APB agenda 051601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 2 03 ITEM #4: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION a. Agricultural Priority Areas Stancil reminded the APB that in June of last year the BOCC asked them to reconsider criteria for evaluating farmland conservation easements. The APB developed a Farmland Ranking System, which they (APB) adopted in June 2000. Several of our neighboring counties, who have established agricultural preservation programs, have identified Agricultural Priority Areas —areas which tend to have best farmlands, areas that are actively farmed, or areas where attention should be focused. Orange County has yet to identify agricultural priority areas. Staff provided a map of the county showing the location of prime farmland and the protective watersheds. The County Commissioners have suggested that the APB focus agricultural preservation efforts in water supply watersheds areas, because preserving farms that are good stewards and use best management practices helps preserve water quality. ERCD staff are in the process of digitizing information from the Farm Service and Soil and Water Conservation District to determine the location of active farms. The map should reveal the position of individual fields based on crop categories. The determination of active farmland within water supply areas will help identify target acquisition or easement sites for Lands Legacy funds and other grant funds. The APB had a brainstorming session on active and economically successful farms and outlined those sites on the map. Kleese noted that it might be appropriate to rank areas facing high development pressure higher than land that is not under similar pressure. Stancil advised the group that the ranking system, that the board approved last June, attempts to balance the importance of highly productive soils versus active farmland threatened by immediate development. Moon distributed copies of the farmland ranking criteria to the APB for reference. Stancil suggested defining different priority areas based on different criteria, such as water supply watersheds, and having Upper Eno agricultural priority as a definable bio- region. Kleese noted that some farms might fall in two watersheds. Mandell suggested defining farm restrictions to encourage farms in priority areas to help protect the watersheds. Stancil noted that the criteria used so far have been focused on the Cane Creek, the Upper Eno and Back Creek watersheds. There is now a precedent with the Walters Conservation easement (Back Creek watershed) which is under negotiations. The Upper Eno and Cane Creek are two watersheds where there tends to be a lot of agricultural activity of different types. One approach might be to designate those watersheds as the priority agricultural areas and then make provisions for farms that split the boundary. Classifying them in the watershed where the larger acreage is located might be a way to go. Draft 3/21/2001