|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Laying a Foundation for Farmland Protection | ||
| Hank Stebbins and Seth McKee | |||
| Session: Monday, April 17, 2000, 8:45 a.m. | Author Info | ||
The following article was written as part of the Glynwood Center Agricultural Initiative. The purpose of the Initiative, which consists of a series of forums, is twofold - to help "average citizens" assess the full value of agriculture to their community and to develop a set of practical tools that communities can use to effectively support local farms and farmers. The project began in March 2000 and is expected to take approximately 18 months to complete. Each of the forums will be interdisciplinary in its makeup and international in scope. Participants will include professionals in agriculture, farmland preservation, science, ecology, economics and planning. Local farmers and elected officials will help provide an important "reality check" throughout the project. Initiative outcomes may include such products as workbooks, CD ROM's, community-based pilot projects and training programs.
INTRODUCTION
The loss of productive farmland in the Hudson River Valley of New York State is a problem of increasing concern to farmers, land conservationists, and state and local governments. In 1997, American Farmland Trust, a national farmland protection advocacy group, ranked the Hudson Valley as part of the 10 most threatened agricultural regions of the county. The report further identified Dutchess, Columbia and Orange Counties as particularly threatened "hot spots." Other research indicates that non-urban areas of Dutchess County saw proposals for construction of single-family detached homes jump 35% in 1998 above the steady growth rate of earlier in the decade. Orange County experienced a 66% jump in development activity in the same year.
Sprawl not only consumes cropland directly, but ultimately destroys the fabric of farming. Sprawl’s elimination of farmland also has detrimental effects on the environment. Construction of impervious surfaces increase runoff into waterways; more vehicular traffic degrades air quality; fragmented landscapes destroy wildlife habitat; and community character diminishes as economic activity is drawn away from traditional Main Streets.
In 1995, Scenic Hudson, Inc., a 36 year-old non-profit environmental organization, dedicated to protecting, restoring and enhancing the scenic, natural, historic and recreational resources of the Hudson River Valley, decided to evaluate the potential to
protect farmland in the Hudson Valley through the acquisition of conservation easements. This endeavor ultimately led to the successful protection of a critical mass of farmland in the Town of Red Hook
An agricultural conservation easement is an agreement between a landowner and a conservation organization whereby the land is restricted to agriculture and related uses, ensuring the farm will never be converted to nonfarm uses. The sale of an easement, i.e., the sale of the farm's development rights, enables a farmer to gain equity from the land and to create a "nest egg" for retirement without having to sell the farm. Alternatively, a farmer may choose to buy more land or to upgrade operations. Conservation easements also can reduce estate and gift taxes, thereby eliminating a major financial obstacle to transferring a farm from one generation to the next.
This paper describes the process that Scenic Hudson undertook in developing its farmland protection project. The focus is on the research and community outreach that was involved, as well as on the lessons we learned from this project's implementation.
BACKGROUND
In 1998, The Scenic Hudson Land Trust, Inc., an affiliate of Scenic Hudson, undertook its first major farmland protection project by purchasing conservation easements over seven farms encompassing 1,000 acres in the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York. This pilot project’s gestation took over two years, its goal being to assemble a critical mass of farmland-- an amount and configuration of farmland that, if protected, would contribute significantly to the retention and vitality of farming in that community. The acquisition of these easements and the preparatory analysis for the project were made possible with the generous assistance of the Lila Acheson and DeWitt Wallace Fund for the Hudson Highlands.
Reaching this goal began with a feasibility study on whether and how Scenic Hudson might help protect farmland in the Hudson River Valley, followed by the planning and implementation of the pilot project, building on what was learned in the feasibility study. There was no pre-existing template for the project, but, rather, Scenic Hudson created a step by step approach informed by: 1) linkages with key agriculturists at the county and local level to assist in collecting data about area farms to help us understand these farms and their communities; 2) data and observations drawn from local and county resource agencies; 3) dialogues with farmers in communities that appeared to have a strong agricultural orientation; and 4) the testing of elements of our action plan to gauge the support of area farmers.
The following is a brief case study on Scenic Hudson’s first farmland protection project, and how the idea of agricultural conservation easements gained acceptance in Red Hook.
THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
A feasibility study was conducted in November 1995 to assess the possibility of purchasing agricultural conservation easements in the Hudson River Valley. This effort was timely, as neighboring states had already established well funded and successful easement programs that were proving very effective in protecting farms from suburban sprawl. There was also compelling data that showed the economic and spatial importance of agriculture, even as it was threatened by sprawl. Most importantly, we learned that farmers were interested in easements, as principally demonstrated in a series of "listening sessions" that were undertaken to gauge farmer receptivity. In particular, farmers from locations where blocks of productive land remained intact and farming a viable tradition spoke to the need for long term funding to ensure adequate land base protection. Here farmers communicated their opposition to the notion of "cherry picking", expressing concern that Scenic Hudson would select scenic landscapes of questionable agricultural value over landscapes of high agricultural vitality.
As noted above, we established key linkages early in the process, meeting and discussing easement initiatives with local farm leaders. These contacts, along with the local listening sessions, offered an immediate sounding board as to potential participant interest in conservation easements. The listening sessions were a series of meetings held throughout the Hudson Valley and promoted through local agricultural networks -- principally, Cooperative Extension offices in the five counties that comprised the study area. Because of the well-known use and success of easements elsewhere, farmland protection was usually understood by the farmers we met with to mean conservation easements, rather than purchase in fee. Thus, the dialogue became quickly focused on the nature of the easements, what terms might be included in an agricultural easement agreement, and the likely make up of a project area.
In conducting the feasibility study, we learned that a key factor to farmer receptivity would be our ability to offer a significant alternative to the sale of the farm for development. Full understanding of what conservation easements entailed or of Scenic Hudson’s track record, was less important. The fact that a farmer could gain equity from the land without selling the farm, keeping the farm in the family while being able to invest sale proceeds back into the farm or elsewhere, was a very attractive option. Many farmers were skeptical about the idea of giving up options for the use or sale of their land, but most were very much intrigued by the idea of selling their development rights, or as one described it: selling the commodity and keeping the farm.
Given farmer receptivity, the record of success of "purchase of development rights" or "PDR" programs in states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Vermont, and the clear economic and environmental importance of working landscapes to the Hudson Valley, the feasibility study concluded that the region was ripe for a conservation easement program.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The pilot project began with the selection of potential project areas. Already, through information gleaned from local agricultural experts, five potential project areas had been identified during the development of the feasibility study, based on density and viability of farms in locations favorable to farming yet vulnerable to development pressures.
The next step was to create criteria to further winnow the possible project locations. These criteria were developed by identifying the salient attributes of successful farm communities, since the ultimate goal of the project was the creation of a land base of sufficient size and positive context to ensure a favorable environment for farming. The goal was based on a bedrock principle of New York’s Agricultural Districts Law--to protect farmland we need to protect farming as a land use and economic activity.
The criteria were applied to the five locations, resulting in our selection two potential project areas, one in Red Hook, and the other the other in town of Stuyvesant, Columbia County. The key characteristics that applied to both locations were that they each included: 1) approximately 1,000 relatively contiguous farm acres (state agricultural districts require a minimum of 500 acres); 2) an assemblage of farms, that if protected, would foster a degree of invulnerability to the threat of non-farm development; 3) favorable topography, soils, and dependable water sources; 4) relatively stable land use patterns as yet not compromised by suburbanization; 5) a community supportive of farmland protection measures, including the existence of an agricultural district; 6) good farm management and resource stewardship; and, most fundamentally, 7) farmer receptivity.
What most clearly distinguished Red Hook and Stuyvesant, given that all five areas were generally comparable in terms of agricultural values, was greater farmer receptivity and community enthusiasm for protecting their farmland. Red Hook had an effective community advocacy group, Red Hook Views, which concurrent with Scenic Hudson’s activities initiated a well attended series of lectures by nationally recognized authorities on the importance of farmland protection. Informal discussions with local residents made it clear that there was concern over the fact that suburbanization was significantly encroaching on the small town charm and rural character of the area. Red Hook was also undergoing an agricultural awakening as a new farmer advocacy group, Red Hook Farmers and Friends, was created to develop ideas and suggestions to benefit the town’s commercial farms.
In Stuyvesant we found tremendous enthusiasm for our project on the part of the town supervisor and town board, who continued to be very supportive throughout the pilot project. Stuyvesant is also a model Greenway community, as designated by the Hudson River Valley Greenway Communities Council, an indication of its interest in protecting its open space resources. Also important was the fact that the town has a strong right-to-farm ordinance.
Assembling a critical mass
The next step was to assemble a critical mass of viable farms whose owners would sell their development rights. This involved determining which farms were most appropriate for the project, engaging in dialogue with prospective farmers, developing a generic conservation easement, estimating conservation easement values and communicating with members of each community concerning the project’s development.
Assembling the data
Both of our project areas held expansive farmland well beyond our definition of critical mass. To define possible boundaries of an assembled project farmland we needed to identify the quality and characteristics of agricultural resources, ownership configurations, and landowners interested in selling conservation easements. In gathering this information, we relied on some of the same sources of information used in the development of the feasibility study and the selection of potential project areas, largely government resource agencies, including the following:
Federal and State Sources of Information
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) & Soil and Water Conservation Districts operate at the county level and retain current soil surveys of the county (soil groups delineated on aerial photos). The soil surveys explain soil characteristics and provide a Land Capability Classification, a suitability rating for crop production (Class I soils being best, and Class VIII soils being poorest), with "prime farmland" (soils with fewest limitations for crop production) defined as Class I to III and provisionally Class IV.
In both counties we developed composite soil maps of project areas showing lands of high productivity, which correlated to those areas that had been scoped out during the feasibility study. The soil maps showed what portions of our project areas were classified as "prime farmlands" and "farmlands of statewide importance", and were used in conjunction with other graphic data to underscore the farming value of our project areas.
The USDA Farm Service Agency administers federal funding for commercial farming at the county level, and maintains aerial photos of county farmland. Such photos can be ordered through its auspices (at scales of 1:660 or 1:1000).
Similar to the soil maps, a series of aerial photos were spliced together to show the considerable extent of each town’s farmland. On each of the series, farm boundaries were depicted, based on tax maps, which provided a graphic depiction of farming neighborhoods and farm assemblages that could be protected. Like the soil maps, the photos were effectively used in presentations to farmers and community groups to advocate for the project.
The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets is a good information repository on existing farm protection programs, annual farm statistics, county trends and documentation of changes within different agricultural sectors. It also houses a great deal of expertise on an array of topics including production and marketing data. The Department also administers the State’s agricultural districts program.
We made extensive use of the Department’s data repository in the creation of the feasibility study, particularly information developed by the USDA Census of Agriculture. The Census of Agriculture is the definitive source on agriculture data and provides a county-by-county description of agricultural resources, including acres in farms, number of farms, extent of acres cropped, leading agricultural products, market value of products, and the like. Census data was essential to us in articulating the economic benefits of farming to the community.
County Sources of Information
Cooperative Extension, an outreach body administered through state agricultural colleges, is the educational purveyor of agricultural information and an indispensable resource that we used to gain an understanding of local agriculture, including land tenure, farm qualities, current agricultural district boundaries with parcel ownership, and land stewardship.
County and Town Planning Offices have area maps and information on local development patterns, community growth areas, public infrastructure, and the town comprehensive plan, all of which we used in developing our detailed informational picture.
County real property tax offices provided us with current information on land ownership and property assessments, including tax maps of parcel configuration and acreage.
Initial site visits were also important to confirm impressions gleaned from data and to otherwise complement the picture evolving from the gathered information. Conditions of buildings and equipment and the maintenance and appearance of the farmstead can reflect a farmer’s attitude towards farming. New or well-maintained structures and equipment within a well-kept farmstead are a good demonstration of a farmer’s capabilities and long term interest in agriculture. Farmers with such an interest were likely candidates for easements. The extent of non-farm development and indications of potential for new development, such as planned extension of municipal water lines, also helped us in determining where our project areas would be most effective: areas of relatively stable land use patterns as yet not compromised by suburban development.
Still, the essential element of project success was not an individual farm’s viability, but, rather, the existence of a cluster of viable farms. We had concluded on the basis of our early research that we needed at least 1,000 acres of relatively contiguous farm acreage to help assure permanence, and, therefore, success in protecting farmland over the long term. To bring together such a cluster of farmland required us to convene a cluster of willing farmers. To do this, we spent many hours and days talking with individual farmers and farm families. We also spent a good deal of time with other members of the communities, whose leadership helped garner support for the project and inspire confidence among farmers.
Communicating the picture
Dialogue with Area Farmers. Farmers are, of course, the key players in a farmland protection project, and it is essential to understand their perspective and needs. In suburbanizing areas, farmers can often become disillusioned and dispirited over right-to-farm issues, conflicting land uses, escalating land values, diminishing land base, poor market conditions and thus the future of farming in general. To gain farmer acceptance requires visits, kitchen meetings, and family discussions on the importance of farming, the importance of protecting the land base, and the importance of farmers to the community. Farmers need to hear the positive: the benefits of a protected critical mass that immediately assembles and ensures a stable and affordable land base for farming.
The information we had gathered was useful to inform non-farmer audiences and the media, but it also proved useful in communicating with farmers. They needed to see their farms in a greater context, their place within the whole agricultural community and the benefits they would derive as part of 1,000 acres of viable protected farmland.
The element of time is also important. Farm families need time to consider benefits gained and what is given up when conveying an easement over the land. Two years elapsed before we achieved a critical mass in Red Hook.
Dialogue with the Public. Working to secure a critical mass of farmland within a town also requires a constructive dialogue with local officials. As positive as a farmland protection initiative may appear, it is very important to gain the interest and endorsement of elected officials. Throughout the process we worked to maintain communication with the government leaders in both Red Hook and Stuyvesant, to build support and community awareness.
As most of us are several generations removed from farming, we tend to view agriculture as an interim land use, with little thought given to the fact that farming is a livelihood and a local enterprise.
Perhaps because of our culture and lack of sensitivity to protecting irreplaceable farmland, we see the land as more a commodity than a renewable resource. In presentations to the community we referenced economic benefits derived from farm family enterprise. The gross sale values of community farms, the tax revenues they generate compared to the few services they require, were points important to the community and to the media. Beyond the economic values, we cited the many benefits gained from healthy working landscapes--wildlife habitat, protection of streams and wetland communities, aquifer recharge areas, a sense of place, a distinctive rural atmosphere, scenic vistas, and other quality of life benefits.
Our educational outreach effort contributed to the project's success in that we were able to increase Red Hook's local government comfort with our efforts. In turn, by promoting key facts to the media, news articles appeared which articulated the benefits of farmland protection. Beyond this, our efforts in tandem with those of community farming advocates helped to foster a community consciousness in favor of farmland protection. All of this made it easier to implement our pilot project, and generated a favorable reaction to it.
The Conservation Easement
Fundamental to our project’s success was the development of a conservation easement which was acceptable to farmers. An easement designed to protect a working landscape is different from an easement designed to protect scenic, natural or historic landscapes, which is what Scenic Hudson had generally accomplished historically. Fortunately, considerable farmland easement work had been pioneered by land trusts and others around the nation, and we borrowed from various other documents in developing our initial model.
In response to one of our farmer community meetings in Red Hook, several farmers suggested that Scenic Hudson create an agricultural advisory committee to assist in communicating farmers’ needs and views, particularly in respect to drafting an easement document designed for farming. Internally we had discussed creating a small advisory body but farmers were insisting that, to be effective, the committee had to reflect the views of the major farm groups of the Hudson Valley--dairy, fruit, vegetables, horticulture/nursery greenhouse, livestock, equine, and direct marketing/retail agriculture--with additional participation from farm support and farm protection organizations.
We subsequently created a 15-member agricultural advisory committee, with the majority representing the major farm groups and with representation from the Hudson River Valley Greenway Council and Conservancy, American Farmland Trust, local land trusts, Cooperative Extension, Farm Bureau and Farm Credit. The committee’s mission was to provide technical assistance and recommendations regarding the development of the project. Its immediate task was designing an easement that it could sign off on -- one that could be presumed, therefore, to gain the acceptance of our farm communities.
Scenic Hudson held monthly meetings with the committee throughout 1996 and 1997. This effort helped us to create an innovative model easement that was written in a user-friendly yet legally valid style, atypical of a legal document. The easement is flexible for accommodating a wide range of agricultural activities while protecting the land base for farming and sensitive natural features such as streams and wetlands. Other provisions included the right to subdivide the property to create smaller parcels for farming and the opportunity to amend farmstead complex boundaries at 20th anniversary intervals.
The flexibility and originality of Scenic Hudson's easement is testimony to the thoughtfulness, expertise, and hard work of the committee.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
We spent more than a year, beginning in the fall of 1996, visiting with farmers in both Stuyvesant and Red Hook to discuss estimated land values, easement terms, possible configuration of the project areas and the likelihood of farmer sign on. Initially, Stuyvesant was our primary focus because farmer interest was more widespread and consistent, but we had also built momentum for the project in Red Hook that we didn’t want to lose in the event that a critical mass could not be gathered in Stuyvesant.
Stuyvesant was clearly the more traditional agricultural community with large contiguous family farms and the next generation fully involved in farm operations. There was also a strong consensus in the community that agriculture was the predominant land use and the town’s primary enterprise. In Red Hook development pressures were more pronounced. There were fewer multi-generational farms, and more opportunities for farmers to capitalize on the non-farm sale. Yet Red Hook was experiencing something of a conversion from traditional production agriculture to smaller-scale, higher-value retail agriculture and "niche market" farming. There was also a growing community awareness of the economic and environmental importance of farming.
In July 1997 the project’s momentum in Stuyvesant ground to a halt. The involved farmers requested a meeting to discuss a number of issues. The meeting was held with the two appraisers who had appraised the easement values of the farms, a First Pioneer Farm Credit vice president, town officials, Scenic Hudson staff and members of our agricultural advisory committee. The farmers expressed support for the project’s goals and the critical mass concept, but felt the appraised values were too low for the rights that were being purchased. Given how strongly some of the farmers felt about the appraisals, it was clear that further dialogue at this time would not be productive.
Perhaps because of Stuyvesant’s predominantly agricultural character and the lack of immediate development pressure, or perhaps because of the novelty of selling development rights and having to adhere to the terms of a conservation easement, members of the community were simply not ready to take the leap. Scenic Hudson had, in effect, appeared from out of the blue to test a plan to perpetuate farming, with their farms as the test subjects. As one farmer put it, the Stuyvesant farmers did not want to be guinea pigs. At the same time, the farmers were not prepared to accept the fact that appraised values could not be negotiated. It seemed unfair to them that the values offered were below the market value of the land--the family nest egg--when they were not confident that the land would be marketable once the easement was in place.
At about the same time, a significant number of farm owners in Red Hook indicated a willingness to sign options to sell conservation easements at the appraised value. In Red Hook land values were higher than in Stuyvesant, and the Town’s proximity to encroaching suburbanization was greater. Also, some farmers within the project area, because of changing personal situations, were very receptive to the immediate benefit of cash from the sale of development rights. The number of farmers willing to sign option agreements represented what we believed was a critical mass, and were sufficient to begin project implementation: surveying boundaries, tailoring the easement document to each farm, and setting closing dates.
On September 1, 1998, Scenic Hudson announced that it had completed the purchase of conservation easements on seven farms in Red Hook, encompassing over 1,000 acres--more than 12% of the Town’s farmland. The project farms included four orchards (one a "bicentennial farm" that has been in the same family for six generations), and three crop farms. The easements created an affordable pool of farmland for purchasing: on the same day the easements were signed, three of the seven farms were transferred into the hands of a younger generation of farmers. An agricultural resurgence was underway in Red Hook.
Soon after this announcement, Stuyvesant was revisited and momentum was reestablished. With the example of Red Hook, a track record was there for farmers to scrutinize. We currently anticipate securing options to purchase easements on six farms that will encompass over 2,500 acres of easement protected farmland in the Stuyvesant project area. We already have secured the funds, again from the Wallace Fund for the Hudson Highlands, to make this happen.
PROJECT EVALUATION
Our success in Red Hook worked in providing synergy with the farmland protection efforts of New York State. Our project was a major factor in leveraging $365,000 in State funding assistance for acquiring an easement on a 100 acre orchard located adjacent to our project area. Governor Pataki’s press release specifically noted that "this farm is adjacent to an 1,100 acre block of land where development rights were purchased by Scenic Hudson."
The Red Hook project may have also lent impetus to the Town to undertake an Open Space Plan, of which a draft is now complete. Scenic Hudson staff have participated throughout this process, underscoring the fact that, far from having secured our easements and moved on, we are active stakeholders in the community, participating in valuable local efforts to ensure sound planning and retain quality of life. The draft Plan recognizes agricultural open space as the Town’s most important feature and underscores its economic, environmental and cultural importance, and points out that it is a way of life that is employed by few yet benefits many. The Plan recommends a series of economic and land use protection actions that will serve to protect and promote the agricultural interests of the community.
In Stuyvesant, our initial groundwork in 1996/97 formed the basis for the Town’s successful application for $316,000 in State funding assistance, that was subsequently increased to $476,000 through a federal match, to secure some of the farmland within the Scenic Hudson project area. Additionally, the Town has adopted reduced property tax assessments on all farm structures, an initiative that would not likely have occurred had the importance of farming not been underscored by discussions of the conservation easement initiative.
Our proven track record is now opening doors that were previously closed. In Red Hook additional agricultural landowners with farms encompassing over 1,000 acres are interested in selling conservation easements. In Stuyvesant, the number of farmers interested in selling their development rights would double the 2,500 acres of land about to go under option for the acquisition of easements. This new interest reflects a recognition of the need for farmland protection, and farmer acceptance of Scenic Hudson and its role in this effort.
Momentum builds with each success. Scenic Hudson’s initiative is occurring during a period when the amount of State funding for conservation easements is on the rise. In the first year of State funding (1996/97) $3.7 million was awarded, which increased to $4.5 million in 1997/98 and again to $7.7 in 1998/99. In January of 2000, $12 million farmland protection grants were awarded statewide, a 56% increase over last year, with the Hudson Valley receiving a total of $3.7 million: $1.5 million awarded to Orange County, $1.2 million to Ulster County and $890,000 to Dutchess. In addition, Dutchess County adopted a $1 million Open Space and Farmland Protection Matching Grant Fund in December of last year.
CONCLUSION
In undertaking this project, Scenic Hudson had a unique opportunity to help protect the agricultural character of traditional farm communities in the Hudson Valley. As stated previously, there was no pre-existing blueprint for the project. Our approach was, therefore, circumspect, with the belief that careful research, effective community outreach and an ongoing dialogue with potential participants would achieve success. With our success in Red Hook and our anticipated success in Stuyvesant, we have now created a template that should serve us well in future efforts and serve as a model for projects elsewhere. It is our hope that we will be able to forge partnerships with state and local governments, land trusts, and others in funding and implementing similar farmland projects throughout the Hudson Valley.
Copyright 2000 By Author
Anyone wishing to use the following article, in whole or in part, must receive written permission from Glynwood Center in advance. Glynwood welcomes your inquiries about the Agricultural Initiative. Contact: Glynwood Center, Box 157, Cold Spring, New York 10516. Phone 914 265 3338 Fax 914 265 3391 Email glynwood@highlands.com
Seth McKee is Senior Land Projects Manager for Scenic Hudson, Inc., a not-for-profit conservation organization based in Poughkeepsie, New York, where he has worked since 1991. Seth negotiates acquisitions of land and conservation easements, and builds constituencies for the stewardship of protected lands. He has worked on Scenic Hudson’s farmland protection program since its inception. Seth has a Masters degree in Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Before joining Scenic Hudson he worked in land stewardship for The Nature Conservancy's North Carolina chapter. He can be reached at smckee@scenichudson.org
Hank Stebbins serves as Agricultural Program Coordinator for Scenic Hudson. He has worked to develop the organization’s farmland protection program since 1995. Prior to that, he served for fifteen years as the administrator of the Agricultural Districts Program of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Hank has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Arizona. He can be reached at hsteb@global2000.net