor H. et al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America. Island Press. p. 264. 12 Carolina bays are ovate-shaped, shallow depressions that occur abundantly across a broad band of the coastal plan from southern North Carolina to the South Carolina-Georgia border. They represent a bog or bog-lake complex unique to the southeastern coastal plain and are thought to have been formed by a meteor or comet impact. Ricketts, Taylor H. et al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America. Island Press. p. 264. 13 Ibid. p. 33.

D2 Appendix D

Despite the global significance of our natural environment, we have so dramatically altered North Carolina’s ecosystems that large areas no longer maintain their original ecological processes.14 The NC Natural Heritage Program estimates that 18% of North Carolina’s known native species are endangered, threatened or of special concern because of rarity.15 These changes have happened gradually over hundreds of years, so most of us do not realize how impoverished our natural world is compared to what it used to be. If we do not act quickly to save these extraordinary ecosystems and the species that live there, future generations will have no opportunity to regain what we have lost.

North Carolina’s Piedmont ecoregion is considered critically endangered because only 1% of its natural areas remain intact. Unless immediate action is taken now to preserve and restore substantial areas, ecologists believe there is only a low probability that the Piedmont can maintain its extraordinary diversity. The other two ecoregions are somewhat more healthy, but only 17% of habitat in the Southern Blue Ridge and 12% in the Coastal Plain are estimated to remain intact. Once again, ecologists recommend swift action to preserve and restore substantial areas of habitat.16

Key Recommendation: To save our extraordinary ecosystems and the native plants and wildlife that depend on them, ecologists recommend protecting and restoring large blocks of unfragmented natural habitat.

When a forest is cleared of trees, we expect that, in time, a new forest will grow in its place. We imagine that the wildlife and birds move on to nearby forests. In reality, many of the birds and wildlife that lived in that particular patch of forest will die because adjacent habitat that suits each species is usually already populated with other individuals.17 Some of the plants may not grow back because of soil disturbance or because the parent population is no longer there to provide a seed source.

Native plants and wildlife that live in wild areas adjacent to the clearing may be impacted too. Cowbirds, for example, will colonize cleared areas because they need open fields to feed in. They fly into adjacent forests, however, to lay their eggs in the nests of other species, such as scarlet tanagers and hooded warblers. Those other birds cannot distinguish their babies from the cowbird chick, and they struggle to feed it at the expense of their own offspring.18 Gradually the forest species die out because their chicks are not growing to adulthood.

When a particular species is widespread and able to adapt to some changes in its habitat, timber harvesting or development is unlikely to threaten its existence unless the changes are very rapid and large in scale. However, some species are naturally rare or have very specific habitat requirements, and these species can be led to extinction relatively easily. For that reason, it is important to know more about which species and ecosystems are rare now and which are particularly vulnerable.

So what can North Carolina do to protect its extraordinary natural environments and the species that call them home? Ecologists recommend protecting large blocks of unfragmented natural habitats in each ecoregion with corridors of natural habitat between them so that species which seek to avoid both people and invasive species such as cowbirds can easily move from one habitat to another.

14 Ricketts, Taylor H. et al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America. Island Press. 15 Stein, Bruce A. 2002. States of the Union: Ranking America’s Biodiversity. NatureServe. www.natureserve.org. p. 13. Species at risk include species on the federal list as endangered, threatened or candidates for listing or on the state list as endangered, threatened or special concern. For a more complete listing of species see NC Natural Heritage Program. 2004. List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina and NC Natural Heritage Program. 2004. List of Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. http://www.nchp.org/Pages/publications.html. 16 Ricketts, Taylor H. et. al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America. Island Press. 17 Wiley, Haven et al. 1999. Rating Land in Orange County by Its Wildlife Value. A Landscape with Wildlife: Part 2. Triangle Land Conservancy. Raleigh, NC. p. 7. 18 Ludington, Livy et al. 1997. A Landscape with Wildlife for Orange County. Triangle Land Conservancy. Raleigh, NC. p. 5.

D3 Appendix D

Ecologists propose that core preserves be as large as possible because bigger reserves contain more species and genetic variation and allow more freedom for natural disturbances such as fire, floods and predators that are essential for healthy ecosystems.19 Protecting large core preserves without houses or roads allows natural disturbances to run their course without fear for public safety and property loss.

In addition to creating a system of core preserves, it is important to act now to protect areas where rare species still live and where natural habitat is most intact, even if these are not large areas at this time. As the system of core preserves and corridors grows larger, rare species protected on the smaller sites may be able to repopulate the core preserves as habitat there is restored.

Fortunately, North Carolina has been documenting the location of habitats of rare and endangered species and the most intact natural areas for many years, and we can target these areas for ecosystem preservation and interconnecting corridors.

To date, the NC Natural Heritage Program has published inventories of the most important natural areas in 68 of North Carolina’s 100 counties, and most of the other counties have been studied to some degree through inventories of regional ecosystems such as the Albemarle Pamlico Estuarine system. Although the science involved in understanding complex ecosystems is evolving, the inventories provide a strong scientific basis for decisions about locations and size of areas and corridors needed to save imperiled species and allow ecosystems to function properly.

To date, the Natural Heritage Program has documented 1,500 individual sites of national, state and regional significance.20 Four hundred of these, totaling 1.57 million acres, have been protected, but 1,100 more, totaling one million acres, are as yet unprotected.21

State and local governments and nonprofit conservancies use the inventories to prioritize areas for protection, and state, federal and some local governments require that the Natural Heritage Program be consulted before development projects are undertaken.

Examples of how the inventories are used include: • The NC Division of Parks and Recreation’s plan for new state parks used the inventories to identify natural communities not now represented in the park system and to select sites for new state parks that represent those communities.22 • The NC Wildlife Resource Commission has developed a new Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy which uses the natural heritage data to identify habitat for important wildlife species.23 • The Piedmont Triad Council of Governments used the inventory data as it developed a regional open space plan with its twelve member counties.24 • The NC Natural Heritage Trust Fund and the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund prioritize grants to projects that protect natural heritage inventory sites.

19 McNaught, David and T. Edward Nickens. 2003. Horizon 2100: Aggressive Conservation for North Carolina’s Future. Environmental Defense, Raleigh, NC. p. 14-15. This report can also be accessed at http://www.environmentaldefense.org/go/nchorizon. The report was written under the guidance of a panel of conservation scientists including the directors of the NC Museum of Natural Sciences, the NC Zoological Park, and the NC Botanical Garden; five distinguished professors of biology, landscape ecology and environmental science; a community ecologist with the NC Natural Heritage Program; and a senior scientist at Environmental Defense. 20 NC Natural Heritage Program. www.ncnhp.org. 21 Data computed by NC Natural Heritage Program. E-mail correspondence from Scott Pohlman on June 30, 2004. 22 NC Division of Parks and Recreation. New Parks for a New Century. http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/explor/plan.html 23 NC Wildlife Commission. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. http://216.27.49.98/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7c1.htm 24 Kron, Paul et al. 2003. Piedmont Triad Regional Open Space Strategy. Piedmont Triad Council of Governments. www.ptgog.org.

D4 Appendix D

• Nonprofit land conservancies use the natural heritage data to identify priority sites for conservation. Examples are found in the 49 conservation plans prepared by local and regional land trusts to identify priority areas for protection along rivers and streams in North Carolina.25

A panel of some of North Carolina’s most distinguished scientists recommend that approximately 30% (10 million acres) of North Carolina’s landscape be managed as natural area preserves and corridors if we hope to protect North Carolina’s natural environment and the diverse species with which we share this beautiful state.26

Although at first glance 30% sounds like a very large amount of land to preserve in a natural state, some of the biggest cities in the United States have set aside close to 20% of the land within city boundaries as parkland. For example, 19.8% of San Francisco is parkland; 19.3% of Washington DC; 18.9% of New York; and 17.6% of Boston.27 If these dense cities can preserve that amount of land for their citizens and environment, North Carolina, with its great diversity of urban and rural areas, should be able to protect 30% as natural areas. Currently, approximately 3.04 million acres (10%) of North Carolina is permanently protected land,28 so North Carolina already has a base to build on, including the core preserves in each ecoregion identified in Table D1.

25 The “riparian corridor conservation plans” were funded through a grant from the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund to Conservation Trust for North Carolina. For more information, see www.ctnc.org. 26 McNaught, David and T. Edward Nickens. 2003. Horizon 2100: Aggressive conservation for North Carolina’s future. Environmental Defense. 27 Harnik, Peter. 20003. The Excellent Park City Park System: What Makes It Great and How to Get There. The Trust for Public Land. P. 38. www.tpl.org 28 NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. NC Million Acre Initiative Annual Report. As of December 31, 1998, NC DENR estimated that 2.76 million acres in North Carolina were permanently protected. The most recent million acres annual report documents that an additional 280,342 had been protected as of December 31, 2003.

D5 Appendix D

Table D1: Biological Distinctiveness and Conservation Status of North Carolina’s Ecoregions29 Biological % of Intact Conservation Threats and Causes Largest, most intact Ecoregion Distinct- Habitat30 Status31 of Degradation areas in NC iveness Conversion to agriculture/ Great Smoky Mountain 17%, most development, National Park, Pisgah remaining Southern particularly at lower National Forest, Blue intact Blue Ridge Global Vulnerable elevations; logging, Ridge escarpment habitat is (Terrestrial) acid rain; pests and and the Amphibolite, at higher diseases have killed Brushy and Nantahala elevations chestnut, spruce, mountains hemlock, dogwood

Impoundment, channelization, pollution, sedimentation particularly from Tennessee- logging steep slopes Cumberland Global N/A Endangered and agricultural (Freshwater) clearing of riparian vegetation, urbanization, introduction of invasive zebra mussels

Most altered ecosystem in NC; Uwharries, Sauratown repeatedly logged, Mountains, Brushy Piedmont now largely converted Mountains, South Global 1% Critical (Terrestrial) to agriculture/ urban Mountains – most of areas; suppression these in relatively poor of natural fires/ condition extinction of predators major problems Lake Waccamaw and River; Brunswick Co Pinelands; Bladen Conversion to Lakes State Forest; agriculture, fire Holly Shelter and suppression, Sandhills game lands; Coastal Plain Regional 12% Endangered urbanization, ditching Camp Lejeune and Fort (Terrestrial) and draining of Bragg; Croatan National wetlands, damming of Forest, Outer Banks; rivers Pamlimarle Peninsula; Roanoke, North and Northwest rivers; Great Dismal Swamp Urban development, channelization, agricultural runoff South Atlantic and other nonpoint Global N/A Critical (Freshwater) source pollution, impoundment, introductions of nonnative species 29 Ricketts, Taylor H. et al. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North Carolina. Island Press. 30 Ibid. p. 437. Intact habitat is defined as “relatively undisturbed areas characterized by the maintenance of most original ecological processes and by communities with most of their original native species till present.” 31 Ibid. p. 434-440. This ranking system includes five levels. From greatest to least threat, the levels are critical, endangered, vulnerable, relatively stable and relatively intact. Critical ecoregions are judged to have a low probability of persistence of remaining intact habitat unless immediate protection action is taken. Endangered are judged to have a medium to low probability of persistence. Vulnerable are judged to have a good probability of persistence of remaining intact habitat but also of loss of sensitive or exploited species.

D6 Appendix E

North Carolina Land Conservation Financing Study Executive Summary Over the past decade (1990 – 2000), North Carolina was among the fastest growing states in the country, with the sixth highest numeric population change. The state added 1.4 million new residents (21 percent) during that time period. The state’s population is expected to increase by 35 percent from 2000 to 2020 to nearly 11 million. The current rate of growth and housing development is consuming approximately 277 acres of open space a day, mostly in the state’s seven largest metropolitan areas.

In January 2000, the North Carolina General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in support of a mandate to preserve one million acres by December 31, 2009. The Million Acre Plan would increase the percentage of preserved land from 8.8 percent to 12 percent, however no additional money was attached to the plan beyond existing funding. Governor Mike Easley directed the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources to undertake a planning process for protecting the state’s land and water resources, called One North Carolina Naturally. A draft strategic plan was released in the spring of 2003.

To meet the land conservation objectives outlined in these plans, the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, estimates that approximately $1.85 billion is needed, or $256 million a year in new acquisition and management funds over the next seven years.1 Currently, the state funds land conservation through four separate conservation trust funds. According to EFC data, the trust funds spent approximately $50 million on conservation land acquisition in Fiscal Year 2002. While the current funding is significant, it is not sufficient to meet the state’s land conservation goals. Furthermore, the sources of these funds are not permanently dedicated and therefore could be diverted to other programs in tight economic times.

North Carolina also has a good policy framework in place to support land conservation. The state’s conservation tax credit program – one of the first established in the country – has become a model for many other states. North Carolina also participates in a wide array of federal land conservation programs, accessing significant funds and matching grants for land protection throughout the state. There are, however, a number of policy changes that could go a long way toward strengthening the state’s framework and bringing additional funds to the table. Specifically, TPL recommends:

� • In 2004 - Enabling certificates of participation. State legislators should consider authorizing the issuance of certificates of participation (COPs) for land conservation. COPs authority would enable the conservation trust funds to issue debt in order to acquire and protect additional lands in the near-term while it is available and less expensive than in the future. - Leverage State Revolving Loan Funds. By using a portion of its Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving loan funds (SRFs) as collateral for revenue bonds, the state could produce additional monies for low-interest loans for open space land acquisition.

� In 2004 - 2005

1 1North North Carolina Carolina State StateAgency Agency Conservation Conservation Funding Needs Funding Assessment, Needs Environmental Assessment, Finance Environmental Center at University Finance of North Center Carolina, at 4/16/2003. University of North Carolina, 4/16/2003.

E1 Trust for Public Land Appendix E-1 North Carolina Land Conservation Financing Study Executive Summary Over the past decade (1990 – 2000), North Carolina was among the fastest growing states in the country, with the sixth highest numeric population change. The state added 1.4 million new residents (21 percent) during that time period. The state’s population is expected to increase by 35 percent from 2000 to 2020 to nearly 11 million. The current rate of growth and housing development is consuming approximately 277 acres of open space a day, mostly in the state’s seven largest metropolitan areas.

In January 2000, the North Carolina General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in support of a mandate to preserve one million acres by December 31, 2009. The Million Acre Plan would increase the percentage of preserved land from 8.8 percent to 12 percent, however no additional money was attached to the plan beyond existing funding. Governor Mike Easley directed the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources to undertake a planning process for protecting the state’s land and water resources, called One North Carolina Naturally. A draft strategic plan was released in the spring of 2003.

To meet the land conservation objectives outlined in these plans, the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, estimates that approximately $1.85 billion is needed, or $256 million a year in new acquisition and management funds over the next seven years.1 Currently, the state funds land conservation through four separate conservation trust funds. According to EFC data, the trust funds spent approximately $50 million on conservation land acquisition in Fiscal Year 2002. While the current funding is significant, it is not sufficient to meet the state’s land conservation goals. Furthermore, the sources of these funds are not permanently dedicated and therefore could be diverted to other programs in tight economic times.

North Carolina also has a good policy framework in place to support land conservation. The state’s conservation tax credit program – one of the first established in the country – has become a model for many other states. North Carolina also participates in a wide array of federal land conservation programs, accessing significant funds and matching grants for land protection throughout the state. There are, however, a number of policy changes that could go a long way toward strengthening the state’s framework and bringing additional funds to the table. Specifically, TPL recommends:

� In 2004 - Enabling certificates of participation. State legislators should consider authorizing the Appendix E issuance of certificates of participation (COPs) for land conservation. COPs authority would enable the conservation trust funds to issue debt in order to acquire and protect additional lands in the near-term while it is available and less expensive than in the future. - Leverage State Revolving Loan Funds. By using a portion of its Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving loan funds (SRFs) as collateral for revenue bonds, the state could produce additional monies for low-interest loans for open space land acquisition.

� • In 2004 - 2005 - Strengthening local participation. North Carolina counties and municipalities should be 1 North Carolinastrong partnersState Agency for theConservation state, but Fundingthey are Needs currently Assessment, not committing Environmental local funds Finance for Center land at Universityconservation of North Carolina, to any 4/16/2003. great extent. The state should enact enabling legislation authorizing additional local funding sources and provide greater incentives.

- Model programs from several otherTrust statesfor Public including Land New Jersey, Florida and Massachusetts provide guidance for developing a framework that will create state incentives forAppendix local E-1 participation in land conservation funding. For example, in New Jersey a 1989 constitutional amendment allocates (for 30 years) $98 million in annual sales tax revenues to open space. The state also authorized counties and municipalities to raise local funds by establishing voter-approved open space trust funds supported by dedicated property taxes. State incentives, in the form of 50 percent matching grants, are provided to local governments that adopt an open space tax. As of November 2003, all 21 counties and more than 200 municipalities in New Jersey have a dedicated open space tax in place, generating more than $200 million in annual local funding.

- TPL presents a scenario whereby the 10 fastest-growing counties could generate between $200 and $300 million in local funds over ten years with a dedicated tax or issuance of general obligation bonds.

- Increasing the state’s funding commitment. Recent budget shortfalls and rising indebtedness present significant challenges to pursuing additional state funds for land conservation. However, the state does have some additional debt capacity, and there exist a few other potential revenue sources that should be explored further.

- Securing the state’s funding investment. Stable state funding fosters program development and long-term vision, and establishes the program as a reliable partner for federal and local conservation efforts. A portion of the state’s current investment in land conservation is secured by a dedicated revenue stream, but other funds are subject to annual appropriation. In order to defend land conservation programs against potential budget cuts, the state should consider dedicating revenue to this purpose through a constitutional amendment. Since 1992, seven states have adopted constitutional amendments to secure funding for parks and land conservation.

- Leveraging federal funds. North Carolina should intensify its efforts to obtain a range of federal conservation dollars, including funding from the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, Forest Legacy, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act..

April 2004

If you would like a copy of the full North Carolina Land Conservation Financing Study, visit the Land for Tomorrow website: www.landfortomorrow.org or contact Kate Dixon, Director, Land for Tomorrow, 4705 University Drive, Suite 290, Durham, NC 27707; 919-403-8558x1009; [email protected]

E2

Trust for Public Land Appendix E-2 Appendix F

Appendix F: Land and Facility Needs for Local Parks and Recreation Results of Survey Conducted by Land for Tomorrow in Spring/Summer 2004 Number of Surveys Recieved: 108/218

$ Need $ Need Add’l Land $ Need for Facilty for New - Strengthening local participation. North Carolina counties and municipalities should be Needed for Land Renovation Facilities Total $ strong partners for the state, but they are currently not committing local funds for land Department Name (acres) (million) (million) (million) Need conservation to any great extent. The state should enact enabling legislation authorizing Alamance County Parks and Recreation 300 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 additional local funding sources and provide greater incentives. Apex Parks and Recreation 125 5.0 1.0 10.0 16.0 - Model programs from several other states including New Jersey, Florida and Massachusetts Asheboro Parks and Recreation 300 1.5 2.0 8.0 11.5 provide guidance for developing a framework that will create state incentives for local Asheville Parks and Recreation 600 12.0 30.0 30.0 72.0 participation in land conservation funding. For example, in New Jersey a 1989 constitutional Ayden Parks and Recreation 10 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 amendment allocates (for 30 years) $98 million in annual sales tax revenues to open space. The state also authorized counties and municipalities to raise local funds by establishing Beltmont Parks and Recreation 40 0.9 0.5 1.5 2.9 voter-approved open space trust funds supported by dedicated property taxes. State Bertie County 100 0.3 2.0 4.0 6.3 incentives, in the form of 50 percent matching grants, are provided to local governments Brunswick County Parks and Recreation 1,000 3.0 6.0 7.0 16.0 that adopt an open space tax. As of November 2003, all 21 counties and more than 200 Buncombe County Parks and Recreation N/A 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.8 municipalities in New Jersey have a dedicated open space tax in place, generating more than Burke County Parks and Recreation 600 3.0 25.0 30.0 58.0 $200 million in annual local funding. Burlington Parks and Recreation 150 5.5 2.0 3.0 10.5 - TPL presents a scenario whereby the 10 fastest-growing counties could generate between Cabarrus County Parks and Recreation 1,580 12.1 N/A 106.1 118.1 $200 and $300 million in local funds over ten years with a dedicated tax or issuance of Carteret County Parks and Recreation 100 1.0 1.0 0.6 2.5 general obligation bonds. Carolina Beach 15 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 - Increasing the state’s funding commitment. Recent budget shortfalls and rising Cary Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources 700 22.5 13.0 185.0 220.5 indebtedness present significant challenges to pursuing additional state funds for land Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation 520 12.0 7.2 14.3 33.5 conservation. However, the state does have some additional debt capacity, and there exist a Chatham County Recreation 562 2.8 0.1 9.0 11.9 few other potential revenue sources that should be explored further. Clayton Parks and Recreation 40 0.6 1.5 6.0 8.1 Clinton Recreation and Parks N/A 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 - Securing the state’s funding investment. Stable state funding fosters program development and long-term vision, and establishes the program as a reliable partner for Cornelius Parks and Recreation 0 0.1 2.0 6.0 8.1 federal and local conservation efforts. A portion of the state’s current investment in land Craven County Recreation and Parks 50 0.1 0.1 3.0 3.2 conservation is secured by a dedicated revenue stream, but other funds are subject to annual Cumberland County Parks and Recreation 200 3.0 1.0 10.0 14.0 appropriation. In order to defend land conservation programs against potential budget cuts, Currituck County Parks and Recreation 35 1.1 0.5 7.0 8.6 the state should consider dedicating revenue to this purpose through a constitutional amendment. Since 1992, seven states have adopted constitutional amendments to secure Davidson County Parks and Recreation 125 0.1 0.3 7.0 7.4 funding for parks and land conservation. Davidson Parks and Recreation 75 1.1 0.1 15.0 16.2 Duplin County Parks and Recreation 300 0.6 5.0 10.0 15.6 - Leveraging federal funds. North Carolina should intensify its efforts to obtain a range of Durham County Parks and Recreation 775 10.0 10.0 70.0 90.0 federal conservation dollars, including funding from the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, Forest Legacy, Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the North American Edenton-Chowan Recreation 100 0.3 2.0 3.0 5.3 Wetlands Conservation Act.. Edward Armfield Civic & Recreation Center N/A 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 Elizabeth City Parks and Recreation 200 0.5 0.5 5.0 6.0 Elkin Parks and Recreation 30 0.1 0.5 0.5 1.1 April 2004 Emerald Isle Parks and Recreation 20 0.0 0.8 0.8 1.5 Erwin Parks and Recreation N/A 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.0 If you would like a copy of the full North Carolina Land Conservation Financing Study, visit the Land for Farmville Recreation and Parks 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Tomorrow website: www.landfortomorrow.org or contact Kate Dixon, Director, Land for Tomorrow, 4705 University Drive, Suite 290, Durham, NC 27707; 919-403-8558x1009; Fayetteville 300 3.0 1.0 15.0 19.0 [email protected] Franklin County Parks and Recreation 5,555 55.6 N/A 21.0 76.6

F1

Trust for Public Land Appendix E-2 Appendix F

$ Need $ Need Add’l Land $ Need for Facilty for New Needed for Land Renovation Facilities Total $ Department Name (acres) (million) (million) (million) Need Fletcher Parks and Recreation 0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 Garner Parks and Recreation 0 0.0 2.5 7.5 10.0 Gastonia Parks and Recreation 200 3.0 10.0 10.0 23.0 Gates County Community Center 10 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Gibsonville Parks and Recreation 25 0.3 0.1 2.0 2.4 Goldsboro Recreation and Parks 75 0.2 0.6 5.0 5.8 Graham Parks and Recreation 100 0.3 0.5 4.0 4.8 Granite Falls Recreation 20 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 Greensboro Parks and Recreation 570 20.0 22.0 55.5 97.5 Greenville Recreation and Parks 100 2.0 3.5 10.0 15.5 Havelock Parks and Recreation 20 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.8 Haw River Parks and Recreation 35 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 Henderson County Parks and Recreation 50 0.2 2.0 0.8 3.0 Henderson Vance Park and Recreation 50 0.1 1.0 1.0 2.1 Hickory Parks and Recreation 100 1.5 1.5 1.0 4.0 Highlands Park and Recreation 35 0.7 0.1 0.6 1.4 Holly Springs Park and Recreation 100 3.0 0.3 8.0 11.3 Hope Mills Park and Recreation 20 0.3 0.1 1.6 2.0 Huntersville Parks and Recreation 350 6.5 3.0 8.0 17.5 Iredell County Parks and Recreation 300 0.0 N/A N/A 0.0 Jacksonville Parks and Recreation 125 0.8 0.7 5.0 6.5 Kannapolis Park and Recreation 500 15.0 3.0 12.0 30.0 Kernersville Parks and Recreation 350 10.5 2.0 21.0 33.5 Kinston/Lenoir Parks and Recreation 600 0.3 2.5 2.0 4.8 Knightdale Parks and Recreation 140 2.5 1.5 11.0 15.0 Lee County Parks and Recreation 50 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.5 Lexington Parks and Recreation 0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 Lincolnton/Lincoln Co. Parks and Recreation 200 2.0 0.5 3.0 5.5 Louisburg Parks and Recreation 0 0.0 0.1 1.5 1.6 Lumberton Recreation 100 1.0 10.0 10.0 21.0 Madison-Mayodan Recreation 50 1.5 0.3 3.5 5.3 Mecklenburg Co. Parks and Recreation 6,000 130.0 89.1 345.9 565.0 Monroe Parks and Recreation 32 0.8 0.9 8.2 9.9 Morehead City Parks and Recreation 50 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.8 Morganton Recreation 400 2.4 4.2 12.0 18.6 New Bern Parks and Rec 150 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.0 New Hanover County Parks 200 6.0 3.0 12.0 21.0 Newton Parks and Recreation 10 0.1 0.5 1.6 2.2 North Wilkesboro N/A 0.0 0.5 4.0 4.5

F2 Appendix F

$ Need $ Need Add’l Land $ Need for Facilty for New Needed for Land Renovation Facilities Total $ Department Name (acres) (million) (million) (million) Need Oak Island Parks and Recreation N/A 0.0 N/A 2.0 2.0 Onslow County Parks and Recreation 500 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 Orange County Recreation and Parks 300 4.5 2.8 36.2 43.5 Person County Parks and Recreation 50 0.1 0.1 4.0 4.2 Pinehurst Parks and Recreation 20 0.0 0.2 2.0 2.2 Pitt County Community Schools and Recreation 403 0.0 N/A 8.0 8.0 Roanoke Rapids Parks and Recreation 60 0.6 2.0 4.0 6.6 Rocky Mount Parks and Recreation 436 4.0 7.8 40.0 51.8 Rolesville 100 1.0 0.1 0.5 1.6 Rowan County Parks and Recreation 200 1.2 0.2 0.7 2.1 Salisbury Parks and Recreation 52 0.0 9.2 1.4 10.7 SampsonSampson CountyCounty ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation N/A 0.0 N/A N/A 0.0 ScotlandScotland CountyCounty ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation 350 1.7 0.5 7.0 9.2 SelmaSelma ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation 30 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.1 ShelbyShelby ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation .. 100 0.5 1.3 5.0 6.8 SmithfieldSmithfield ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation 20 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.8 SouthernSouthern PinesPines RecreationRecreation andand ParksParks 60 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.6 StatesvilleStatesville RecreationRecreation andand ParksParks 50 2.0 1.2 7.6 10.8 StokesStokes CountyCounty 300 1.3 1.5 5.0 7.8 SwainSwain CountyCounty RecreationRecreation 49 0.5 0.1 1.0 1.6 TarboroTarboro ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation 0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 ThomasvilleThomasville ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation N/A 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.5 TownTown ofof MatthewsMatthews ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation 200 12.0 3.5 4.5 20.0 UnionUnion CountyCounty ParkPark andand RecreationRecreation 650 8.0 1.1 38.4 47.5 WakeWake CountyCounty ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation 6,000 130.0 2.0 60.0 192.0 WakeWake ForestForest ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation 0 0.0 2.0 1.5 3.5 WashingtonWashington ParksParks andand RecreationRecreation 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Waynesville Parks and Recreation 20 3.0 0.5 1.0 4.5 Wendell Parks and Recreation 50 0.8 0.1 0.3 1.1 Williamston Parks and Recreation N/A 0.0 0.1 3.7 3.8 Wilson Parks and Recreation 1,000 5.0 2.5 10.0 17.5 Winston-Salem Recreation and Parks 1,574 15.0 10.0 24.0 49.0 Zebulon Parks and Recreation 125 0.9 1.0 6.0 7.9

Total 38,325 563.2 $344 $1,458 $2,365

F3 Appendix G

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Statewide Poll of North Carolina Farmland Owners

Prepared By The Kitchens Group for Land for Tomorrow Coalition

November 2003

G1 Appendix G

Methodology

The Nature Conservancy, on behalf of the North Carolina Land for Tomorrow Coalition, commissioned a public opinion survey of four hundred farmland owners in statewide North Carolina. These farm owners were interviewed in a random sample on November 19-22, 2003. Respondents were screened for owning farm land in North Carolina. The sample was balanced according to all known demographic factors. All interviews were conducted by telephone. The margin of error for this survey is +/-4.9%, with a 95% confidence level. The poll was conducted by The Kitchens Group of Maitland, Florida.

Conclusions

� Farm owner profile. A majority of those we polled farm between 40 and 250 acres. Eighty-one percent live on the land that they farm. Sixty-one percent receive half or less of their income from farming. Eighty-four percent were 50 or older, and the sample was evenly split between men and women. � Thirty-seven percent of farm owners rent their land to someone else to farm. Fifty- three percent lease out at least some of their land to someone else. � Farm owners express serious doubts about the future of farming in the state. Nearly half (48%) say their children will not farm the land they own in the future. Seventy-one percent expressed the opinion that no one is buying land for farming, and 56% say the only people who will buy the land are developers. � Conservation techniques are generally acceptable. Seventy-five percent support buffer zones along rivers and streams, and 61% support programs to restore wetlands. � Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs are little known but viewed positively when explained to farmland owners. Only 39% were familiar with the state’s Farmland Preservation Trust Fund and only 24% with the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. However, when given a brief explanation of PDR, 64% thought that it sounded like a good idea. � Farmers are open to a range of land protection options. Of those whose counties had Voluntary Agricultural District programs, 49% were enrolled in this 10-year protection agreement. Fifty-four percent would be willing to restrict development longer for additional benefits. Sixty-five percent think that business planning assistance and grants in exchange for short-term land protection would be helpful for North Carolina agriculture.

G2 Appendix H

Methodology

The Nature Conservancy, on behalf of the North Carolina Land for Tomorrow Coalition, commissioned a public opinion survey of four hundred farmland owners in statewide North Carolina. These farm owners were interviewed in a random sample on November 19-22, 2003. Respondents were screened for owning farm land in North Carolina. The sample was balanced according to all known demographic factors. All interviews were conducted by telephone. The margin of error for this survey is +/-4.9%, with a 95% confidence level. The poll was conducted by The Kitchens Group of Maitland, Florida. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conclusions Statewide North Carolina Public Poll

� Farm owner profile. A majority of those we polled farm between 40 and 250 acres. Prepared Eighty-one percent live on the land that they farm. Sixty-one percent receive half or less of by their income from farming. Eighty-four percent were 50 or older, and the sample was evenly The Kitchens Group split between men and women. for � Thirty-seven percent of farm owners rent their land to someone else to farm. Fifty- Land for Tomorrow Coalition three percent lease out at least some of their land to someone else. � Farm owners express serious doubts about the future of farming in the state. Nearly March 2004 half (48%) say their children will not farm the land they own in the future. Seventy-one percent expressed the opinion that no one is buying land for farming, and 56% say the only people who will buy the land are developers. � Conservation techniques are generally acceptable. Seventy-five percent support buffer zones along rivers and streams, and 61% support programs to restore wetlands. � Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs are little known but viewed positively when explained to farmland owners. Only 39% were familiar with the state’s Farmland Preservation Trust Fund and only 24% with the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program. However, when given a brief explanation of PDR, 64% thought that it sounded like a good idea. � Farmers are open to a range of land protection options. Of those whose counties had Voluntary Agricultural District programs, 49% were enrolled in this 10-year protection agreement. Fifty-four percent would be willing to restrict development longer for additional benefits. Sixty-five percent think that business planning assistance and grants in exchange for short-term land protection would be helpful for North Carolina agriculture.

For more information, please contact Kate Dixon at (919) 403-8558

H1 Appendix H

Methodology

The Nature Conservancy, on behalf of the North Carolina Land for Tomorrow Coalition, commissioned a public opinion survey of seven hundred and eighty-seven likely voters in North Carolina. These voters were interviewed in a random sample conducted March 1-5, 2004. Respondents were screened for voter registration, and the sample was balanced according to all known demographic factors. All interviews were conducted by telephone. The margin of error for this survey is +/-3.5%, with a 95% confidence level. A 95% confidence level is acceptable in social science research. This refers to the fact that 95 times out of 100 these results will fall within this margin of error. The poll was conducted by The Kitchens Group of Maitland, Florida.

The Kitchens Group has conducted three statewide surveys in North Carolina between April 2000 and March 2004. A comparison of the demographics in each survey reveals the samples are comparable enough to track certain questions.

Most Important Issue Facing North Carolina

In each of the three polls since April 2000, respondents were first asked to name the issue they think is the most important for the Governor and Legislature to address. In 2000, the economy barely made the radar screens of these voters. Education dominated as the leading concern in April 2000 (29%). While education continues to be a concern (19%), it does not merit the same level of preoccupation as the economy (40%). No other single issue was mentioned by more than 7% of those polled.

Growth and Development Issues

Some of the most interesting findings, in the survey, focused upon growth and development. A significant shift in attitudes about growth has occurred within the last two and a half years. In June 2002, only 31% said they thought growth and development of land in their area of the state was occurring too rapidly and steps needed to be taken to discourage more growth. That number has increased to 43% in the current survey.

Environmental Concerns

More than 70% of respondents saw the following environmental issues as very or somewhat serious in North Carolina:

84% pollution of rivers and streams 75% loss of wildlife habitat 74% air pollution 73% loss of farmland

H2 Appendix H

Methodology Competing Needs

The Nature Conservancy, on behalf of the North Carolina Land for Tomorrow Coalition, Another significant finding in this survey is that 59% of North Carolina voters say, even though commissioned a public opinion survey of seven hundred and eighty-seven likely voters in North the state has a budget crisis and other competing needs like education and health care, open Carolina. These voters were interviewed in a random sample conducted March 1-5, 2004. space and farmland must be preserved before it is lost to development. Although voters see the Respondents were screened for voter registration, and the sample was balanced according to all economy and education as primary issues facing North Carolina, a strong majority say part of the known demographic factors. All interviews were conducted by telephone. The margin of error budget should be allocated for the preservation of open space. for this survey is +/-3.5%, with a 95% confidence level. A 95% confidence level is acceptable in social science research. This refers to the fact that 95 times out of 100 these results will fall Popular Features of a Land Protection Program within this margin of error. The poll was conducted by The Kitchens Group of Maitland, Florida. More than 60% said the following features of a state level land protection program would make them more likely to support the program: The Kitchens Group has conducted three statewide surveys in North Carolina between April 2000 and March 2004. A comparison of the demographics in each survey reveals the samples 86% protection of rivers like the Catawba, French Broad and Neuse are comparable enough to track certain questions. 82% protection of small family farms and farmland 80% protection of drinking water Most Important Issue Facing North Carolina 78% provision of matching funds to help local governments preserve land 78% preservation of historic sites like battlefields, historic homes and churches In each of the three polls since April 2000, respondents were first asked to name the issue they 77% preservation of forests think is the most important for the Governor and Legislature to address. In 2000, the economy 76% preservation of scenic views barely made the radar screens of these voters. Education dominated as the leading concern in 68% provision of more public access to beaches and coastal areas April 2000 (29%). While education continues to be a concern (19%), it does not merit the same 65% protection of habitat for animals like the black bear and red cockaded woodpecker level of preoccupation as the economy (40%). No other single issue was mentioned by more 63% creation of more local parks close to home than 7% of those polled. 61% preservation of areas that would be open to the public for hunting and fishing 57% provision of more hiking and biking trails and areas for canoeing and kayaking Growth and Development Issues Sources of Funding Some of the most interesting findings, in the survey, focused upon growth and development. A significant shift in attitudes about growth has occurred within the last two and a half years. In Respondents were asked about a variety of ways of paying for an open space protection program. June 2002, only 31% said they thought growth and development of land in their area of the state One proposal is to issue bonds. Almost 65% said they would be more likely to support bonds if was occurring too rapidly and steps needed to be taken to discourage more growth. That number the bonds cost the average family only $27 per year or less than $3 per month. has increased to 43% in the current survey. Public Education Campaign Environmental Concerns The data from this survey points to the necessity of conducting a campaign to inform voters More than 70% of respondents saw the following environmental issues as very or somewhat about key conservation issues. The poll indicates how strongly they respond to specifics about serious in North Carolina: issues, such as the disappearance of 2.5 million acres of wetlands, the loss of coastal wetlands, farmland, and forest areas, and the expected increase in population. The statistics, coupled with 84% pollution of rivers and streams information about what types of land a conservation program would protect, are very compelling 75% loss of wildlife habitat information to voters. 74% air pollution 73% loss of farmland

H3 Appendix I ����� ������ ������ �������������� �������������������� �������������������� �������������������� ��������������������� ��������������������� ��������������������� ��������������������� ��������������������� ��������������������� �� ��������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ��������� ��������� �������� ���������� ��������� ��� � ��������� ���������� ���������� ���������� ���������� ���������� ���������� � ����������� ����������� ����������� ������ � � � � � � � � �

1 ppendix E-1 A ���������� ���������� ���������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� ������������� ������������� � � � � � � � � � � �� �� �� �� �� �� ������ ��� ������� ������������� � ���������� �� �� �� �� �� ��� ��� ������� �������������� . Byusing a portionof its CleanWater and to12 percent, howeverno additional moneywas ���������������������������� .State legislators shouldconsider authorizing the � �������������������� �� �� �� �� �� �� � ��� ����� ����������� ������� � Trust for PublicTrust Land ������ �� �� �� �� �� ��� ��� ����������������������������������������� ������� ��������������� ������������������������ ���������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������� ������������������������� � ������������������������������� �� �� �� ��� � ��� ��� ��� ���������������������� �

� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 �� ��������� � ������������������������ ������������������������������������������������ ���������� ���������������������� ��������������������� ������� ������������������ ������� ������������������ �������

4

6

5

3 10

Enabling certificates participation of Leverage State RevolvingLoan Funds

8 2

DrinkingWater staterevolving loan funds (SRFs) ascollateral for revenue bonds, the state couldproduce additional monies for low-interest loans for open spaceland acquisition. In In 2004 - 2005 In In 2004 - issuanceof certificates of participation(COPs) for landconservation. COPs authoritywould enablethe conservation trust funds to issuedebt in order to acquire and protect additional landsin the near-term whileit isavailable and less expensivethan in the future. -

7 9 1 ��� � North Carolina State Agency ConservationFunding Needs Assessment, Environmental FinanceCenter at ������� �������� � North Carolina Land Conservation Financing Study CarolinaStudy Financing Land North Conservation Executive Summary Overthe pastdecade (1990 – 2000),North Carolina was amongthe fastest growingstates in the country,with the sixth highestnumeric populationchange. The state added 1.4million newresidents (21percent) during that time period. The state’s population isexpected toincrease by 35 percent from 2000to 2020 to nearly11 million.The current rate ofgrowth and housing development is consuming approximately 277 acres ofopen space day, a mostlyin the state’sseven largest metropolitan areas. JanuaryIn 2000,the North Carolina General Assemblyvoted overwhelminglyin support of a mandateto preserve onemillion acres by December 31, 2009. TheMillion Acre Planwould increase the percentageof preserved landfrom 8.8percent attachedto the planbeyond existing funding. Governor MikeEasley directed the stateDepartment ofEnvironment and Natural Resources to undertake planning a processfor protectingthe state’s landand waterresources, called OneNorth Carolina Naturally. draft A strategicplan was released in the springof 2003. Tomeet theland conservationobjectives outlined in these plans, the Environmental Finance Center (EFC) atthe University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill,estimates that approximately $1.85billion is needed,or $256 million year a in new acquisitionand managementfunds over the next sevenyears. 1 Currently,the statefunds land conservationthrough four separate conservation trustfunds. Accordingto EFC data, thetrust funds spent approximately $50million on conservation land acquisition inFiscal Year 2002. Whilethe current funding is significant,it isnot sufficientto meet the state’s landconservation goals.Furthermore, the sources ofthese funds arenot permanently dedicated and therefore could divertedbe to other programsin tight economic times. NorthCarolina alsohas a good policy framework inplace to support landconservation. The state’s conservationtax credit program– one ofthe first established in the country– has become a model formany other states. North Carolina also participatesin a wide array offederal land conservation programs, accessing significantfunds and matching grants for landprotection throughout the state. There are,however, a number of policy changes thatcould go a long waytoward strengtheningthe state’sframework and bringing additional funds to the table.Specifically, TPL recommends: Universityof North Carolina, 4/16/2003. � �������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ������� �������� ���������� ������������� ������������ �������������� ������� ��� � �

I1