Land Conservation in Utah:
Tools, Techniques, and Initiatives

---

Utah Critical Land Conservation Committee
January 1997

---

This paper was written and compiled by The Utah Critical Land Committee and Governor's Office of Planning and Budget Staff.

Please submit information, comments and suggestions to:

Governor's Office of Planning and Budget
c/o Quality Growth Commission
116 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 

---

 
 

Table of Contents
...............................................

Introduction

Utah Context

Critical Lands Defined

Local Open Space Planning and Conservation

The Value of Open Space

• Establishing a Plan

• Agricultural Preservation

• Retaining Agricultural Values

• Determine Preservation Objectives

• Prioritize Lands

• Sensitive Lands Protection/Conservation

• Selecting/Defining Assessment Criteria

• Prioritizing Environmental Risks

• Developing Solutions

• Sensitive Environmental Lands

• Urban Open Space

• Open Space and Local Government Issues

• Residential Development
• Open Space Maintenance
• Taxation and Funding
• Regional Approaches
• Takings

• Local Government Planning Programs and Resources
State Conservation Efforts & Approaches
• State Conservation Programs
• State Parks
• Wildlife Resources
• Soil Conservation
• Forestry, Fire, and State Lands
Private Organization Conservation Efforts in Utah
• Private Land Trusts
• Utah Open Lands
• Sonoran Institute
• Virgin River Land Preservation Association
• Cache Open Lands
• Urban Land Institute
• The Nature Conservancy
• Wasatch Front Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D)
• Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

• Landowner Initiated Conservation -- Landowner Options
Federal Conservation Programs
• Wetlands Mitigation Banking

• 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act (FAIRA) or Farm Bill

• Other Federal Programs
Land Conservation Tools and Techniques
• Acquisition
• Administrative tools
• Other tools
Appendix A - Open Space Tools Matrix

Appendix B - Local Open Space Preservation Efforts

Appendix C - Executive Order Creating the Utah Critical Land Conservation Committee

Appendix D - Open Space Preservation Resources

Sources

Introduction

Faced with the challenges of continuing growth and economic expansion, Governor Leavitt and legislative leaders initiated a Growth Summit in December 1995 to begin discussing solutions for the state's most visible and pressing growth issues: transportation, water, and open space. Identified as an important element of our quality of life, open space preservation offers solutions for the urgent and seemingly divisive issues brought about by unprecedented population growth, limited resources, and a unique cultural and historic preference for self-sufficiency. Governor Leavitt has made open space conservation a priority of his administration, appointing an Open Lands Commission--now called the Utah Critical Land Conservation Committee--to act as a catalyst for locally-initiated land conservation efforts.

In the Open Lands Committee Executive Order, Governor Leavitt directs the Committee to "prepare a report which documents the current status of land conservation and protection efforts in the State of Utah." In examining the open space projects already occurring in Utah, we become aware of two major issues: first, that local governments, private organizations, and individuals have preserved substantial amounts of open land using a variety of techniques. Second, in documenting other states' open space conservation approaches, we realize that state and local governments, private businesses, universities, and citizens have many more opportunities for involvement in the issue. We hope this paper will be useful as 1) a catalog of preservation tools available to Utahns, 2) an accurate picture some of the current efforts of open space conservation in Utah, 3) a sourcebook of open space conservation planning methods, strategies, and resources for local governments in Utah, and 4) a presentation of other states' laws and policies, as a source of ideas for Utah policymakers.

Utah Context

Between 1990 and 1996 Utah's population has increased from 1,729,000 to 2,002,000, an estimated 15.8 percent, or almost 274,000 persons⁽¹⁾ and the number of housing units in the state has increased by over 10 percent.⁽²⁾ Utah has been ranked among the fastest growing states for five years and had the third highest growth rate in the nation between 1995 and 1996.⁽³⁾ With such dramatic growth, there is no area of the state that has not felt its impacts. From the myriad of new housing developments in St. George, to the jammed Wasatch Front I-15 corridor, to the increase of recreationists on the Green River, Utahns face a very rapidly changing environment.

During the Governor's Growth Summit residents voiced concerns about growth and change: that what they love about Utah and their reasons for living here are being compromised or destroyed. Several facts attest to these concerns: air pollution is on the rise again after intense mitigation efforts helped to curtail it in the late 1980s;⁽⁴⁾ the amount of farmland in Utah has decreased by 985,587 acres between 1974 and 1992;⁽⁵⁾ pollution threatens water quality in two of the Wasatch Front's major watersheds. Citizens and officials from all over the state have declared that it is not too late to act on those concerns, and are beginning to pull together to initiate community level projects and planning efforts. People from all walks of life are working together to identify and prioritize values, analyze issues, discuss alternatives, and find solutions. The identification and preservation of open space is at the heart of many of these community efforts; this paper will highlight several of them.

Utahns have a legacy of loving the land, applying principles of wise and careful stewardship, accompanied with a firm vision for the future of its uses and value. By building on that foundation of strong community values, the Utah Critical Land Conservation Committee plans to assist local communities and organizations with conservation efforts by offering technical expertise, compiling a statewide open space inventory, establishing a land use and conservation information clearinghouse, and facilitating the multi-agency and cross-jurisdictional partnerships that many open space conservation efforts require.

By establishing partnerships and a thorough "knowledge base" of issues, tools, resources, and available and crtitical lands, the Committee hopes to assist and encourage sound open space planning and conservation on a local level. These conservation efforts will occur incrementally over time. The Committee is not advocating government ownership of land, but is hoping to facilitate land exchanges, and land conservation and management partnerships. This effort is to build momentum for open space conservation in Utah, it involves all levels of government, private industry and organizations, academia, and individuals. The Committee's first step in fulfilling their charge is to educate all the players involved in planning for, and conserving open space. This document is the beginning of that process.

Critical Lands Defined

Critical lands are used in this report to mean critical and important agricultural lands, critical wildlife habitat, watersheds, recreational lands, and other important lands necessary for the preservation of economically viable and sustainable agricultural productions and the quality of life and cultural heritage of our

citizens. For the remainder of this document the terms open space will be synonymous with the conservation of critical lands.

Open space is an attribute of undeveloped or minimally developed land, and is usually described by its purpose, location, and geography. Open space is generally defined as "lands intended to conserve and protect valuable natural features or processes,"⁽⁶⁾ and often is described by the natural features it conserves or the purpose it serves as it relates to a place, setting, community, purpose, and value. Open space is not a single homogeneous land use, but rather a broad sector of land uses that provide a variety of functions, including:

• water recharge areas,

 
• agricultural land,

 
• outdoor recreation areas,

 
• river corridors, and

 
• wildlife habitat.

 
Open space may also be areas subject to natural hazards, such as floods, earthquakes, and mud slides or avalanches, and might also include scenic, geologic, ecological, or historical features that have been identified by a community as having cultural value, and therefore worthy of preservation.

The authors of Urban Land Use Planning have identified six categories or purposes of open space which reflect several approaches to open space preservation, all of which can be applied to both urban and rural land use in Utah.

Protection of property and people from natural environmental hazards: Areas that present danger from flooding, slides, quakes, and other natural hazards.

Protection of natural resources and environmental processes: Areas where natural processes are vulnerable to construction and urban land uses. Specific purposes include aquifer recharge areas, critical habitat, wetlands and watersheds.

Protection and management of natural resources for economic production: Includes prime agricultural land, timber lands, mineral deposits (sand and gravel deposits near urban areas), and watersheds.

Protection and enhancement of natural and cultural amenities: Unique landscape features that serve as area landmarks such as cliffs, bluffs and other geologic formations; streams, fields, and significant historical areas or structures.

Protection or provision of outdoor recreation, education, or cultural facilities: Open space for outdoor recreation, trails, lakes or ponds for urban fisheries, golf courses, fairgrounds and other places for public use.

Shaping urban form: Land set aside for greenbelts, buffer areas, plazas and commons,

view corridors, and other open space designations to give a city "imageability."

When open space is defined by a city or a county, it is not defined in such a broad framework. As mentioned above, open space is usually defined in relationship to the natural features of the land, or the purposes it serves for the community. Local jurisdictions in Utah with formal open space components in their general plans have each defined it differently. Through a public process, a community defines open space within the framework of its own values. Definitions differ based on the jurisdiction, needs, and values of the governmental entity. Open space planning in Utah has generally fit into three categories: agricultural preservation, sensitive land protection, and parks and recreation planning.

Local Open Space Planning and Conservation

In Utah, land use decisions are made at a local level. The Critical Land Conservation Committee hopes to help facilitate locally initiated open space planning and conservation efforts by providing expertise and information. Spiraling growth and loss of open space and agricultural land is one of the major concerns of many county and city officials. The following section is an overview of some of the key issues involved in open space planning and conservation, an outline of planning approaches, and examples of processes that local governments from around the state have been involved in.

Although this document refers to the Utah tax code and land use legislation, it does not have all the answers. Local citizens and officials should seek local professional council on land use, tax policy, and other legal issues.

The Value of Open Space

Open space, as minimally developed land, has market value, ecological value, and cultural value, among others. Assigning monetary value to open space involves subjective judgements and is not always feasible. "Open space will always possess intangible values that are above and beyond the calculation of monetary values."⁽⁷⁾ But because local governments rely heavily on property taxes for revenue, the implications of open space decisions are very important. Several studies have shown that open space can be linked to tangible economic value.

"Across the country when people are asked where they would prefer to live, work, shop and recreate, they invariably select communities or neighborhoods that have an abundance of trees, open spaces. These preferences can be expressed economically; if a community is to succeed in attracting new businesses and residents, it must be concerned about its appearance, physical character, livability and feel."⁽⁸⁾ "Quality of life" is an increasing factor considered by companies looking to locate and relocate businesses. When AT&T selected Boulder Colorado for its regional operations, the decision was based on the community's long established commitment to quality of life and open space values. Communities designed with integral open space and trails systems retain higher land values over time, and land adjacent to open space typically demands higher market prices. These enhanced values are reflected in the high price of homes located adjacent to golf courses, and by the homebuyers who pay them even if they do not golf. Open space reserved for recreational uses can have related income and multiplier effects, like the sale of recreational equipment, and increased tourism.

Analysis of the tangible and intangible values of open space, although difficult, should be an integral part of planning and decision making processes. Reliable analysis and sound public process are key in establishing a open space policy. 

Establishing a Plan

In Utah, local governments have the primary responsibility for land use decisions. The Land Use and Development Act (1992) gives counties and municipalities the power and duty to prepare and adopt general plans that will "provide for the health safety and welfare...protect property values...foster the state's agricultural and other industries...." As a part of the plan, or in an accompanying document, the local entity may "include ordinances, resolutions and rules to govern uses, density, open spaces, structures..." (Utah Code 10-9 and 17-27). The general plan and accompanying zoning ordinances are prepared and adopted through a public process, with the intent to produce a document that reflects the community's vision for the future.

Establishing a community plan which has citizen support is the first and most essential step in preserving community open space. Well thought out general plans and zoning and other implementation ordinances are local governments most effective tools for land use planning and subsequently, open space planning. Plans can establish the rational framework for making development and land use decisions and for establishing long term goals for open space acquisition and preservation.

A community begins its planning process by taking and assessing public input through public meetings or local surveys. Key questions to be evaluated include:

• Does the community value open space?
• Where does open land exist in or around the community?
• What purposes does it serve?
• What type of open space does the community need?
• What lands fulfill a purpose for the community, i.e.: ecologically, historically, economically?
• What lands should our community prioritize for conservation? And why?
• What lands, if preserved, will serve several of these values at once?

 
From citizen input, and thorough ecological and economic analysis, a community open space plan can be developed. It should include maps that show a long-range vision for a comprehensive open space system, and written goals for open space acquisition over time. St. George's and Murray City's open space and parks plans are excellent examples (contact information included below). Land is then acquired or preserved parcel by parcel. Categorizing the type of land to be preserved and/or the reasons for conserving it may be helpful, because the land use can determine the community's approach and method for conservation.

Three major categories of open space are usually included in a community's open space system: agricultural land, sensitive land or natural areas, and land set aside for parks and recreational uses. Different state and federal programs exist for each open space purpose, and different issues are involved with reserving each type of open space. Keep in mind however, that once the land is preserved, it is part of the overall community system; one parcel may overlap categories or serve multiple open space needs.

A few local governments in the state are either currently involved in, or have been through, a planning process that has a significant open space component. Listed in Appendix A, these plans offer models and approaches from which other communities may learn. 

Agricultural Preservation

Agriculture has an important place in our economy and heritage. The agricultural landscape is a defining characteristic of many of Utah's communities, it shapes community boundaries and the lifestyles within them. Several studies attest to the importance of keeping agricultural land in production. For example, a study cited by the Soil Conservation Districts and the State Department of Agriculture indicates that by 2050 there will only be 0.6 acres of land per capita for food production--half of what the projected population will require. In Utah, arable land is rare, comprising only two percent of the total land base--and of this two percent, only ten percent is considered prime agricultural land; yet this valuable land is being developed at alarming rates.



Retaining Agricultural Values

Cache County's experience highlights several of the important issues involved in preserving agricultural land. The key issue is value. Farmland located near urban areas is well suited for development, thus it's market value increases. "Farmland located near urban areas is likely to be overvalued for urban uses and undervalued for agricultural uses, which can lead to inefficient land speculation."⁽⁹⁾ Land speculation can be the beginning of the subtle and incremental conversion process from suburban to urban land uses. The principal factors driving the conversion process include:

• The extension of municipal services--local annexation policies and investment decisions, a desire for increased tax revenue;
• Loss of critical mass of agricultural land which supports agricultural services and markets, and contributes to what planners are calling the "impermanence syndrome" where farmers see the farms around them developed and discontinue the investment in their own farms, with the expectation of selling;
• Intrusion of development resulting in a hostile farming environment: farming activities are regulated because they are a "nuisance," and crops are damaged by air pollution and vandalism (establishing an agricultural protection area can help forestall such a situation); and
• Remaining farmland is acquired by eminent domain for public purpose to serve the new development.

 
A good general plan can help a community determine where and when growth should occur, to protect community and private values, instead of allowing it to happen as land speculation dictates. Cache County recognized the effect of haphazard development and articulated goals and policies in a general plan that will help them avoid it. Their policies pinpoint the heart of the agricultural preservation issue: that the long term value of agricultural land is often greater than its immediate market value.

Determine Preservation Objectives

After a community identifies agricultural preservation as a community value or goal, it must establish its objectives for preserving agricultural land, which often helps to determine which method to use. There are numerous reasons, or combinations of reasons, for agricultural preservation based on a community's location and vision for the future, including:

• Permanently preserving sources of food and fiber and protecting the viability of local agricultural economy;
• Preserving rural lifestyles and pastoral landscapes as suburban development encroaches on agricultural areas; and
• Preserving remnant farms in an essentially suburban landscape to provide a rural local image, and for recreational, educational, and cultural benefits.⁽¹⁰⁾

 

Prioritize Lands



Once a community determines its objective for agricultural preservation, it must prioritize the lands it deems necessary to preserve. Analysis of the local Natural Resources Conservation Service soils classification data and "Important Farmland Surveys" is a good place to start when prioritizing lands for a preservation program. Preserving large contiguous blocks of land is most efficient for the agricultural industry and for the general efficiency of the community.

Several sources have indicated that the most promising approaches to local farmland preservation are agricultural zoning and purchase of development rights (PDRs) to agricultural land. (Use of PDRs is explained in the Tools section). Although agricultural zoning has been the most widely used preservation technique in Utah, it's effectiveness has been mixed. It is not as permanent as other approaches: often the ordinance can be interpreted to allow "ranchettes" or hobby farms that may negatively impact larger, more industrial-scale farms, and lead to other development.

Purchase of development rights has become widely used across the country. Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Colorado are a few of the ten states that have PDR programs.⁽¹¹⁾ The two main strengths of PDRs are that they are fair to the landowners; the farmer is compensated for development restrictions, and the land cannot be developed--permanently. The primary challenge with PDRs is that they are voluntary. Conservation easements are also used to preserve agricultural land and have been obtained with the help of land trusts or federal programs, information about both techniques follows.



Sensitive Lands Protection / Conservation

Protecting sensitive lands often is the most compelling reason for a community open space preservation program. There are more government preservation programs, and thus more funding, for this type of open space preservation than any other approach. This document lists information for several programs administered at the state and federal levels.

Sensitive lands can be:

• Wetlands
• Watersheds
• Drainage
• Slopes/foothills
• Wildlife habitat/refuge
• Water corridors
• Natural/environmental hazards
• Natural resource protection--timber, minerals

 
Vital natural processes take place on these types of lands, most of which are not suitable for development. Ideally a community will use the location of sensitive lands, or "places of nature,"⁽¹²⁾ to demarcate an open space framework, then determine its development pattern around the sensitive land/open space framework. However, all the sensitive lands identified are not going to be readily available, and given the fiscal constraints of local governments, communities may need to evaluate and

prioritize lands for preservation. For example, a community may have preservation choices surrounding prime farmland, wetlands, floodplains, or foothill areas that may serve as aquifer or groundwater recharge zones for their water supplies. Decisions on how to allocate resources toward sensitive land preservation are often extremely difficult and complex when balancing community values and priorities.
 
 

How to prioritize issues given limited resources (i.e. the biggest bang for the buck) is an issue the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has recently addressed. DEQ completed a comparative risk process to evaluate competing environmental issues. It consists of a community-based public process that produces a comprehensive environmental risk analysis and a ranking of issues. The process could lend itself well as a management tool for developing review criteria and providing assessment information which will enable evaluations to be made among open space alternatives.

This process includes:

• Identifying environmental risks and concerns
• Selecting and defining assessment criteria
• Prioritizing environmental risks
• Analyzing financial impacts of not protecting sensitive lands (increased water processing costs etc.)
• Developing solutions/selecting among open space alternatives

 

Selecting and Defining Assessment Criteria

There are several considerations that need addressing for scientific evaluation of sensitive lands and open space areas. These include:

• Would growth in this area destroy critical habitat?
• Is this area an aquifer or groundwater recharge area?
• Are there additional environmental benefits beyond aesthetics that would enhance this area's protection?
• What are the long term consequences or impacts of developing the area? What are long term environmental benefits associated with not developing the area?

 
In addition, ecological discussions on the open space areas that focus on the following analytical criteria should also be addressed:
• Primary source of a pollutant
• Hazard Identification (type of pollutant)
• Amounts of pollutant impacting an area
• Exposure Potential
• Overall Risk Characterization

 
Other considerations in the analytical process include siting locations for industrial and manufacturing facilities, waste water treatment plants, drinking water facilities, and landfills. Analysis of geographic data is key to this process. Obtaining maps and information on soils, habitat, natural hazards, water, and other resources is essential. The Natural Resources Conservation Service and the state Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC) are good places to start. Information for both is located in the section below.

Prioritizing Environmental Risks

What many decision-makers may find is that the risk of not preserving an area can be great. For

example, failure to protect a groundwater recharge area may create long term, adverse consequences for additional future growth of the community.

By blending community values and scientific analysis, decision-makers now have a valuable framework from which to implement their priorities. They have developed a record for their decision, based both on public input, and scientific considerations of ecosystems and natural resources available to the community.

Developing Solutions / Selecting Among Open Space Alternatives

Once the areas have been analyzed and prioritized, communities now have the opportunity to select those areas which need protection and those that the community would also like to include for preservation.

Sensitive Environmental Lands

Authored by DEQ in 1995, Utah's Environment: The Twenty-First Century - Environmental Issues Report, after using the comparative risk process, ranked the following issues as a high priority for protection:

Air Quality

Groundwater Resources

Surface Water Resources

Drinking Water Supplies



Maintaining the current high standard of air quality in Utah is of vital importance to the citizens of the state. One method for preserving this valuable resource is protecting open space. As communities continue to grow, they may experience increases in traffic, industry, and other sources of air emissions. Effectively managing growth, by planning open space corridors around new areas of development (e.g. highways, sub-divisions, industrial parks), which allows pollutants to dissipate, rather than be trapped by urban development, will ultimately lead to long term benefits by limiting future impacts from air pollution.

Water quality is also a high priority. Utah is the second driest state in the nation, receiving an annual average of 13 inches of rain per year. As the state continues to grow, demands on water resources will stress communities' abilities to provide municipal services such as drinking water supplies and waste water treatment facilities. Also as land is developed, the areas of impervious surface increases, thereby reducing the amount of water infiltrating into the soil, which affects aquifer recharge. Protecting open space areas that include protection of valuable water resources will yield immeasurable results for communities well into the next century.


 

Urban Open Space

Trail corridors, parks, golf courses, and cemeteries are all urban open space, or "places where cities become more livable,"⁽¹³⁾ and where natural surroundings can be reintroduced to the city. Ideally urban open space programs should aim to preserve land in a contiguous system, as opposed to fragmented parcels located randomly throughout the area; however, any open space, or green space, no matter how small, is of value to the overall community.

• Community neighborhood parks
• Regional parks
• Recreation areas: Golf courses, trails, reservoirs etc.
• Urban public plazas
• Entry corridors
• Land purchased for future use--schools, public facilities etc
• Urban gardens
• Preserved farmland
• Preserved natural habitat or watchable wildlife areas
• River or streambeds, floodplains

 
It can be said that the best time to develop parks and open space corridors was twenty years ago; however, the second best time is now. Planning for urban open space is a long range process. It almost goes without saying that community open space planning programs are best created as a city is just beginning to develop, then parks and open space are an integral part of the city plan and can be laid out as a part of the overall vision of the city. Several cities and towns in the state still have the opportunity to plan ahead. The original plat of Salt Lake City is a good example of integrating parks within the urban framework. With the escalating price and increasing scarcity of urban land, park development and open space acquisition become more and more difficult.

A few key approaches used to establish parks general plans are:

• Assess Needs
• Inventory current park facilities -- how does community compare to national standards?
• Evaluate park usage and park quality
• Survey available land--where, how much, and what is the priority for acquisition and development?
• Set goals for acquisition over time, make specific recommendations for acquisition / development
• Evaluate costs and determine funding sources and methods
• Link adjacent communities with a trails system
• Incorporate development exactions for parks as part of a subdivision ordinance

 


Many park development guidelines have been published and may be useful to cities in the early stages of defining park acquisition goals. The following were developed by George Nez, a Denver Planning Director in 1961, and are cited by several urban planning sources:⁽¹⁴⁾

 
The National Recreation & Parks Association (NRPA) has also set general standards and guidelines for parks and open space reservation for communities. Their standard is 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space for every 1,000 residents.

Open Space and Local Government Issues

Residential Development / Open Space Design

Several studies have been published comparing the expense of providing urban services to leaving land undeveloped or minimally developed. For example, Summit County determined that each residential unit developed in the county costs the county $300.00 above the revenue received from taxes. Some of these costs include educating children, constructing and maintaining infrastructure, and providing other public services such as police, fire, health and welfare. Cities and developers are finding that the infrastructure costs can be dramatically decreased if new homes are grouped, or "clustered" on a development parcel so that the remainder can be preserved as open space. Developers and local planners have indicated the need for more flexible zoning ordinances to allow them to use clustered development methods and to better adapt development patterns to existing landforms. (See PUD in Tools section).

The concept of clustering is fairly simple, but has raised concerns because it is so different from the conventional, standardized subdivision. The conventional approach results in the entire parcel being covered with houselots. Eventually, when one parcel after another is developed, the formerly open landscape evolves into "wall to wall" subdivisions, which often does not blend with a traditional rural environment. Clustered developments allow for streets and houses to be designed around the natural surroundings, like steep slopes or prime agricultural land, yet retain zoned density levels for the property.

Cluster developments tend to have a higher resale value than traditional developments, they also have the potential to generate overall value for the community. A local development company submitted this example:

Traditional Subdivision

10 acre parcel zoned for development at 4 units per acre,

finished lot value of $50,000 per lot,

total development value $2,000,000.

Cluster Development

Same 10 acre parcel zoned for development at 6 units per acre with open space overlay finished lot value of $40,000

10% open space requirement translates to 1 acre park, total development value $2,160,000.

The extra value created in higher density zoning made the 1 acre park possible, gave the developer economic incentive to cooperate and build 54 homes, instead of 40, on the ten acre parcel, thereby reducing pressure on urban sprawl, reducing the cost of providing municipal services, and reducing long term tax funded maintenance.

Landowner's equity is not diminished by creating and selling an open space development. They also do not have to develop all their land, keeping the undeveloped portions as natural area or farmland in production, (informing the new home owners of possible nuisances before they purchase lots.) Developers are not faced by unreasonable constraints, and realtors can market houses with views of permanent open space.⁽¹⁵⁾ Randall Arendt's book, Rural By Design: Maintaining Small Town Character, is an excellent source of information about open space development design.

Open Space Maintenance

One of the greatest worries that has discouraged open space developments and open space acquisition on a local level has been the concern of long term maintenance. When the open land is agricultural, the farmer can sell the development rights and retain and use the land as he always has, then may later sell it to another farmer who may only be able to afford land with no other development potential. Or it could be sold to a nursery operation or any other agricultural related use. For park land, trails or other recreation land, cities plan for the additional maintenance costs in their open space and parks long term plans. But there are also creative approaches, like establishing partnerships with conservation groups and administering an "adoption" program for long term care and upkeep of portions of open land or a trail system, especially when the city is able to obtain parcels that it had not planned for in its budget. Private land trusts set up endowments for the maintenance of donated parcels from the value of the land's fee title, so that land owned by private trusts is very well cared for.

Taxation and Funding

Whether a local government enacts open space ordinances or acquires the land outright, preserving open land is expensive. Many entities have expressed frustration with their lack of taxation flexibility and authority. Several officials have indicated a need for a more flexible tax structure like those found in other western states. Examples of taxing authority not available to local governments in Utah are transfer development, or conversion taxes. This type of tax discourages incompatible development by levying taxes on low- to high-density land use changes, thereby reducing development profits. Similar levies are development taxes, and land gain taxes. Local authorities in other states have also had the discretion to make differential assessments to dedicate certain percentages of sales and use taxes to open space preservation efforts.

Without a broad taxing authority local governments have had to be very creative with available funding sources, many of which are listed below in the Government Programs sections. There are a few examples where local governments have been very enterprising and have either created their own funding sources for open space or asked the community to step up and assist. In Ogden a private foundation raised the bulk of the funding for the Ogden Parkway project, as well as for the nearby Dinosaur Park. In a unique funding arrangement, revenues collected from Dinosaur Park provide for the maintenance and security needs of the Parkway.

Regional Approaches

Regional context is also an important factor of open space conservation, since tracts of open land often span jurisdictions. To avoid fragmented efforts and achieve linkage and continuity between areas, a regional perspective is often necessary. Regional approaches and partnerships for funding and managing conservation projects could also be beneficial; what many small jurisdictions can't do alone, they may be able to do together (see Intergovernmental Agreements in the "Tools" section). However, regional planning organizations / structures are not in place in many of the key areas of the state, or else are not utilized for this function. The recently formed Washington County Open Space Committee plans to address the regional nature of open space with its efforts to coordinate and connect the open space objectives of the incorporated cities and towns in its jurisdiction. The efforts of the Washington County Open Space Committee may be a model for other counties to follow.

Takings

One of the major principles of the Utah Critical Land Conservation Committee is the recognition of the protection of private property rights. By following this principle and the rules of good planning, communities can protect private property rights and still protect open space.

The Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 22, states "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." This is the most enduring issue confronting zoning and other land use regulations: to what extent can regulations reduce the value of private property without compensation? The issue is not confined to municipal zoning but applies to any land use regulation or process by any level of government.⁽¹⁶⁾

A "taking" may be said to have occurred with the presence of a combination of the following:⁽¹⁷⁾

A land use regulation does not relate to a legitimate state interest;

Assuming a legitimate state interest, the regulation does not substantially advance that interest;

The advancement of a legitimate state interest places the disproportionate burden of securing a benefit upon a single landowner when it is more properly borne by the general community;

The regulation entails a permanent physical occupation;

Reasonable investments were made prior to general notice of the regulatory program;

The economic effect of the regulation deprives the landowner of all, or substantially all beneficial use of the property, and there are no offsetting reciprocal benefits; or

The regulation abrogates an essential element of private property.

The validity of a local regulation will rest in part on the quality of the planning that supports it. For the purpose of open space planning, a good general rule to keep in mind is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking.⁽¹⁸⁾ Open space may best be protected through public ownership. Although some areas may arguably be protected through the regulatory power of a local government, public acquisition provides greater security against subsequent political change and eliminates worry about the taking issue.

For a more compete discussion of the takings issue, the American Planning Association has a technical article appearing on the world wide web at http://www.planning.org/govt/takings.html.
 

Local Government Planning Programs and Resources
 

University Of Utah Planning Collaborative

This program is being developed to meet the planning needs of local governments through collaboration among:

University faculty advisors--coordinate with community sponsors and clients, screen potential projects, organize working groups and provide technical and procedural advice

Professional planners acting as mentors--offer technical assistance and professional guidance

Technical back-up staff from divisions of the University (librarians, graphic presentation specialists etc.)

Currently enrolled students and recently graduated majors from Urban Planning, Architecture, Geography and other relevant programs--work in small groups to address specific aspects of each planning project, compiling them at completion to form a project presentation

The program would address planning projects in communities without planning funding or resources; small or ideosyncratic planning projects that may not attract the interest of professional planning consultants, and several other types of projects.

Contact: Professor Philip Emmi Department of Geography, (801) 581-6491
270 Orson Spencer Hall, SLC, UT 84112
email: phil.emmi@geog.utah.edu

Roster of Professional Planners

The Center for Public Policy and Administration (CPPA) at the University of Utah has compiled a roster of professional planners willing to assist and advise local governments on a volunteer basis.

The CPPA also publishes Planning and Zoning in Utah, Third Edition, the most comprehensive source for Utah related planning information available. The Center has several other planning resources and documents located in a Public Policy Library that could be very helpful to local planning efforts.

Contact: Gene Carr Center for Public Policy and Administration, (801) 581-6491
2120 Annex University of Utah SLC, UT 84112
email ecarr@cppa.utah.edu

Utah League of Cities and Towns

The Utah League of Cities and Towns offers planning training and legal assistance on an individual city basis. The League also has a planning resource library available to the public, and publishes a bimonthly planning newsletter about planning issues distributed to all local governments in the State.

Contact: Sydney Fonnesbeck (801) 328-1601
50 south 600 East Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Utah State University Cooperative Extension Services

The Extension Service provides research based information resources to landowners, communities, policy decision makers and all citizens of the state of Utah. Local county extension personnel along with campus-based specialists bring the University to the people. Several specialists work on programs state-wide that will benefit the projects and technical assistance inquiries of the Utah Critical Land Conservation Committee. Assistance is offered through the following programs:

Open space & farmland presentations / GIS mapping and land use interpretations of important agricultural lands in Utah.

Contact: Robert L. Newhall, (801) 797-2183
Extension Soil & Water Conservation Specialist
Department of Plants, Soils & Biometerology
Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322-4820
bobn@ext.usu.edu.

The Extension Landscape Architecture Program (ELAP) helps communities identify, understand and solve environmental planning and design issues. ELAP can provide assistance with community and regional planning, downtown revitalization, landscape architecture projects, environmental analysis, historic restoration and preservation, recreation planning and design, land development feasibility, and help communities prepare planning and design projects for private consultants.

Contact: David L. Bell, (801) 797-0511
Extension Landscape Architecture Program
Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322-4005
davidb@ext.usu.edu

Extension Community and Leadership Development staff provide educational programs in community development, leadership, planning, and resource information. Farm and ranch recreation, community visioning, and value added agriculture are some of the areas where technical assistance is available.

Contact: David L. Rogers, (801) 797-1255
Community and Leadership Development
Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322-0730
daver@ext.usu.edu

Local officials, appointed officials, and volunteer leaders are continually confronted with the challenge of identifying community needs in order to work together in solving community problems. An effective method to identify problems that are important to community residents is to conduct a community needs assessment survey. USU Extension staff assist communities in conducting needs assessments including: 1) survey design, 2) administering the survey using trained volunteers, 3) tabulating the results, and 4) interpreting and reporting the data.

Contact: Stanley M. Guy, (801) 797-3221
Community Needs Assessments
Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322-0730
stang@ext.usu.edu

Visit the Utah State University Community Resource Development Website for more detailed information. (http://ext.usu.edu/crd)

Utah Association of Conservation Districts (UACD)

The UACD is a non-profit association that represents Utah's 38 Soil Conservation Districts. Founded in 1948 UACD's mission includes facilitating the conservation and development of Utah's land and water resources, fostering the wise use and management of the state's natural resources and securing technical, financial and educational support for conservation projects.

Contact: Gordon Younker, (801) 753-6029
1860 N. 100 E., Logan, UT 84341
email: gyounker@ext.usu.edu
Soil Conservation Districts

Many of Utah's 38 Soil Conservation Districts provide information and technical assistance for county and city officials and landowners with natural resource assessments and land use planning. The Districts are political subdivisions of the State of Utah and serve as the grass root link between the private landowner and government agencies and are authorized to make recommendations governing land use. Each district has a local extension agent assigned to devote 20% of his/her time to agricultural land protection and a local citizen is elected as district supervisor for a term of four years.

Contact your local Soil Conservation District or the Utah Association of
Conservation Districts, (801) 753-6029 1860 N. 100 E., Logan, UT 84341

The Environmental Summit Technical Workbook

White Papers on Air Quality, Groundwater Quality, Surface Water Quality, Drinking Water Quality, and Alteration and Destruction of Ecosystems, available through the Department of Environmental Quality.

Contact: Office of Planning and Public Affairs
P.O. Box 144810
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4810
(801) 536-4480 or (800) 458-0145 or FAX: (801) 536-0061
Internet: http://www.eq.state.ut.us/library/pub_home.htm

State Conservation Efforts & Approaches

The role of state government in open space protection varies throughout the country. The extent of its authority, its means of implementing plans, its ability to monitor the effects of those plans, and other factors all vary from state to state. Although Utah's governor believes that land use decisions should be made at the local (city and county) level, it is clear that state government is an integral player in open space conservation.

Some states have regional or statewide planning policies, while others are less centralized. Maine, and Oregon, for example, are two of the nine states that have statewide planning frameworks, and require local plans to comply with state guidelines in all aspects of planning, including open space. Other state governments simply play the role of facilitator, providing enabling legislation, expertise, flexible policies, and funding which allow local governments and citizens to initiate their own planning and protection programs.

Funding levels vary widely from state to state. Colorado established GOCO, the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, to utilize up to $35 million in annual lottery proceeds for open space projects. Virginia established a state agency which provides assistance on open space issues and even serves as a land trust, with the ability to hold conservation easements. On a smaller scale, the state of Idaho funds community development block grants, administered by the Association of Idaho Cities, which may be used for open space and other planning efforts at the local level. More examples of other states' open space programs are included in the Tools section.

In the recommendations submitted to the Governor and the legislature during the Growth Summit, local governments agreed that open space is critical to the quality of life in Utah. They also agreed that preservation of open space is largely a local responsibility, but at the same time, most local jurisdictions do not have the financial capability to implement formal programs. The Utah League of Cities and Towns and the Utah Association of Counties submitted seven recommendations for consideration by the Governor and legislature:

Provisions for open space should be a part of all planning efforts.

 

The State should facilitate the creation of a private non-profit open space conservancy to provide assistance and act as a resource center for local government.

 

The objective of conserving agricultural open space should be the continued economic viability of agricultural production.

 

All urban type development should take place only within designated urban growth boundaries to ensure that agricultural and other open spaces are not needlessly displaced.

 

The State should provide matching funds or loans to assist communities with the purchase of development rights.

 

State Conservation Programs

State Parks

Utah Division of Parks & Recreation

The Division of Parks and Recreation administers 44 state parks that are great open space and recreation resources for the state. The Division of State Parks owns or manages over 96,133.58 acres of land in Utah for the enjoyment of its residents and visitors.⁽²⁰⁾

Division of Parks & Recreation is occasionally the recipient of land donations, which can be used as a starting point for a major project, or as a match for federal grants.

Contact: Wes Johnson, Lands Coordinator,
Division of Parks & Recreation,
1636 West North Temple Suite 116 Salt Lake City, UT 84116-3156
(801) 538-7353
email: nrdomain.nrmain.wjohnson

Riverway Enhancement Program

The Division of Parks & Recreation provides matching grants to help local governments purchase property along rivers prone to flooding--especially in areas containing dense populations or high potential property damage. The program also aims to preserve and enhance linear river corridors for both wildlife habitat and recreation. Primary goals are to encourage wise planning in riparian areas, and to provide for the use of open space. Riverway Enhancement funds have been used for projects on the Weber, Jordan and Provo rivers, and in St. George, Cedar City, Helper, Riverdale, and Moab.

Contact: Lyle Bennett, Grants Coordinator,
Division of Parks & Recreation, (801) 538-7354
email: nrdomain.nrmain.lbennett

Non-motorized Recreation Trails Program

The Division of Parks and Recreation Encourages the development of a statewide trails system through matching funds for trail development. Only multiple-use non-motorized trails are considered for the program. The program provides money to renovate and construct trails, acquire trailheads, property, and trail corridors. It is administered by the State Division of Parks and Recreation and has received $510,000 for fiscal year 1997-98.

Contact: John Knudson, State Trails Coordinator,
Division of Parks & Recreation, (801) 538-7344
mail: nrdomain.nrmain.jknudson

Off-highway Vehicle Trails Grant Program

Similar to Non-motorized Trails Program, but intended for motorized vehicle trail development. Partially funded with OHV gas taxes.

Contact: John Knudson, State Trails Coordinator,
Division of Parks & Recreation, (801) 538-7344
email: nrdomain.nrmain.jknudson

Wildlife Resources

Utah Wildlife Resources

The Division of Wildlife Resource administers over 100 wildlife managements areas which support the preservation of Utah's wildlife species by protecting and managing their habitat, which provides critical open spaces. Within these designated management areas, the DWR owns and administers over 411,000 acres of highly valued wildlife habitat. Much of this wildlife habitat, particularly wetlands and big game winter range, is already located within, or adjacent to the Wasatch Front. As long as the primary wildlife purpose of these lands are retained, other open space purposes could be pursued (i.e., aquifer recharge, watershed protection, managed agricultural uses, unique landscape features, stream corridors, outdoor reacreation, public education, and buffer zone creation). Division of Wildlife Resources also accept land donations for the purpose of wildlife habitat.

Contact: John Kimball, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
(801) 538-4700 or

Brent Hutchings, Habitat Acquisition Specialist
(801) 538-4750
email: nrdomain.nrdwr.bhutchin

Habitat Authorization Program

Beginning in 1996, wildlife users purchase a habitat authorization with every hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife certificate sold in the state. This new program, which is estimated to generate over $2.2 million annually, is dedicated to the rehabilitation and enhancement of wildlife habitat staewide. Habitat project review and approval is directed by the Habitat Council, consisting of both DWR personnel and public citizens. Projects approved under this program focus on lakes and streams, wetlands, uplands, big game ranges, and public access. Numerous opportunities exist under this program to accomplish the objectives of open spaces, including the funding of cooperative projects with federal, state, local, and private entities.

Contact: Dwight Bunnell, Habitat Authorization coordinator,
Division of Wildlife Resources 1554 West North Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
(801) 538-4700
email: nwdomain.dbunnell@state.ut.us

Soil Conservation

Soil Conservation Commission and District Programs

The Utah Soil Conservation Commission (USCC), has authority to coordinate state watershed conservation programs, develop and implement state soil and water protection programs, and create, modify and support local Soil Conservation Districts (SDC). The head of the Utah Department of Agriculture (UDA) is designated chair of the Comission. The five SCD board members are elected citizens who understand natural resource use and conservation. The voting majority of the Commission is made up of SCD supervisors appointed by the Governor.

Land and water protection programs supported by the Commission are locally led, voluntary, and incentive based. Programs are based on local-state-national partnerships facilitated through the districts. The partnerships have provided technical assistance for conservation projects. Funding is provided by private operators, federal cost-sharing grants, or state low interest loan programs. The Agricultural Resource Development Loan (ARDL) program is one of the state's major initiatives for resource protection.

Contact: Cary Peterson, Commissioner, Utah Department of Agriculture, (801) 538-7101
350 N. Redwood Road, P.O. Box 146500, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500
email: agmain.cpeterso@email.state.ut.us or

USCC Administrative Officer w/UDA address as above
email: agmain.jjacobso@email.state.ut.us

Utah Partners for Conservation and Development

The Utah Partners for Conservation and Development has identified agricultural sustainability and land use as strategic state priorities. This local, state, and federal government partnership is working together to provide community based resource information and technical assistance to improve the quality of life in Utah. Their mission is to, "provide unified leadership to achieve a more productive Utah in harmony with a sustainable quality environment for Utah citizens." The partnership includes the Utah Association of Conservation Districts, Utah Department of Agriculture, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Services Agency and Utah State University Extension Service.

Contact: Gordon Younker, 1860 N. 100 E., Logan, UT 84341, (801) 753-6029
email: gyounker@ext.usu.edu

Forestry, Fire, and State Lands

Forest Legacy Program (state and federal)

Managed by the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry Office, the Forest Legacy Program is intended to identify and protect environmentally important forest lands that are threatened by present and future conversion to non-forest uses, such as residential subdivisions, commercial development, pasture, cultivated farmland, and mining. To assure that both the traditional uses of private land and the public values of America's forest resources are protected for future generations, the Forest Legacy Program assists with the purchase of conservation easements and, in limited cases, fee title acquisitions which allow private forest landowners to maintain their lands as "working forests."

Contact: Paige Lewis, State Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands,
(801) 538-5540
email: plewis@state.ut.us

Private Organization Conservation Efforts in Utah

Private Land Trusts

Private Land Trusts are nongovernmental, private, non profit, charitable organizations. Nationally there are roughly 1200 land trusts, varying in size from small organizations with only a volunteer board of directors to large national organizations like the American Farmland Trust, the Nature Conservancy, and the Trust for Public Lands. Land trusts vary in their individual missions. As community based organizations, land trusts can be set up to work on protecting a specific resource (i.e. urban gardens, or agricultural land) or their scope can be much more broad. In Utah, where the word 'trust' is reserved for banks, most organizations refer to themselves as conservancies, associations, reserves, foundations, and societies. Whatever the name, they are land trusts.

Land trusts protect open land most commonly through conservation easements. Section 170(h) of the IRS code allows for a landowner to receive significant tax benefits when development rights are given up in part or in whole to a qualified land trust, for the protection of various conservation resources. Land trusts assist landowners in designating their property for the purpose of preservation, and with assuring that the landowner receives economic benefits, which can translate into cash savings, from land transactions.

Perhaps the most significant benefit of private land trusts is their flexibility to create partnerships between individual landowners, government agencies, and other private organizations to enable preservation. Land trusts often can work faster than government agencies in acquiring easements or land due to their expertise and less cumbersome process. In some instances land trusts act as facilitators for preservation and play no other role in a transaction. Most importantly, land trusts ensure the permanent protection of open land. Utah is home to a few land trust organizations, including Utah Open Lands and the Virgin River Land Preservation Association.

The following private organizations have been active in land preservation and open space planning efforts in Utah:

Utah Open Lands

Utah Open Lands was formed six years ago by a cross section of Utahns with the intent of preserving the scenic, wildlife, and agriculture values of open land in Summit County and its environs. Utilizing its status as a charitable organization, UOL primarily uses conservation easements and land grants to facilitate significant tax benefits for contributing land owners. Operating under a meager budget of just $15,000 a year, Utah Open Lands has saved important open spaces worth more than $16 million. Responding to the incredible need in Utah, UOL has broadened its scope and is currently negotiating the conservation of more than 40,000 acres of open space across Utah. The organization has pioneered legislative awareness through conservation bills that enhance profitability in maintaining open lands and also functions as a clearinghouse for written information.

UOL's hallmark is the variety of flexible, creative and cooperative conservation methods they employ to achieve conservation goals, while at the same time, meeting the specific needs of individual landowners and communities. Many approaches offer income, estate, or property tax benefits that help make conservation affordable.

The Willow Ranch Parcel was Utah Open Lands' first conservation easement. Located on the entry corridor to Park City, it is one of the town's defining characteristics. Working with developer Richard Dudley and city officials, a cluster development scenario was designed. In a winning combination, the donation of over 20 acres offset profits, but the clustering of infrastructure lowered total development costs, and lots bordering the open space sold faster at higher than market prices, creating an overall more profitable development, and a preserved landscape.

Pinion Canyon is another preservation effort that became very profitable. Preserved through Utah Open Land's Conservation Buyer Project, the canyon today is still a big game winter range and the Town of Oakley's watershed, saving the town $10,000 annually in federally assessed watershed fees and tests.

Other preservation partnerships and efforts include the Swaner Memorial Park in Snyderville Basin, the Mountain Meadows Ranch Place subdivisions in Snyderville Basin, Snake Creek Canyon in Wasatch County, and the Franson Estates near Oakley. UOL has assisted the city of Draper in its efforts to draft an open space plan, as well as assisting Summit County and Park City in their preservation efforts.

Contact: Wendy Fisher, (801) 649-0220
Internet: http://www.governor.state.ut.us/planning/opland/UOL.htm

Sonoran Institute

Promotes community-based conservation strategies that preserve the ecological integrity of protected lands, and at the same time meet the economic aspirations of adjoining landowners and communities. Conducts "Successful Communities" workshops to help people identify what they value in their community, create a shared vision for the future, and implement specific projects to realize their priorities. The Institute has helped create several regional organizations throughout the West which bring together conservationists, government officials, business owners, and ranchers towards the common goal of strengthening and diversifying local economies while preserving natural resources and quality of life. The Institute's ultimate aim is to create a global network of development-based organizations.

Contact: Luther Propst (520) 290-0828

Virgin River Land Preservation Association

Founded in 1993 the VRLPA is a community based non-profit land trust whose purpose is to preserve open land in the Virgin River Basin of recreational, scenic, and ecological, agricultural, or other value. VRLPA seeks mutually beneficial solutions for land preservation, through donations, purchases of private land and development rights, and other partnership efforts. VRLPA also works to educate the public about the values and benefits of open land in order to facilitate its protection and encourage sound land use planning in Washington County and the adjoining areas of the Virgin River Basin. VRLPA will hold lands in trust and in perpetuity, for the benefit of this and future generations.

While VRLPA's Land Conservation Program is its main focus, the group is also working for the preservation of the Grafton Ghost Town and Springdale Parks projects, as well as working in partnership with local government entities on the Virgin River Management Plan and the Washington County Open Space Committee. VRLPA has also established a Critical Lands Voluntary Investment Partner program in which area developers and home builders donate a portion of proceeds from lot and home sales to the land trust's acquisition fund. With endorsement from the Home Builders Association, 3,000 lots / homes have been enrolled.

Contact: Lori Rose, (801) 674-1074

Cache Open Lands

Cache Open Lands was formed by the Cache County Agriculture Preservation Committee in 1996 to preserve important agricultural lands for food and fiber production. In 1995 agricultural land use occupied 83 percent of private land in Cache County, with cash receipts from farm products totaling over $94 million dollars. The Cache County Agriculture Preservation Committee has provided input to the Cache County Comprehensive Plan to protect prime farmlands. Cache Open Lands provides landowners with the opportunity for compensation for conservation easements, access to professional estate, tax, and

legal advice and other alternatives when the sale of farm property is being considered.

Contact: Jon Meikle, Chairman
4650 N. 1000 E.
Smithfield, UT 84335
(801)563-5241

Urban Land Institute

ULI is an education and research institute which provides responsible leadership for land use in order to enhance the total environment. With a more urban focus, ULI is a forum for information and idea exchange that can lead to better urban land use. Recently ULI has been very involved in the study and dissemination of information on conservation-based development. They have been involved in the

design for the Centennial Project, a housing development planned for Traverse Ridge in Draper, that allows for 65 percent of the land area to remain open.

Contact: (202) 624-7000

The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy's mission is to preserve biological diversity through acquisition of important wildlife and plant habitat. The Conservancy is not a general land trust, and normally only deals with land which provides important biological habitat. However, the Utah chapter has completed two projects more directly related to the preservation of open space.

The Mayberry Preserve, located near Moab on the Colorado River, was historically an orchard. Threat of development along the nearby highway spurred the Conservancy and Grand County to collaborate on its protection. The Conservancy purchased the 210-acre property. The Conservancy's costs were significantly reduced when Grand County used a federal highway ISTEA grant to purchase a conservation and scenic easement on the property. The Conservancy continues to pay property taxes on the land (as it does on all its Utah properties), and maintains the upkeep of the orchard with the help of volunteers and staff. The annual harvest is a community event.

A more recent project involves Snake Creek Canyon, on the east side of the Wasatch mountains near Midway, Utah. When Brighton Ski Resort expressed interest in purchasing and developing this former mining property, some local citizens formed an organization to preserve the canyon intact. Under a complex plan, The Nature Conservancy purchased the property, and is in the process of recouping its costs from a diverse group of agencies and organizations. Two counties, two cities, a utility company, two citizen groups, and the State Division of Parks have agreed to help pay for the watershed values and the land in the canyon. The property will be managed as part of the State Park system, and a conservation easement will be held by Utah Open Lands, ensuring its preservation in perpetuity. This project has demonstrated the ability of a broad coalition to deal cooperatively with open space acquisition issues.

In cooperation with the Utah Natural Heritage Program, the Conservancy has initially identified for preservation 60 critical natural areas throughout the state. Through fund-raising efforts under its Utah Land Legacy Campaign, the Conservancy plans to preserve 15 private land sites through both direct purchase and conservation easement, and has identified 45 public land sites as candidate RNAs (Research Natural Areas) or ACECs (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern).

Contact: Kerry Green, (801) 531-0999.
 
 

Wasatch Front Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D)

RC&D organizations are private non-profit groups originally started by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service), as way to foster community development. RC&D's primary goal is to preserve natural resources and local economies at the local level through citizen involvement and consensus-building. Wasatch Front RC&D is funded equally by the US Forest Service and NRCS, and in a small part through program fees.

Several communities have approached RC&D's Open Space Committee for help in drafting master plans which include provisions for open space preservation. The organization deals primarily with the public relations, education, and community-building aspects of open space projects; the technical and financial issues are left to a land trust such as Utah Open Lands.

RC&D is currently focusing its efforts in the area of education. Through conferences, seminars, and youth programs, the organization attempts to make the complexities of open space issues understandable to local governments, landowners, developers, realtors, legislators, and citizens.

Contact: Sherrie Einfeldt, (801) 547-9430.

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) works to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. The primary focus is Habitat Conservation. The RMEF also promotes conservation education and hunting heritage. The RMEF is committed to:

Conserving, restoring and enhancing natural habitats;

Promoting the sound management of wild free-ranging elk, which may be hunted or otherwise enjoyed;

Fostering cooperation among federal, state and private organizations and individuals in wildlife management and habitat conservation; and

Educating members and the public about habitat conservation, the value of hunting, hunting ethics and wildlife management.

 

The RMEF administers an extensive habitat lands conservation program that includes acquisition and management of lands, acquisition of conservation easements, and acceptance of donations. The RMEF also fosters cooperation between land owners and government agencies, helping to negotiate complex land deals. RMEF also provides seed money to set key projects in motion that help to conserve critical elk habitat.

Contact: William Christensen, RMEF Utah Field Director (801) 254-1924

Landowner Initiated Conservation--Landowner Options

Private landowners play a significant role in the open space preservation arena. Many landowners acknowledge the importance of preserving their land, but are unaware of the significant benefits they may receive in doing so and how to go about it. By placing a conservation easement on a particular piece of land, a landowner gives up the right to develop the land, but receives significant tax benefits through lowered property valuation, the tax deduction of the donation of the easement to a charitable organization, and the possibility of reduced estate taxes. Contact any of the above organizations for more information.

Federal Conservation Programs

Wetland Mitigation Banking

Wetland Mitigation Banking is allowed under the Clean Water Act (Environmental Protection Agency, EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, ACOE). Federal law requires that unavoidable impacts to wetlands from development must be mitigated. Mitigation Banking allows a developer who impacts a wetland to buy "credits" from a mitigation bank. A mitigation bank has the advantage of consolidating numerous, fragmented wetlands projects into one large contiguous site. Mitigation Banking can bring together financial, planning, and scientific resources to increase the potential for successful establishment and long-term management of mitigation that will maximize biodiversity and watershed functions.

Recently, wetland mitigation banking has become a commercial venture in Utah. Diversified Habitats, a Salt Lake City firm, is currently buying mitigation credits and restoring wetlands for profit. Florida is perhaps the most advanced of any state in its use and encouragement of wetland mitigation banking and has allowed similar projects for years. The state's water management districts administer the program.

Salt Lake County completed the first Advance Identification of Wetlands in EPA's Region VIII in 1986. About 2,000 acres of wetlands were identified along the Jordan River between 2100 South and the Utah County boundary. Subsequently, the County was able to include these wetlands in the CUP Reauthorization Act for future acquisition. Of the acreage identified, about 1,000 acres possess functional values considered critical enough to merit acquisition for long term conservation.

A wetland acquisition plan is now being prepared by Salt Lake County in coordination with the Division of Wildlife Resources, Parks and Recreation, and the U.S. Department of Interior. The County has also completed an advance identification in Albion Basin. This project, funded by EPA Region VIII and the town of Alta, identified approximately 200 acres of subalpine wetlands between the elevations of 8,000-11,000 feet.

To obtain a copy of Wetland Program Summaries, a comprehensive overview of all the federal, state and local programs to conserve wetlands, contact Nancy Keate, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, (801) 538-1548.

1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act, (FAIRA) or Farm Bill

The conservation provisions of FAIRA simplify existing conservation programs and improve their flexibility and efficiency. The bill also creates new programs to address high priority environmental protection goals. The program's provisions may be excellent resources for local governments and states to draw assistance and expertise as they become involved in agricultural preservation, wildlife habitat preservation, and of course, wetland mitigation.

FAIRA authorizes more than $2.2 billion in funding for conservation programs and extends the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetland Reserve Program, and creates new initiatives to improve natural resources on America's private lands. The programs that may most affect and enable open space preservation are:

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Allows up to 36.4 million acres to be enrolled in the CRP

2. New enrollments can replace expired or terminated contracts

Allows early termination of CRP lands when environmentally sensitive lands are not involved and the contract is at least five years old.

Farmland Protection Program (FPP)

1. Objective is to purchase conservation easements to protect prime, unique farmland, or other productive soil from conversion to non-agricultural uses by working cooperatively with states, tribes and local entities

$35 million was appropriated for 1996 - 2000 ($15 million was used in 1996, $2 million is identified for 1997, the remainder has not been allocated)

3. The program is designed to provide financial assistance to supplement existing local programs on a proportional matching basis

Easements must limit land to agricultural use for perpetuity or not less than 30 years

5. A conservation plan must be developed and approved by the local Soil and Water Conservation District for all FPP easement lands

Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)

Combines the functions of four old programs; Colorado Salinity, Agricultural Conservation Program, Great Plains Conservation Program and Water Quality Incentives Program.

2. Establishes conservation priority areas where significant natural resource problems exist

3. Emphasizes cooperation with state and federal agencies and state technical committees

Gives higher priority to areas where the state or local governments offer technical or financial assistance, or where agricultural improvements will help meet water quality objectives

5. Requires activities to be carried out under a conservation plan

Provides both cost share and technical assistance for activities that may be used to maintain open space and improve environmental indicators

Wetland Reserve Program

1. Allows up to 975,000 acres to be enrolled

Areas will be maintained as wetlands with upland buffers for the length of the easement or life of the restoration contract

Open space (restored wetland) would be preserved for the life of the easement or contract

4. Requires that the enrolled acreage must be split with one third in permanent easements, one third in 30 year easements, and one third in restoration only cost share agreements

Provides up to 100% cost share under permanent easements

6. Provides for 50% -75% cost share on 30 year easements and restoration only cost share agreements

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program

Provides cost share ($50 million total for next 7 years) to land owners who develop wildlife habitat

2. Habitat can be for upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, riparian wildlife, endangered species, fisheries and / or other wildlife

Open space (wildlife habitat) would be preserved for the duration of the cost share contract, generally a 10 year minimum

Rules for the conservation provisions of FAIRA have not been written. For updates and more information, see the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Site: http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/OPA/FB96OPA/Sum96FB.

Other Federal Programs

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission

The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission (Mitigation Commission) is a Federal Executive branch agency established in July 1994. The five member Mitigation Commission, appointed by the President, is responsible for coordinating the implementation of fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation for the Central Utah Project and other federal reclamation projects in Utah. The Commission receives annual appropriations from Congress to conduct such mitigation concurrently with construction of water development features.

The Commissions' actions are guided by a comprehensive plan that is developed through an extensive public planning process each year. Under the first five-year plan the Commission's work is concentrated in the Bonneville Basin and includes wetland and stream habitat restoration projects around Utah Lake, the Great Salt Lake, the Jordan River, the Provo River and in Diamond Fork Canyon and the Duchesne and Strawberry Watersheds. The Commission is also involved with acquisition of angler access along major rivers and streams. All mitigation projects are implemented through contracts with other federal, state, and local natural resource agencies and non-profit conservation organizations in accordance with strict statutory standards and regulations requiring restoration and conservation of ecosystems.

Contact: Michael Weland Executive Director (801) 524-3146

Partners for Wildlife

This program seeks to improve and protect fish and wildlife habitat on private lands. The program includes any private landowner. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides technical assistance and may share or pay all costs. Habitat restoration and management can be in wetland restoration, soil and water quality improvement, grazing plans that benefit domestic animals and wildlife, and many others.

Contact: US Fish & Wildlife Management/Enhancement

Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund

Provides matching grants for acquisition and development of high quality park land. While the program has received no funding for the past two years, past grants have helped to purchase and develop several significant Utah recreation attractions, including Antelope Island, Bear Lake Beach, and the Jordan River Parkway.

Contact: Lyle Bennett, Grants Coordinator,
Division of Parks & Recreation, (801) 538-7354
email: nrdomain.nrmain.lbennett

National Recreational Trails Program

Administered through the Federal Highway Administration, this program provides matching funds to agencies at all levels of government (federal, state, county, local) for the development of recreational trails. The program has been budgeted $500,000 for both fiscal year 1995-96 and 1997-98.

Contact: Lyle Bennett, Grants Coordinator,
Division of Parks & Recreation, (801) 538-7354
email: nrdomain.nrmain.lbennett

Rails to Trails

Federal funding to convert train tracks and train right of ways that are no longer in use to hiking, biking, and horse trails. No matching funds required.

Contact: John Knudson, State Trails Coordinator,
Division of Parks & Recreation, (801) 538-7344
email: nrdomain.nrmain.jknudson

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System

The LESA numerical rating system is designed to help government officials, citizens, farmers, and planners make decisions about the relative importance of farmland sites using both agricultural criteria (e.g. soil potential) and social and economic factors (e.g. location, access to market, and adjacent land use). Originally designed to evaluate the impact of federal programs on farmlands, the federal LESA model has been adapted by state, regional, county, and township units of government. In addition to farmland, LESA has been applied to forest lands and tested for other resources, such as riparian areas, irrigated desert farmlands, and wetlands.

LESA is not a stand-alone technique for protecting farmland, but an objective evaluation tool. It can help identify which land should be protected by land-use planning and zoning programs, purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, or other farmland protection programs. It can also aid in making decisions about which land should be converted from agriculture to other uses by rezoning or land-use permits.

In adapting the model for local use, a committee of local people knowledgeable about and those with vested interests in land projects (such as developers), along with technical assistance from the NRCS, selects site factors and determines the relative importance of each according to local conditions. One incentive for the adoption of a local LESA system is that federal agencies must use a certified local LESA system in project reviews. Local adaptation might allow the state or locality more control when federal projects are proposed because impacts would be evaluated according to criteria generated by the state or community.

The LESA system has not been used much in Utah. According to local NRCS officials, the only real obstacle is a sustained interest on the part of a local unit of government to organize the committees and to implement the committee plan.

Contact: Mike Domeier, Natural Resources Conservation Service, (801) 524-5064
William Broderson, NRCS State Soil Scientist, (801) 524-5064
Ann Carey, NRCS National Offices, (202) 720-8134

Land Conservation Tools and Techniques

Options for government can be divided into two basic categories: those that involve acquisition of land and/or the legal rights belonging to the land, and those based on the government's ability to regulate what occurs on the land.

Acquisition

Fee Simple Acquisition -- This term applies to the purchase of a piece of land and all of the rights inherent in ownership. Local governments often use fee simple acquisition for the purchase of park lands, etc. Although this is an expensive approach to preserving open space, this tool provides the most efficient and effective form of land control. However, it does not necessarily offer full protection because future administrations may sell land used for open space in time of revenue shortfalls. Also different administrations may have different values.

Easements -- An easement is a mechanism for severing rights or interests in land. A conservation easement is a restriction a landowner voluntarily places on his property to protect certain characteristics of it, such as wildlife habitat or scenery, or to reserve the land for a particular use such as agriculture. Some states use the term "conservation restriction" since the action restricts rather than affirms rights, which the term "easement" usually implies. Land conservation groups often buy parcels of land with the specific intent of preserving the area by placing a conservation easement on the land and then retaining title to it or turning it over to local government. By relinquishing these rights a landowner may become eligible for certain tax benefits. The organization or individual receiving the easement accepts responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the restrictions.

Conservation easements are allowed in Utah under Utah Code 57-18-1. A conservation easement may be obtained by a charitable organization which qualifies as tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code or any governmental entity. The easement needs to be in writing and recorded in the county recorder's office in the county in which the easement is granted.

Federal and state income tax rules allow an income tax deduction for a donated conservation easement of up to 30 percent of adjusted gross income over a period of at most, six years. To qualify for federal tax deductions, conservation easements must be held "in perpetuity."

Purchasable Development Rights -- Development rights can be purchased at a savings to local government and organizations. Purchasing easements can allow for some lower costs--about 80-90% of the cost of the property--and continued private ownership. Also, land remains on local tax rolls (although perhaps at a reduced value) and in productive use. Through the purchase of development rights, governments also avoid management and maintenance obligations.

Purchase and Sellback/Leaseback -- With this technique, government agencies purchase a piece of land along with all of the rights inherent in full ownership. They then sell the same piece of property without certain development rights, depending on the preservation objective relative to that parcel of land. The

restrictions placed on development can range from no development at all to limiting the heights of structures built in that area.

Purchase and leaseback is similar to the above; however, as the name implies, instead of selling the land, the government agency leases the land, with some development restrictions in place, to interested parties. In this way the government is able to get back some of its investment in the form of rent.

California has successfully employed purchase and leaseback programs in efforts to preserve open space. A state agency, the California Coastal Conservancy, provides grants to land trust organizations to purchase agricultural and other land and resell it with conservation restrictions. The experience of the program is that agricultural lands purchased at full market value can be resold with conservation restrictions that allow for agricultural and other open space uses at nearly the original purchase price. The cost of the program is thus minimized, and the land is kept in productive use.

In another example of purchase and leaseback programs, California State Parks purchased 3,200-acre Wilder Ranch, then leased 1/4 of the property to eleven brussel sprouts farmers. The rest of the land is in open space and recreational use maintained by the Parks Department. This single area currently holds 15 percent of the U.S. brussel sprout market.

Purchase Options and Rights of First Refusal -- Any entity interested in buying a piece of property may purchase an "option" on that property, thus giving it exclusive opportunity to purchase that parcel for a specific period of time.

A government agency or other entity can purchase or obtain "rights of first refusal," which give the holder the first right to purchase a piece of land when it becomes available. It differs from a purchase option in that the agreement time period is open-ended and only terminates when the entity either buys the property when it becomes available on the market, or declines to exercise its "right of first refusal" at that time.

While this tool does impose costs on the government agency, it can be useful for protecting particular pieces of land in the short term. Any government pursuing this option should be aware of the costs necessary to purchase an option and their obligation to at least consider buying the land once it is available.

Bargain Sale -- A bargain sale is a combination of a land purchase and a land donation. A party (most often a private land trust or municipality) pays a landowner a percentage of the value of the land in cash, and the landowner then donates the remaining value of the land to the first party. The amount donated qualifies as a tax-deductible gift and can offset state and federal capital gains taxes on the part of the seller. In a bargain sale, landowners can receive nearly the same amount of after-tax income from the sale, but at significant savings to the land trust or municipality.

Land Banking -- Because of its often prohibitive costs, land banking is not widely used by local governments as a means to preserving land. It involves the purchase of land and holding it for possible future development. Often the land is purchased and leased back to the original owners so as to continue its immediate use, such as agricultural production.

Entities interested in this option should have the ability to purchase and condemn land, to hold and lease land, and to obtain debt financing for its purchase.

Administrative Tools

Exactions, Dedications, and Impact Fees -- Where new development creates needs for increased public services and infrastructure, this practice is intended to ensure that new development "pays its own way" by assuming these costs.

Exactions may provide alternatives for local governments strained by the impacts of growth. When used for open space acquisition, a developer must leave a certain percentage of land undeveloped, exactions are best used in conjunction with a flexible zoning code that allows for planned unit developments like Park City's.

Impact fees can be charged by a local community to developers for the purpose of financing increased facility needs or improvements. The community exacting the fee must have a general plan or capital facilities plan in place which establishes that impact fees are necessary for financing needed improvements. The impacts on system improvements must also be reasonably related to the development activity. Capital improvements or project improvements that qualify for funding generated by impact fees include parks, recreation facilities, open space, and trails. (Utah Code 11-36-300)

Transfer of Development Rights -- (TDR) is another method of preserving highly sensitive or desirable lands by moving development from these lands to areas more appropriate for development, often at a higher density than would normally be allowed. The concept is based on the premise that landowners of these desirable open lands are compensated through the sale of their development rights and developers benefit by having the ability to develop other areas at higher densities. This mechanism steers growth away from open lands and concentrates growth in already developed or soon to be developed lands.

There are three main components of any TDR program. The first is the area to be protected, or the "sending" area. The second is previously identified as developed or developable areas called "receiving" areas. The third is a formula for the allocation of rights that are transferable from the sending area and permitted in the receiving area.

Before considering implementing a TDR program, the American Farmland Trust suggests that communities consider several criteria:

the size of the "sending" area must be limited so that the supply of development rights does not exceed the demand.

counties and municipalities must be unwavering in not allowing developers to petition planning commissions for increased density zoning variations.

the program must be mandatory; developers must purchase these rights in order to increase densities.

TDR banks should be established to hold development rights so that land owners can sell them before securing a buyer of them. Developers then purchase development rights from one place.

the areas defined as "receiving" areas must initially be at a low density so that there is room to increase the densities.

the area must have a strong demand for growth and an active housing market.

• involves a substantial administrative investment by the area's planning organization.

 
Pennsylvania offers funds to local governments to purchase development rights. The money is appropriated from the legislature and distributed to counties on a first-come-first-served basis. There are problems with Pennsylvania's TDR system, however. Of the few guidelines for using the funds, one is that the county must advertise the location of development rights purchased. This encourages developers to subdivide land near protected farmland and charge higher prices for proximity to open space. In effect, the policy fails to protect a critical mass of farmland and actually encourages the kind of development which hurts farmers.

In Maryland, TDR is authorized by state statute. The statute allows consideration of repurchase of development rights if, after 25 years, the petitioner for repurchase can demonstrate that farming is not feasible. The statute also provided that repurchase is authorized by the local governing body, as well as by various state officials.⁽²¹⁾ The state of New Jersey has also been successful with TDR.

Agricultural Protection Areas -- Utah Statute allows for the establishment of Agricultural Protection areas under 17-41-101. An Agricultural Protection Area (APA) is formed when a group of agricultural producers in a contiguous geographic area petition county government to create the area. The benefits of placing land in an agricultural protection area include relieving farmers of nuisance complaints from surrounding development.

The implementation capability of Agricultural Protection Areas resides at the county level. The county legislative body appoints an Agricultural Protection Area Advisory Board which oversees the process. The legislative body determines the minimum number of continuous acres necessary for the establishment of an APA. All APAs are reviewed every twenty years, however, property owners can withdraw from the APA at any time by filing a petition with the legislative body.

The decision to create an APA is based on criteria which requires that the land is currently used for agriculture, that the land be zoned for agricultural use, and that considers existing or proposed farm improvements and anticipated trends in agricultural and technological conditions.

Agricultural Land / Open Space Zoning -- To preserve agricultural areas, forests, wetlands, and floodplains, communities have adopted a variety of special agricultural land and large-lot zoning programs that require much larger minimum lot sizes and percentage of a parcel that must remain in open space. Other types of agriculture zoning include nonexclusive use zoning, voluntary agricultural districting, and physical/land buffers that can reduce conflicts between agriculture and residential uses.

Note: a "large lot" in this case must remain large enough to farm profitably, or it may lose its value as open space.

• Exclusive Agricultural Zoning -- has proven quite effective in protecting farmland. Generally, it includes a large minimum plot size (often 160 acres or greater), exclusion of all non farm land uses, and other restrictions such as limits on the number of building permits in the zone.

• Exclusive Use Zoning -- Prohibits non farm activities in farming districts. When properly administered, can be very successful in removing the speculative value of resource lands.
• Large Lot Zoning -- is a far more typical approach to protecting agricultural land and open space. In this approach, communities establish a large minimum lot size (see "The Folly of Large Lots" above, under Local Open Space Planning and Protection). Large-lot zoning provisions may come in a variety of forms:
Quarter - quarter zoning: Each landowner is entitled to one building lot per 40 acres of farmland. When the allowable number of lots have been developed on the property, no more construction is allowed.

Area Based Allocation Zoning: The number of house lots allowed is directly proportional to the farmer's total acreage (e.g. one lot for every 20 acres), with the lots required to be located on the property that are least suitable for farming.

Sliding scale zoning: The number of potential dwellings increase at a slower rate as the farm tract increases in acreage. Thus, one dwelling would be allowed on the first five acres, another on the next ten acres, a third for the next 20 acres, and a fourth for the next 30 acres, with each additional dwelling requiring 40 more acres. This approach has proven to be effective in agricultural areas that are under development pressure, it allows limited development to occur, yet still preserves farmland. Its primary rationale is that smaller farms are often less suitable for long-term farming and are usually held with the expectation of future conversion. Decision makers should keep in mind, however, that it is the location of the dwelling with respect to the farming operations and to the areas with the most productive soils, that can most impact the viability of farming.

Quality Development Standards -- To address the growing concern about the quality and appearance of development, communities are adopting a number of new approaches. The community usually has identified distinctive features it values in its natural environment and enacts standards to protect them.

• Gateways: many communities value a well-defined area to signify entry into the community. Standards can be established for setbacks, berming, fencing, landscape, and building design, among others, to establish and preserve city gateways.

 
• River corridor protection: many communities recognize the important aesthetic and resource value of rivers and streams in their jurisdictions. To protect them, communities adopt standards requiring development buffers, setbacks and regulations on the types of uses near riverbeds.

 
• Vegetation and tree preservation: jurisdictions have begun adopting regulations preventing the wholesale stripping of vegetation from development sites. Some areas require that a certain percentage of vegetation remain on the site. Others prohibit the removal of trees larger than a specified size.

• View Protection: An increasing number of jurisdictions have also imposed regulations to protect views of mountains, scenic valleys, or landmarks. Park City has an ordinance protecting view corridors of surrounding mountains.

 
• PUD ordinances: Some communities have a planned unit development or master planned development ordinance which offers flexibility in development layouts. PUDs allow for clustered housing configurations and for building sites to avoid sensitive areas, like high slopes and wetlands.

 
In 1981, New Jersey voters passed a $50 million bond issue to protect farmland. "It provided funding to two programs--an eighth-year deed restriction program that allowed farmers to be eligible for state cost-sharing conservation programs and protected them from nuisance suits, and a permanent easement sale program, which paid farmers for the development rights to their property. While the development rights program was initially the most popular, both programs have been successful and in 1990 had protected a total of nearly 43,000 acres of New Jersey farmland from development."⁽²²⁾

Park City has used quality development standards extensively in their development code. (See Appendix A)

Urban Growth Boundaries -- (UGBs) are another method of resolving the conflict between conservation and development. They are designed to bring more clarity to the issue of which lands will be developed and which lands will be conserved by defining a boundary, inside of which urban growth is encouraged and outside of which no development should take place that is urban in nature.

UGBs are intended to ensure that pressures on communities to expand outward are redirected so that development takes place within the urban growth area are on the urban fringe. Implementing an UGB should coincide with establishing a strategy for ensuring efficient and timely development and providing needed urban services for that development (including urban parks, habitat and other open space).

Local governments should consider these steps in initiating an Urban Growth Boundary program.



1. Identify those priority areas to be maintained as open space.

2. Determine what is needed in terms of development to accommodate existing and projected growth.

3. Determine where the boundary should be, taking into account open space and housing needs.

Finally, and maybe the most difficult step, formally adopt the Urban Growth Boundary and procedures necessary to implement it. This process should stress public involvement, as well as the involvement of adjacent jurisdictions.

UGBs work best as part of comprehensive growth management strategies. While Utah has no state law regarding UGBs, Cache and Beaver Counties are initiating urban growth boundaries as part of their general plans.

Performance Zoning -- is based on the concept of providing a level of performance which developers must show evidence that they can meet prior to the approval of their project. In other words, performance zoning attempts to focus on the impacts of development instead of the development itself. Although it originated in the industrial sector where projects needed to demonstrate an ability to stay within approved nuisance ranges regarding noise, smoke, and toxic output levels, performance zoning has been expanded to other areas and can be a useful tool in the preservation of open lands.

Performance zoning provides flexibility in land use planning, and can be an important part of the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. One common performance zoning measure applicable to open space is the requirement to maintain minimum open space ratios in a development. Performance zoning can be used instead of traditional zoning regulations or as an enhancement of it but require a sophisticated planning staff. Jurisdictions should have this in mind when considering adoption of this type of ordinance. In some cases, local governments should be aware that residents may demand reasonable access to open space before they will accept increases in density.⁽²³⁾

Cluster Zoning -- Cluster zoning is the practice of allowing buildings to be built in closer proximity than standard zoning would regularly allow. Maximum allowable densities are calculated for an entire area rather than for individual parcels. This allows developers more flexibility in locating buildings, sensitive areas like slopes and wetlands can be avoided, or therefore leaving more land available for open space.

While cluster development is widely used as a means of open space preservation (Summit County/Park City, as well as Centennial development in Draper), planners must also be aware that clustered development can result in leapfrog development, which eventually increases urban sprawl.⁽²⁴⁾

Limited Development -- It is possible to develop portions of a parcel of land while retaining the most environmentally sensitive areas as open space. These limited developments usually involve selling conservation easements on these sensitive lands to a land trust or other third party. The revenue generated from the development can be used to subsidize the protection of the sensitive lands, however financial risks are usually quite high.

Sensitive Lands Overlays -- Used in conjunction with standard zoning regulations, sensitive lands overlays identify areas of concern and add another level of regulation to these areas. More strict regulations are "overlaid" on top of already existing zoning requirements. Overlay zones are often used in the protection of floodplains, hillsides, wildlife habitat, and scenic areas.

Special Areas Preservation / mitigation programs -- Several states have evolved the designation of critical natural resource areas, such as watersheds. When dealing with such areas, public planners are required to clearly define the necessary environmental impact mitigation measures, thus moving public

debate beyond simple environment/development conflicts on to analysis of expected impacts and actions, and consensus on possible technical solutions.⁽²⁵⁾

Mitigation Banking--governments and private companies buy and set aside tracts of land to offset the impacts of development and to reach federal requirements (see Wetlands Mitigation Banking under the Federal Conservation Programs section).

Building Moratorium--used as a time-out period for planning and open space acquisition. Utah state law limits moratoriums to 6 months.

Intergovernmental Agreements -- In some states (e.g. Colorado) two or more jurisdictions can create their own planning frameworks. They can adopt plans and implementation measures which, under state law, can become mutually binding and enforceable. Colorado state law also allows Regional Planning Initiatives to be formed by several jurisdictions, in the absence of strong state planning guidelines. Utah statute does not allow for legally binding cross-county alliances other than the Associations of Government.

Transfer Development Taxes / Conversion Taxes -- discourage incompatible development through tax policy, and discourage permissible but undesirable land use changes by levying taxes, thereby reducing development profits. Transfer taxes can imposes levies against the seller who conveys land which is devoted to certain uses like agriculture to a higher development scenario. Other similar levies are development taxes, and land gain taxes. (Not available in Utah)

Other Taxes -- Most states currently employ some form of differential assessment of resource lands for tax purposes.⁽²⁶⁾ This assessment can take two forms: preferential assessment and restrictive agreement or contract assessment. Preferential assessment simply means charging property taxes based on the land's value in resource use, as determined by state agricultural officials. In most states, there is no penalty under preferential assessment for idling the land once it has been designated for preferential treatment, thereby actually increasing land speculation by people who have no interest in farming.

Other Tools

Education --We cannot discount education and information dissemination as one of the most valuable tools for preserving open space. Workshops, seminars, literature, and conferences for all facets of the planning and development community, landowners, as well as state and local lawmakers, should serve to provide the most up-to-date information available to citizens interested in open space preservation. Recent forums in the Salt Lake area have been helpful in this regard. The Urban Land Institute

sponsored a conference on open space preservation tailored specifically to developers wanting to include open space in housing developments. Utah Open Lands and the University of Utah Center for Public Policy recently invited the author of a well-known estate planning attorney to a seminar on preservation tools for the general public. Also, a "citizen planner" certification course, offered through the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, provided participants with basic knowledge and tools needed to participate in public meetings and understand the issues surrounding planning in the city. Such a program could also address open space issues.

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is currently working on a wetlands outreach program that will help educate the public on the functioning value of wetlands for wildlife, vegetation, and hydrology. The preservation of functioning wetlands, from and educational perspective, is a valuable asset for the open space concept. The DWR's outreach program is based on an ongoing wetlands inventory system with statewide focus.

Contact: Cecile Leblanc
Wetlands Coordinator, (801) 538-4864
Division of Wildlife Resources
1594 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

1,000 Friends of Oregon was established to support that state's new planning policies through public education and research. Other states could use such an organization to provide planning information and outreach to encourage adoption of state and local growth management programs.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

GIS has become an essential tool for land use analysis. Most open space issues can benefit from the analytic and communicative capabilities of GIS. The State's Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC) provides GIS services to state, federal, and local government agencies as well as the private sector. AGRC can also assist in the use of the State Geographic Information Database (SGID). The SGID is a distributed clearinghouse and repository for all digital geographic information in the state. It contains geographic information created and maintained by many state, federal, and local entities. Most data is documented in the clearinghouse and some of the most commonly used data sets are available on line at www.agr.state.ut.us.

Contact: Stuart Challender AGRC (801) 538-3164
email:state-domain.wpsmtp.schallen

Project 2000, Coalition for Utah's Future regional planning tools -- Coordinated efforts between the Coalition and the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget have initiated a comprehensive regional analysis and planning program. The purpose of the initiative is to foster quality growth in Utah by establishing a forum for public input on specific goals, and establishing the analytical tools to measure the outcomes of the goals. With the coordination of Utah Tomorrow, the state strategic planning organization, state level growth models will be connected to form a comprehensive urban growth model, capable of projecting demographic, transportation, air quality, and land use trends, then make this modeling tool available to local governments. Utah Tomorrow and the Coalition for Utah's future will facilitate public input for growth scenario planning which will use model outputs in order to better understand the resource effects of growth.

Contact: Mark Bedel, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget (801) 538-1571
email: lee.king@email.state.ut.us

Quality Growth Efficiency Tools (QGET)

The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget along with the Departments of Transportation, Environmental Quality, Community & Economic Development and Employment Security, and the Automated Geographic Reference Center are working on a program to enhance the technical modeling tools, data, and processes so that decision makers have comprehensive, reliable, accessible and consistent growth related information. The major objectives of this program are to improve technical and analytical models used to forecast growth and improve processes and procedures that accompany the management of data models.

Appendix A
..........................................................................

Land Preservation Tools Matrix

 
 
 
 

Appendix B
..........................................................................

Local Open Space Preservation Efforts

This appendix features a cross-section of local government approaches and efforts to plan for, and adopt measures for open space conservation. Listed by county.

Cache County

Agricultural land occupies 83 percent of the private land in Cache County with 1,189 farm operations on 324,000 acres. In the public meetings for the development of the Cache County General Plan, residents determined that this land was their most critical nonrenewable resource. It is the top priority of the General Plan. To implement measures for agriculture land preservation, the Plan recommends the following policies:

define urban growth boundaries and consider infilling vacant urban property before continuing annexation.

incorporate new density standards for residential development.

identify important farmland for protection and limiting urban development on these lands

limit use of septic systems in primary and secondary recharge areas and groundwater sensitive areas.

 

Copies of the plan are available at the county-wide planning office.

Contact: Mark Tuescher, Cache County-wide Planning (801) 753-3631

North Logan City/Hyde Park/Wellsville

The cities of North Logan, Hyde Park and Wellsville in Cache County have conducted studies to identify sensitive lands and community resources to be protected. North Logan City's Open Space Overlay Zone and related subdivision ordinance provides incentives to landowners and developers to protect drainage, floodplain, steep slopes, and open spaces in proposed developments.

This ordinance is currently being applied to the Lake Bonneville bench area bordering the Mount Naomi Wilderness. This area is classified as sensitive due to deer and elk winter range, steep slopes, geologic hazards, natural drainage channels, and as a community visual amenity.

The subdivision ordinance requires developers to prepare a concept plan identifying the affected natural resources and adjoining properties to show how public and private open spaces will be used to protect the most sensitive resources. In addition, the ordinance provides for the dedication of trails and corridors connecting the community and neighborhood to the wilderness area.

Contact: Jeff Jorgensen, North Logan City Manager (801) 752-1310

Grand County

Goal five in the recently adopted Grand County General Plan is to "protect sensitive lands, open space, and scenic views, while respecting private property rights."⁽²⁷⁾ Implementation actions for this goal include:

protecting riparian corridors and recharge areas for public water supplies

offering incentives for the transfer of development rights from sensitive areas to more development compatible areas.

establishing criteria for visibly sensitive areas.

adding a very low density zoning district to the Grand County Development Code with average lot sizes from one per 20 to 160 acres.

including the established Sensitive Lands Working Group in decisions involving sensitive lands to investigate options, etc.

 

Contact: Earl Sires, Grand County Administrator (801) 259-1346

Salt Lake County

Salt Lake County has a detailed Parks and Recreation Plan for the unincorporated areas of the county. The county is divided into community councils which plan for the open areas located within each. The county has ordinances outlining PUD development standards, Wasatch Canyon Development Standards, and sensitive lands in general, restricting development in utility areas, slopes above 30 percent, watersheds and geologic sensitive areas.

Contact: County Master Planning Dept. (801) 468-2061

Salt Lake County, in cooperation with the Utah Reclamation Mitigation Conservation Commission, is now acquiring up to 1000 acres of critical wetlands along the Jordan River Corridor using up to $7 million dollars authorized in Section 311 of the CUP Completion Act.

Contact: Steven F. Jensen (801) 468-3630

Draper

Draper's growth boom is expected to top 30 percent in 1996, and housing development is rapidly changing the character of this once-rural community. The city is in the midst of negotiating an aggressive open space preservation policy for its General Plan, which will consist primarily of acquisition and developer exactions. The city has already worked with the designers of the Centennial, South Mountain, Fields at Draper, and other developments to offer higher zoning densities in exchange for open space--preserving some 470 acres in 17 parcels. Another designated open space area is Corner Canyon Preservation Area, located at the foot of the Wasatch Mountains near Lone Peak Wilderness Area. Providing access to a wide variety of recreationists, Corner Canyon is owned by a private cooperative of water development companies.

Contact: Paul Glauser, Draper Community Development Director, (801) 576-6520

Murray

Murray is committed to its urban park system and has been purchasing large parcels of urban park land for more than twenty years. In fact, Murray now considers itself "a city within a park" which is evidenced by Murray City Park and the high level of contribution the city has made to the Jordan River Parkway. Its formal park and recreation planning efforts began in the early seventies. An updated parks and recreation master plan for Murray City was adopted in 1994. It includes a needs analysis based on current data and determines goals and standards for new park development in the city based on national standards. Currently Murray has 33.6 acres of neighborhood parks, 67 acres of community parks, 422.3 acres of large urban parks, and 3.3 miles of linear park (trails).

Contact: Doug Hill, Director Parks and Recreation Department, Murray City, 264-2617

Jordan River Parkway

Murray will continue expanding its park system in the Jordan River Parkway. It has already spent $3 million in property acquisition and development along the Jordan River. The Parkway has been one of the greatest natural resources to the community and has increased adjacent property values. Other cities along the Jordan River, namely Salt Lake City, West Jordan, and Midvale, have also committed to park planning and development.

Contact: Doug Hill, Director Parks and Recreation Department, Murray City, 264-2617

Sandy City Dimple Dell Park Project

Sandy City has been working toward expanding Dimple Dell, currently the largest regional park in Salt Lake County. The park surrounds a natural drainage area that spans from the foothills of the Wasatch Mountains to the Valley floor. It has been designated an Urban Natural Area and Wildlife preserve. For its expansion, Sandy City has been working in partnerships with Salt Lake County, the City-County Health Department and the Department of Environmental Quality to seek funding from the Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfield Initiative to reclaim the Old Sandy Landfill. Under the Landfill Redevelopment Project the Old Sandy Landfill will be sealed, covered with soil and prepared for recreational activities. The funding has not yet been secured, but Sandy City has extended a great deal of creativity and initiative in pursuing this project.

Contact: Malcolm Nash, Sandy City (801) 568-7145

Salt Lake City

In 1992 Salt Lake City initiated an extensive open space planning project. The resulting Salt Lake City Open Space Plan presents a clear and coherent open space system that when implemented will achieve the following goals:

Conserve the natural environment

Enhance open space amenities for all citizens

Connect the various parts of the city to natural environments

Educate the citizens on proper use of open space

 

The Plan establishes greenway corridors that reconnect the mountains to the wetlands by way of stream beds, reestablishing the historic connection between the mountains and the valley. Linear parks and trails will be created through the urbanized area using existing public property and easements and rights-of way that will follow the creek drainages wherever possible. Trails will connect developed urban parks and existing natural areas along the creekbeds. Two of the larger proposed greenways are the Glendale/Liberty Corridor which connects Liberty Park to the Jordan River at Glendale Park, and the Northwest Corridor which connects the northeastern edge of the city to the Shoreline Trail.

A Salt Lake City Open Space Trust is in the process of being established to monitor the progress of the plan, generate funding, and assist with consolidating public ownership of the greenways.

Contact Salt Lake City Planning Dept., Doug Wheelwright (801) 535-7757

Summit County

Summit County has a general plan and three detailed region-specific land use plans; the Snyderville Basin, South Summit, and East Summit Development Plans, all three of which have an open space component that fits the individual area's needs.

South Summit Development Plan

Included within the scope of the South Summit Plan are the criteria necessary for an open space system based on a variety of landscapes and connected parcels. Those criteria include:

High value wetlands with 100 foot buffer and moderate value wetlands where development is strictly regulated by the United States Corps of Engineers;

2. 100 year flood plains;

3. slopes steeper than 30 percent; and

4. stream corridors with 150 foot buffer.

In addition to these critical lands, Summit County has identified development controls which can mitigate important environmental values and economic impacts. These elements include slopes of 15 percent to 30 percent, visually vulnerable landscapes, community identified open space priorities, transportation corridors and 100 foot buffers beyond the right of way, and non-motorized trails.

Contact: Jim McNulty, Summit County Planning Office (801) 366-4451

Park City Sensitive Lands Ordinance

In 1992, Park City adopted a Sensitive Lands Ordinance and is currently in the process of revising it. It is a very detailed ordinance and serves as a good example of the many tools available for open space retention and how they can be applied to a jurisdiction. Keep in mind that an ordinance like this takes a highly trained, diligent staff, to enforce it. GIS capability is also helpful to 'visualize' land use impacts.

As part of the plan development process, sensitive lands were identified and defined as a sensitive lands overlay zone. Types of sensitive lands addressed in the overlay zone include steep slopes (slopes of greater than 15%), ridge lines, entry corridors, significant wetlands, and streams. Measures were developed to protect these types of areas and within each category, specific regulations were devised to apply to density, open space, site design, and building design.

Any development proposed within the area is required to provide a detailed environmental analysis including information on slope, ridge lines, vegetation, proximity to entry corridors, wetlands, and streams. Once this is completed, the Community Development Department conducts a Site Development Suitability Review which identifies the sensitive areas and the resulting density on the site. After a Site Development Suitability Review, the developer is allowed to increase densities in the developable area of a site if other more sensitive areas are left open.

After an application to the City Council has been approved, a developer may file a Hardship Relief Petition with the Community Development Director. This petition is an attempt to obtain exemption for overlay zone regulations on the basis that denial of the application has created a substantial economic hardship, depriving the applicant of all reasonable uses of its property.

Contact: Meg Ryan, Park City Planning Office, (435) 615-5060

Tooele County

In its General Plan, Tooele County outlines three purposes of open space, giving the rationale for open space preservation:

1. Preservation of a rural lifestyle. The county, like most of the state, has a rich agricultural heritage. Through preserving agricultural land where possible, Tooele County will be able to maintain its rural character.

2. Protection of the environment. Farmland and sensitive land preservation protects water resources, wildlife habitat, floodplains, and air quality, all of which are important resources to Tooele County.

3. Prevention of high costs of urban development. Delivering urban services to outlying developments is expensive. The county has set goals for keeping development in incorporated areas, or within planned infrastructure service districts to mitigate costs.

Contact: Neil Cline, Tooele County Planning Office, (801) 882-9160

Utah County

Utah County has a county wide zoning ordinance with agriculture, and large lot zones in place. Much of the unincorporated county area does not have urban services in place and the county is not planning to build urban infrastructure. The county has a progressive building ordinance for those areas that can be developed. It sets standards for Planned Unit Developments and Mountain Home Developments, requiring a percentage of land in each development to remain open based on density and land area.

Contact: Buck Rose, Utah County Planning Commission, (801) 370-8200

Washington County

As one of the most visually spectacular areas of the state, Washington County is in a unique position regarding open space planning. The county is almost 80 percent public land, and most of the remaining land is incorporated by the cities. Yet, the county has recognized the importance of preserving valuable scenic and sensitive areas and is including sensitive and open land preservation in its current general planning effort. The county is acting as the planning coordination entity for all the city planning efforts to assure that sensitive and scenic lands on a regional level are preserved.

Contact: John Willie, Washington County Planning (801) 634-5701

Washington County Open Space Committee

In February of 1996 Washington County citizens and officials formed an Open Space Committee. The Committee "represents the diverse interests and seeks common solutions for the conservation of valuable open spaces in Washington County." The Committee's mission is to "promote coordinate and assist in the accomplishment of open space projects which are beneficial to the residents, businesses, and ecology of Washington County, especially those which span jurisdictional boundaries within the County."

Contact: Ken Sizemore, Five County AOG, (801) 673-3548

St. George Open Space Plan

In the St. George Open Space Preservation Plan the city sets goals for parks development and open space acquisition. St. George's goal is to raise the current level of park and open space availability to 6 acres per 1,000 residents. It also has planned a linear park system, or greenbelt that will connect city neighborhoods to parks, open spaces, recreation, and other facilities. Major features of the linear park will be bicycle/pedestrian trail networks and preservation of the native landscape's habitat areas and natural beauty. Last spring St. George passed a bond that will fund the first implementation phase of the plan. The Virgin river Confluence Central Park is the focus of the plan, with greenway/trails and neighborhood parks radiating our from it. In partnerships with businesses and conservation groups, the City has completed the portion of the Virgin River Parkway that links Bloomington to the Virgin River Confluence park.

Contact: John Wilson, St. George Parks and Recreation Dept. (801) 634-5869

Weber County

Ogden River Parkway

Ogden City realized a longtime goal of cleaning up the Ogden River with the construction of the Ogden River Parkway, begun in 1988. Currently 3.5 miles long, the asphalt trail connects various parks around town, including Dinosaur Park, Big D sports park, an arboretum, a wedding gazebo and outdoor convention site, and a USU botanical garden center. Future plans involve connecting the Parkway with Riverdale's trail system and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.

Organizers attribute the project's success to broad-based citizen and corporate support. Ogden City owned much of the land along the Parkway, and purchased conservation easements on several privately-owned parcels. The city also acquired a grant from a federal Trails Grant Program, and provided in-kind labor and materials. A private foundation raised the bulk of the funding for the Parkway project, as well as for nearby Dinosaur Park. In a unique funding arrangement, revenues collected from Dinosaur Park provide for the maintenance and security needs of the Parkway.

Contact: Jerry McKean, Ogden City Parks Operations Manager, (801) 629-8284.

Big D Sports Park

Ogden City's Master Plan specifically states that Big D Sports Park must remain open for public use at all times; that is, it cannot be scheduled for use by sports leagues. The large field sits on reclaimed land atop a capped landfill.

Contact: Jerry McKean, Ogden City Parks Operations Manager, (801) 629-8284.

General Plan Survey:

The following entities have an agricultural preservation/open space component in their General Plans, or are conducting a planning effort which involves open space:

Cache County

Logan

Davis County

Wetlands Plan

Layton Wetlands Preserve

Antelope Island Resource Management Plan

Grand County

Moab

Salt Lake County

Salt Lake

Draper

Jordan River Parkway

Murray City (park and recreation plan)

Salt Lake City

Sandy (recreation and trails plan)

West Valley City

Summit County

Park City

Tooele County

Utah County

American Fork

Provo

Wasatch County

Washington County

Springdale

St. George

Weber County

Ogden

Riverdale

Bluff Service Area

Submit plans and information about your community's open space efforts to Michael Crane, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, (801) 538-1556.
 
 

Appendix C

Creation of the Quality Growth Commission
QUALITY GROWTH ACT OF 1999 HB119

Due to rapid growth of population and housing in Utah, particularly within the greater Wasatch area, the increased costs of providing infrastructure to a growing population, and the disappearance of farm land and open space, the Governor and the Legislature passed and signed the “Quality Growth Act of 1999."  This legislation creates new opportunities for local governments seeking to preserve open lands.   The Act supports critical land conservation, home ownership, housing availability, efficient development of infrastructure and efficient use of land.  The act applies to cities and counties on a purely voluntary basis, and mandates nothing.

Quality Growth Commission

The Quality Growth Commission has thirteen members who are appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate.  Staff services for the Commission are provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, and partially by local entities through the Utah Association of Counties and the Utah League of Cities and Towns.  Membership of the Commission consists of:

      • Two persons at the state government level, one of whom must be from the Department of Natural
     Resources.
      • Six elected officials at the local level, three of whom must be nominated by the Utah Association of
     Counties and three of   whom must be nominated by the Utah League of Cities and Towns.
      • One person nominated by the Utah Home Builders Association.
      • One person nominated by the Utah Association of Realtors.
      • Two persons from the agricultural community, nominated by Utah farm organizations.
      • One person selected from the private profit or nonprofit sector.

Commission members are appointed to four year terms, with a limit of two consecutive terms of service.  Positions on the Commission are unpaid.

Commission Duties and Powers

Though the Commission holds no regulatory authority, it does have certain duties and powers that enable it to aid local government in their efforts to manage growth, and protect open lands.  These duties include:

      • Advise the Legislature on growth management issues.
      • Make recommendations to the legislature for future quality growth laws.
      • Conduct a review in the year 2002 and each subsequent year to determine statewide progress on
     planning issues, and report to the legislature.
      • Administer the LeRay McAllister Critical Land Conservation Fund (described on the following page).
      • Assist local governments in their efforts to identify locally appropriate quality growth principles.
      • Provide local government with grants for training, planning, public participation and to create and
     implement quality growth initiatives ($250,000 was appropriated for this purpose).
      • Complete the additional tasks assigned by the legislature (see below) and report to the Political
     Subdivisions Interim Committee by November 30, 1999.

LeRay McAllister Critical Land Conservation Fund

The LeRay McAllister Critical Land Conservation Fund will be administered by the Commission, and is available to local governments, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture and Food and a charitable organization that qualifies as tax exempt under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  All loan and grant recipients must provide matching funds equal or greater than the amount of money received from the fund.  Money in the fund will be used for:

      • Purchase of conservation easements to preserve or restore open lands and agricultural lands.  All
     easements must be held by a state or local government entity.
      • Fee interest purchases of real property to preserve open land and agricultural land, provided the
     parcel is less than 20 acres in size.  In counties where 50% or more of the total land mass is publicly
     owned, a parcel of similar size must be transferred from public to private ownership.

The Commission will prioritize applications by the nature, amount, quality and cost effectiveness of the open space or agricultural land to be preserved.  Additional consideration will be given to applicants with a plan stating the effects of the project on housing affordability and private property rights.  Money for the fund will come from various sources including:

      • Legislative appropriations ($2,750,000 was appropriated for FY 1999-2000).
      • Absorption of the existing LeRay McAllister Revolving Loan Fund ($130,000).
      • Contributions from federal agencies, political subdivisions of the state, persons, or corporations.
      • Funds from the State Building Energy Efficiency Program. This will be created by executive order from
     the Governor (see below).
      • State proceeds from a one-time refund from an electrical service provider ($300,000).
      • Proceeds from the sale of surplus lands by the Department of Natural Resources, Department of
     Agriculture and Food and the Department of Transportation.

The total amount of money in the fund may not exceed $6 million.

State Building Energy Efficiency Program

State government spends nearly $30,000,000 each year on energy for state-owned facilities.  The Act gives the governor the ability through executive order to create the State Building Energy Efficiency Program, which could realize up to $10,700,000 in savings each year.  Advantages of the program include:

      • Critical Land Preservation is funded through savings not taxes or budget cuts.
      • State agencies keep 50% of net savings achieved by implementing energy efficiency measures, with the
     remaining 50% added to the Critical Land Conservation Fund.
      • Program can be implemented using existing state personnel and resources with little additional costs
     to the state.
      • Performance-based program whose objectives are measurable.

To ensure that the program is being implemented and operating properly, the Act requires that the person or agency overseeing the program submit a report annually to the Capitol Facilities and Administrative Services Appropriations Committee of the Legislature.

Additional Responsibilities of the Commission

Additional responsibilities for the Commission were expressed by intent language in the Act.  These responsibilities are to study and report to the Political Subdivisions Interim Committee by November 30, 1999.  Regarding:

      • Formulation of quality growth principles based upon input from local government representatives.
      • Development of draft legislation to implement quality growth principles.
      • Recommendation of possible changes to the legislature in funding sources for the Conservation Fund.
      • Development of criteria and standards for distribution of money from fund.
      • Review of 20 acre parcel limit, and recommendations for whether or not it should be changed.
      • Recommendations for whether the money in the fund should be used to aid in implementation of
     quality growth principles.

Intent Language

Essential to the long term success of the Act, and growth management in Utah, is the creation of Quality Growth Areas.  The Commission will play a vital role in the creation of these areas.  The Act states that it is    the intent of the legislature to establish Quality Growth Areas based upon recommendations from the Commission.  When creating criteria for these areas, it is the intention of the Legislature that the Commission consider:

      • Whether the area should have, or has adequate existing infrastructure, or access to additional
     infrastructure.
      • Whether affordable housing should be integrated into the area.
      • The area’s potential for infill development.
      • If the area has potential for the rehabilitation of Brownfield areas or dilapidated areas.
      • Whether new development in the area should achieve a density that is greater than the average existing
     density of the area.
      • Whether a local entity should integrate the conservation of open land and agricultural land into the
     area.

Upon making recommendations to the legislature it is intended by the Act that the Commission aid in drafting Quality Growth Area legislation which will:

      • Require all state agencies, departments, and boards adhere to the newly established Quality Growth
     Principles.
      • Allow 50% of future increases in the state’s private activity bond cap to be used for development that
     occurs in a Quality Growth Area.
      • Make exceptions for rural communities so that they are not penalized for not having Quality Growth
     Areas.
      • Ensure the rights of private property owners.
      • Ensure that there is no net loss of private property in the state.
      • Ensure local control over land use and development decisions but with state coordination  and
     leadership.
      • Encourage cooperation between local entities and other providers of public services.
      • Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services already exist.
      • Eliminate barriers to quality growth in state statute.
 
 

Appendix D
..........................................................................

Open Space Conservation Resources
 
 

Federal Programs

Bureau of Land Management
324 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
(801) 539-4010
FAX (801) 539-4013

USDA, Farm Service Agency
Conservation and Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 2415
Washington, DC 20013
(202) 720-5295

USDA, Farm Service Agency
Utah Office - Conservation Programs
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
(801) 524-3262

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Private Lands Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rm. 400
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 358-2161

Private Lands Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
145 East 1300 South Suite 404
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115
(801) 524-5001
FAX (801) 524-5021

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission
111 E Broadway, Suite 310
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
(801) 524-3146

North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 358-1784

USDA Forest Service
Cooperative Forestry Staff
Auditors Building
201 14th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250
(202) 205-1374

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
(202) 720-1845
 
 

State Programs

Utah Department of Agriculture
350 North Redwood Road
Salt Lake City, UT 84302
FAX (801) 538-7126

Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Division of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
(801) 538-6146

Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands
1594 West North Temple, Suite 3520
Box 145703
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5703
(801) 538-5555
FAX (801) 533-4111

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
1594 West North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
(801) 538-4700
FAX (801) 538-4709

Division of Parks and Recreation
1636 West North Temple Suite 116
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-3156
(801) 538-7220

Division of Water Rights
1636 West North Temple, Suite 220
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-3156
(801) 538-7240

Division of Water Resources
1636 West North Temple Suite 310
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
(801) 538-7230
 
 

National Land Trusts and Conservation Organizations

American Farmland Trust
1920 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 659-5170

American Greenways / DuPont Awards Program
Arlington, VA
(703) 525-6300

Conservation Foundation-World Wildlife Fund
1250 24th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 293-4800

Ducks Unlimited
1155 Connecticut Ave., NW #800
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 452-8824

Land Trust Alliance
(the national clearing-house for open space preservation information)
900 17th Street, NW Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 785-1410

National Audubon Society
950 Third Ave
New York, New York 10022
(212) 832-3200

National Association of Conservation Districts
1012 Vermont Ave, NW Suite 730
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 347-5995

Rails to Trails Conservancy
1710 K Street, NW Suite 304
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 659-8520

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
2291 West Broadway P.O. Box 8249
Missoula, MT 59807-8249
Thomas L. Woodruff, Lands Program Manager
William Christensen, Utah Field Director
(801) 254-1924

The Trust for Public Lands
312 Massachusetts Ave.
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 543-7552

The Nature Conservancy of Utah
559 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Chris Montague
(801) 531-0999

The Conservation Fund
1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 1120
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 525-6300

Trout Unlimited
800 Follin Lane
Vienna, VA 22180-4959
(703) 281-1100

Trout Unlimited-USFS National Partnership
P.O. Box 11861
125 South State Street
USFS -Rm 8236
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Don Duff, Coordinator (801)524-3172
7642.3234@compuserve.com or tudtrout@aol.com

Wildlife Habitat Council
1010 Wayne Ave, Suite 920
Silver Spring, MD 20910

LWRD Urban Parks Institute
(Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund)
153 Waverly Place
New York, NY 10014
Fred Kent, President
(212) 620-5660
E-mail: pps@pps.org
http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/nystate/upi4.html
 
 

Local Land Trusts and Programs

Coalition for Utah's Future/Project 2000
P.O. Box 30901
Salt Lake City, UT 84130
Greg Pesci (801) 973-3307

River Basin Coordinating Committee
524-5050

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
4000 Pine Valley Road
Woodland, UT 84063
William Christensen, Field Director
(801) 255-1922

Save Our Canyons
Ann Wexler (801) 581-4811

Sonoran Institute
7290 E. Broadway Blvd., Suite M
Tucson, AZ 85710
Luther Propst (520) 290-0828

Utah Open Lands Conservation Association
P.O. Box 680921
Park City, UT 84068
Wendy Fisher (801) 649-0220

Utah Association of Conservation Districts
10702 South 300 West Suite 120
South Jordan, UT 84095
(801) 572-9315

Virgin River Land Preservation Association
P.O. Box 1804
St. George, UT 84771
Lori Rose 674-1074

Wasatch Land Conservancy
6625 E. Killyon Canyon
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Fred Holt 272-4204
Richard Chalk 583-6484

Wasatch Front Resource Conservation &
Development Council (RC&D)
10702 South 300 West
South Jordan, UT 84095
David Spann 553-2210

Utah Council of Trout Unlimited
1471 East Canyon Drive
South Weber, UT 84405
Wes Johnson 479-8846

Planning Associations

American Planning Association
1313 East Sixtieth Street
Chicago, IL 60637

Utah Chapter of the American Planning Association
Nora Seltenrich, President 645-5023
Park City Municipal Corp.
P.O. Box 1480
Park City, UT 84060-3612

Local Government Planning Assistance
University of Utah
Center for Public Policy Administration
2120 Annex
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Gene Carr 581 6491

Utah Local Government Trust
360 East 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Gene Moser 649-1400

Utah League of Cities and Towns
50 South 600 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84147-0658
Sydney Fonnesbeck (800) 852-8528
http://www.utleague@aol

Utah State University Cooperative Extension Services
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84332-4005
Dave Bell 797-0500

Governor's Office of Planning and Budget
116 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Ray Milliner (801)538-1696
email: rmilline@gov.state.ut.us

Department of Community and Economic Development--Local Economic Development Initiatives (LEDI)
324 South State Street, Suite 500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-7360
Jonnie Wilkinson 538-8782
email: cemain.jwilkins@email.state.ut.us

Salt Lake County Community/Support Services
Water Resources Planning Program
N3003 Government Center
2001 South State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84190
(801) 468-3630

Associations of Government

Bear River AOG
(Box Elder, Cache, & Rich Counties)
170 North Main
Logan, UT 84321
Jay Aguilar 752-7242

Five County AOG
(Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, & Washington Counties)
906 North 1400 West
St. George, UT 84770
Kenneth Sizemore 673-3548

Mountainlands AOG
(Summit, Utah, & Wasatch Counties)
2545 North Canyon Road
Provo, UT 84604
377-2262

Six County AOG
(Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, & Wayne Counties)
P.O. Box 820
Richfield, UT 84701
Russ Cowley 896-9222

Southeast AOG
(Carbon, Emery, Grand, & San Juan Counties)
P.O. Box 1106
Price, UT 84501
Bill Howell 637-5444

Wasatch Front Regional Council
(Salt Lake, Davis, Tooele, Weber, & Morgan Counties)
420 West 1500 South
Bountiful, UT 84010
Wil Jeffries 299-1469

Uintah Basin AOG
(Daggett, Duchesne, & Uintah Counties)
855 East 200 North
Roosevelt, UT 84066
Greg Richins 722-4518

Local Legal Resources/Contacts

Utah Municipal Attorney's Association
P.O. Box 1480
445 Marsac Avenue
Park City, UT 84060
Jodi Hoffman, City Attorney 963-3271

Robert I Wall Asst, City Attorney 963-3271
3600 Constitution Boulevard
West Valley City, UT 84119

Local Government Section, Utah State Bar
Karl Hendrickson, Deputy County Attorney
Salt Lake County
20014 South State, #S-3600
Salt Lake City, UT 84190
468-3420

Statewide Association of Public Attorneys
Salt Lake County
2001 South State, #S-3600
Salt Lake City, UT 84190
Gavin Anderson, Deputy County Attorney
468-3420

Utah Association of Counties
4021 South 700 East Suite 180
Salt Lake City, UT 84107
Brent Gardner, Executive Director 265-1331

Utah League of Cities and Towns
50 South 600 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Sydney Fonnesbeck 328-1601

Utah Local Government Trust
360 East 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Gene Moser 649-1400

Center for Public Policy and Administration
2120 Annex - University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Gene Carr 581-6491 

Sources
...................................................................

Allred, Soffe, Wilkinson & Nichols. Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Master Plan. Murray City Corporation, 1994.

American Planning Association. "APA's Position on 'Takings.'" http://www.planning.org/govt/takings.html

Arendt, Randall. Rural By Design. Chicago: American Planning Association, Planners Press, 1993.

Arendt Randall, "Open Space Zoning." Planning Commissioner Journal, July/Aug 1992 http://www.webcom.com/~pcj/articles/are015.htm

Bear West et al. Uintah County General Plan. Uintah County, Utah, 1996.

Becker, Ralph. Preliminary Report, Open Space Alternatives, Park City General Plan Update. Salt Lake City: Bear West Consulting, 1995.

Blaesser, Brian W., and Weinstein, Alan C. Land Use and the Constitution. Chicago: American Planning Association, 1989.

Cache County-Wide Comprehensive Plan Draft. Cache County, Utah 1996.

City of St. George General Plan. St. George City Community Development Department with assistance from Winston Associates. Inc. Boulder, Colorado, 1995

Center for Public Policy and Administration. Planning and Zoning Administration in Utah. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1994.

Chapin, F. Stuart et al. Urban Land Use Planning. Fourth edition. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995.

Daniels, Thomas L. "The Purchase of Development Rights--Preserving Agricultural Land and Open Space." Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 57 No. 4, Autumn 1991.

Doing Deals: A Guide to Buying Land for Conservation, the Trust for Public Land and the Land Trust Alliance. 1995.

Duerksen, Christopher J. and Roddewig, Richard J. "Takings Law in Plain English," Second edition. Denver: Clarion Associates, Inc., 1994.

Duerkson, Chris, E. Johnson, and C. Fricke. Colorado Growth Management Toolbox. Denver: Clarion Associates, January 1995.

East Summit County General Plan. Summit County, Utah, 1996.

Factsheet: Urban Growth Boundaries. http://www.rahul.net/gba/ugbs.html

Fausold, Charles J. & Lilieholm, Robert J., "The Economic Value of Open Space." Landlines. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. September 1996 Vol. 8 No. 5.

Gallion, Arthur B. & Eisner, Simon. The Urban Pattern--City Planning and Design, Fifth edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1986.

Gillies Stransky Brems Smith Architects et al. Tooele County General Plan. Tooele County, Utah, 1995.

Greenbelt Alliance http://www.greenbelt.org/gba/ugbs.html

Grand County General Plan Draft. Grand County, Utah, 1995.

Jacobs, Harvey M. Ethics in Environmental Planning Practice: the Case of Agricultural Land Protection. Planning Ethics Center for Urban Policy Research. New Jersey: Rutgers, 1995.

Keate, Nancy S. Protection and Conservation of Sensitive Lands at the Local Level. Salt Lake City: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 1996.

Keate, Nancy, ed. Utah Wetland Program Summaries. Salt Lake City: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 1994.

Leavitt, Governor Michael. "Open Lands Committee Executive Order," 1996.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Land Conservation through Public Private Partnerships. Eve Endicott, editor. Washington DC: Island Press, 1992.

Mantell et al. Creating Successful Communities. The Conservation Foundation. Washington DC : Island Press, 1990.

McHarg, Ian L. Design With Nature. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1992.

Myers, Phyllis, ed. GreenSense--Financing Parks and Conservation. The Trust for Public Lands Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 1996.

Nelson, Arthur C. "Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization--Lessons from Oregon." Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 58 No. 4, Autumn 1992.

Nelson, Arthur C. and James B. Duncan. Growth Management Principles and Practices. Chicago: American Planning Association, Planners Press, 1995.

Pease, James R. and Robert E. Coughlin. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second edition. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1996.

Platt, Rutherford H. Land Use and Society - Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1996.

Small, Steven J., Esq. Preserving A Land Legacy - Resource Manual. Utah Open Lands, University of Utah Center for Public Policy, 1996.

Snyderville Basin General Plan: Environmental and Open Space Element. Summit County, Utah, 1993.

South Summit County General Plan. Summit County, Utah, 1995.

Steiner, Frederick R., James R. Pease, and Robert E. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1994.

Stokes, Samuel N., et al. Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.

The Nature Conservancy http://www.TNC.ORG

The Nature Conservancy of Utah. Basin Range & Rimrock Newsletter. Fall 1996.

United States Bureau of the Census population estimates. http://.www.census.gov

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Site. http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/OPA/FB96OPA/Sum96FB

Utah Population Estimates Committee Data Tables, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis Section Web Site. http://www.governor.state.ut.us/dea/

Utah Demographic Report. Salt Lake City: Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 1996.

Utah Department of Community & Economic Development. Shaping Livable Communities, Draft 3. Salt Lake City, 1996.

Utah Division of Parks and Recreation. "Real Estate Inventory List," 1992.

Utah Code Unannotaded. Charlottesville, Virginia: Michie Butterworth, 1995.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Monitoring Center Web Site.

Http://www.eq.state.ut.us/eqamc/amc.htm

Utah Recreation and Parks Association. Position Statement for Utah's Growth Summit. 1995.

Utah Wetlands Assistance Guide. Utah, quasi-governmental pamphlet, Utah Association of Planning Districts, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget.

Utah State University et al. Murray City Jordan River Parkway. Murray City Corporation, 1990.

1. Utah Population Estimates Committee

2.

U.S. Bureau of the Census Housing Estimates

3.

U.S. Bureau of the Census Population Estimates

4.

Utah Air Monitoring Center, Division of Air Quality

5.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Agriculture 1974, 1992

6. Chapin, Stuart F., et al., Urban Land Use Planning Fourth edition (Chicago: Univ. of Illinois, 1995) 295-298.

7. Fausold, Charles J. and Lilieholm, Robert J., "The Economic Value of Open Space," Landlines. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. September Vol. 8 No. 5

8. Brabec, Elizabeth "The Economics of Open Space," in Rural By Design by Randall Arendt (Chicago: APA, 1993) 280.

9. Nelson, Arthur C., "Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization," APA Journal Vol. 58 No. 4, Autumn 1992: 468.

10. Mantell, Harper and Propst, Creating Successful Communities (Washington: Island Press, 1990) 13.

11. Daniels, Thomas L., "The Purchase of Development Rights--Preserving Agricultural Land and Open Space," APA Journal Vol. 57, No. 4, Autumn 1991: 422.

12. McHarg, Ian, Design With Nature (New York: John Willey and Sons, 1992) 56.

13. The Trust for Public Land

14. Gallion, Arthur and Eisner, Simon, The Urban Pattern (New York: Van Nostrand Reinholdt, 1986) 311.

15. "Planning Commissioner Journal" website: http://www.webcom.com/~pcj/articles/are015.htm

16.

Platt, Rutherford H., Land Use and Society - Geography, Law, and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1996) 258-269.

17.

¹ Blaesser, Brian W., and Weinstein, Alan C., Land Use and the Constitution (Chicago: American Planning Association).

18. Center for Public Policy and Administration, Planning and Zoning Administration in Utah (Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1994) 11-5.

19. Leavitt, Gov. Michael, "Utah Critical Land Conservation Committee Executive Order," 1996.

20. Utah State Division of Parks and Recreation, "Real Estate Inventory List," 1992.

21. Nelson, Arthur C. and J. B. Duncan, Growth Management Principles and Practices (Chicago: APA, Planners Press, 1995) 48.

22. Ibid. 50.

23.

Oregon Vision 2020, p. 61.

24.

Nelson, Growth Management 68.

25.

Godschalk, in Nelson, Growth Management 59.

26.

Nelson, Growth Management 44.

27. Grand County General Plan Draft 1995.