gwrc | george washington regional commission · 2020. 9. 3. · final report to nfwf project title:...

137
Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George, Spotsylvania, and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates Through the George Washington Regional Commission’s Regional Green Infrastructure Plan July 31, 2017 Project Workgroup George Washington Regional Commission Rappahannock River Basin Commission Conservation Concepts Regional Decision Systems Center for Natural Capital Northern Virginia Conservation Trust Virginia Department of Forestry And local governments Revisiting the 2011 George Washington Regional Commission Green Infrastructure Regional Plan Rappahannock River, Fredericksburg, Virginia

Upload: others

Post on 21-Feb-2021

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

FinalReporttoNFWFProject Title Program Development for ImplementingStormwater Management by Caroline King GeorgeSpotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City ofFredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL MandatesThrough the George Washington Regional CommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

July312017

ProjectWorkgroup

GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionConservationConceptsRegionalDecisionSystemsCenterforNaturalCapitalNorthernVirginiaConservationTrustVirginiaDepartmentofForestryAndlocalgovernments

Revisitingthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommission

GreenInfrastructureRegionalPlan

RappahannockRiverFredericksburgVirginia

Background

The George Washington Regional Commission (ldquoGWRCrdquo) comprising the Virginiacounties of Caroline King George Stafford and Spotsylvania and the City ofFredericksburg commenced the preparation of a Green Infrastructure plan for theregion in 2008 which plan was accepted in 2011 by the Commission This studyexamines how that plan has played out the current status implementation lessonslearnedandsuggestedrecommendationsgoingforward

ScopeofWorkinthisReport

The Project Workgroup Team (the ldquoWorkgrouprdquo) prepared a set of detailed studieswhichareattachedasappendices to this report Akeyquantitativedocument is theldquoPD16Green InfrastructurePlan2016Updaterdquowhich replicated theoriginalGIPlanmethodology to locate new post-2008 development throughout the region andestimated the lossofadditionalGInetwork resulting fromnewdevelopmentrsquos impacton the Regionrsquos remaining GI network Another important element of this workinvolved coordinatingwith a parallel set of studies undertaken by the RappahannockRiverBasisCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestrywhichinvestigatedthevalue of retaining forest land related to the water quality goals set forth for theChesapeakeBay This reportwill note some findings and recommendations from theforestretentionanalysis

ProjectWorkgroup

TheProjectWorkgroup is thecontinuationofaGRWCStormwaterTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee initiated in 2012 This Technical Committee has worked on a number ofprojectsincludingworkonmodelstormwaterordinancesrunwaterqualityworkshopsand nutrient trading simulations It has participated in the meetings of theRappahannockRiverBasinCommission inconnectionwithrecentlycompletedHealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProjectThis Project was enabled through funding from the National Fish andWildlife Foundationrsquos TechnicalAssistance Grant Program and the generous in-kind contributions of the GeorgeWashington RegionalCommission Conservation Concepts LLC the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust Center for NaturalCapital Regional Decision Systems LLC Virginia Department of Forestry and the Rappahannock RiverBasinCommissionandlocalgovernmentstaff

2

TableofContentsPage

I ExecutiveSummary1

II BackgroundoftheGWRCRegionalInfrastructurePlan1

III ScopeofResearch2

IV WorkPlanandRelatedTasks7

MeetingwithLocalJurisdictions

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategies

andPolicies

CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreen

InfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

V Findings14

VI Recommendations15

VII NextStepsandImplementationSchedule17

Appendices

AFindingsandRecommendationsfrom2011Plan

BPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

CPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

DImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

ESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

FTableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject-Phases1amp2

GFocusGroupSummaries

IExecutiveSummary

The central focus of this study was to assess the local impact and level ofimplementation of the 2011 George Washington Regional Commission (ldquoGWRCrdquo)RegionalGreen InfrastructurePlan While formally ldquoadoptedrdquobyGWRC theRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasreferredtothelocalgovernmentsforconsiderationNospecific policies actions regulations or ordinances directly emerged from this planDuringtheperiodsince2011developmenthassignificantlyinfringedonprioritygreeninfrastructure resulting in further fragmentation of the green infrastructure networkandforestcover

The ldquotoolboxrdquo of land use ordinances and instruments available to the localgovernmentstomanagelanduseareextensivebutnotfullyutilizedThisreportnotesthattherearenewldquotoolsrdquowhichshouldbeconsideredbylocalgovernments

This study has been coordinated with an extensive and comprehensive HealthyWatershed Forest Retention study by the Rappahannock River Basin Commission(ldquoRRBCrdquo)andtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry (ldquoVDOFrdquo) Giventhat60percentofthe GWRC region is forested forest retention and its relation to the regionrsquosChesapeake Bay TMDL requirements green infrastructure has taken on a newdimension

TheWorkgroupbelievesthere isanopportunitytorethinkandpresentanewanopenspaceactionagendafortheregionTheoverarchingquestionfortheregionisldquoWhatDoYouWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquo

IIBackgroundofthe2011GWRCGreenInfrastructurePlan

In October 2008 the GWRC received a Virginia Coastal Zone Management ProgramGranttofocusondevelopingaregionalgreeninfrastructuredatasetanddevelopaplanOver thenext twoyears theGWRCconductedanumberof studiesand theproposedplanwasvettedwithpublicmeetingspresentationstothelocalplanningcommissionsandotherstakeholdersIn 2011 the GWRC adopted the PD 16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan (GI Plan)whichidentifiedimportanthighvalueenvironmentalcoreareascontributingcoreareasand connected these core areas creating a web of priority open space Therecommendationsoftheplancalledforan increase intreecanopyatargetof14300acres of new conservation easements support for the Chesapeake Bay WatershedImplementationPlans (WIPs) enhanceddata layer capabilities new treepreservationordinances and outreach to stakeholders The GI Plan was forwarded to the localgovernments as a matter of information with no Call for Action While the City ofFredericksburgandStaffordCountyrsquosgovernmentbodiesformallyadoptedthisplanthe

1

planhasbeenessentiallyanafterthoughtintherespectiveplanningprocessesofallfivelocalities The findings and recommendations of the 2011 Plan are contained inAppendixATherewere three objectives associatedwith this project 1) To ascertainwhere eachlocality stood in implementing their respective parts of the 2011 Regional GreenInfrastructure Plan developed for the local governments in the George WashingtonRegionalCommission(GWRC)regionandtheimpactsthatdevelopmenthashadonthenetwork during this timeframe 2) Examine the current impediments for better andmore rapid implementationof theRegionalGreen Infrastructure (GI)Plan and3)putforth recommendations for future implementation strategies for the GI Plan Thisreportandtheassociatedreports(Appendices)representtheculminationofoverayearof research that was conducted during this project upon which the Findings andConclusionsarebased

IIIScopeofResearch

The findings and recommendations of this report are largely based on the separatedetailedreportsinAppendicesBCandDwhicharesummarizedasfollows

AppendixBPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

This report has provided an important updated dataset providing locations of post-20081developmentandtherelatedbufferlossfromintersectingGIlandcoverThiswillenableplannersandpolicymakerstohaveamoreflexibleandprofessionaldiscussionofgreeninfrastructurepriorities

The 2011GI Planwas based on satellite imagery from 2000 classified by the VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreationinthecreationoftheVirginiaConservationLands Needs Assessment layer For the current project theWorkgroup updated the2008 regional-version of this layer with locations of new development and thensubtractedthecorresponding100meterbufferfromtheGIlayertoproducealdquoresidualrdquomapoftheremainingGIresourcethroughouttheregionby2016Thecomparisonsinthis report then are basedon thedifferences between2008 and2016developmentpatterns The updated building pattern data provided a clear representation ofdevelopment that had occurred since 2008 The Workgroup analysis quantified howmuchintrusionhadoccurredinthepriorityenvironmentalareasintheeight-yearperiodbetween2008and2016

Theprojectteamcloselyreplicatedthemethodologythatwasusedtodevelopthe2011GIPlan selectinga subsetof thebuildingdata that includedall buildings constructed 1The2011regionalGIplanupdated2000VDCRrsquosconservationlandsneedsassessmentdatawiththeimpact of new development from 2000 through 2008 The update report picks up with new

2

after 2008 through the latest date availablewhichwas generally the first quarter of20162 Any new buildings that were sited wholly or partially within three specifiedecologicalmappinglayerswereldquocountedrdquoasincursionsintotheGIareasThelocationsofthesenewbuildingssuggestedpossibledisturbanceoftheecologicalintegrityoftheunderlyingoradjoininggreen infrastructure layers Theecological impactofbuildingslocated outside the previously defined green infrastructure footprint was onlyreferencedinoveralldevelopmentnumbers

A 100-meter buffer was circumscribed around each new building in the 2008-2016updated data set to simulate the natural area disturbed by building construction andlikelysoundlightandodoremissionsfromthenewbuildingactivity Soundlightandodoremissionsdisruptthenaturalenvironmentandecologyof thesurroundinggreeninfrastructurelayers

Theanalysisshowsthattherewasa3757acrelossofGIintheperiod2008-2016Theimpactbyjurisdictionisshownbelow

2009-2016BuildingAcreageLosesbyLocality

LocalityTotal 2008-2016DevelopmentImpact(LostAcreage)

LandArea Hi-Value Contributing Eco- TotalGI PercentLoss(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002KingGeorge 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRCTotal 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

Itisnotablethattheperiodofthisstudy(2008to2016)coincideswiththestartofthenationalhousingmarketcollapseandoneofthemostsevereeconomicdownturnssincetheGreatDepression Becauseof the impactof the2008downturngrowthand landconversionwithintheregionhasbeenrelativelysmall

Still the information clearly shows that there was no plan in place to prioritize theprotectionofhighvalueenvironmentallandscapeThereisalsoaclearldquoSwissCheeserdquoeffect of development encroachment into the regionrsquos green infrastructure networkfragmentingmanyoftheecologicallyimportanteco-corridorsandcoreareas

AppendixCPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Due todevelopmentactivity throughoutVirginiarsquosPlanningDistrict16 the regionhas

3

experiencedlossofforestandtreecanopyresourcesthatlargelymakeuptheregionrsquosGreen Infrastructure (ldquoGI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefitsthroughout the regionWith the 2011 and 2016 studies GWRC staff and consultantshavedocumentedthegradual lossandfragmentationoftheregionrsquosGInetworkAsatool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GIretention could be most beneficial the Workgroup developed the followingprioritizationstrategytoidentifyimportantGIparcels

ThemapbelowprovidesanoverviewoftheGRWCregionThelargestgreenareasarethemilitarybasesofAPHillandQuanticoTotheeastaretheheavilyforestedcountiesofCarolineandKingGeorge The regionabuts thePotomacRiver and comprises themiddle section of the Rappahannock River Basin I-95 runs north and south andcontainsmostofthecommercialactivity

2016GreenInfrastructureUpdateMap

SourcePD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategyMarch2017

PrioritizationMethodology-Usingtheresultsofthe2016GreenInfrastructurenetworkupdateRDSidentifiedallparcelsthatadjoinedoroverlappedeithertheregionrsquoshigh-

4

valueeco-coreareasortheremaininginterconnectingeco-corridorswhichtraversethelandscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributingeco-coreareasconsistingofsmallerforestedandwetlandareas

Thisresultingsubsetofparcelswerethenscoredbasedonthefollowingprioritycriteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core orconnectingeco-corridorareas(1pt)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (asdefined by VDCR consisting of parkland military installations wildlifemanagementareasetc)

a Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquobutwithabuildingontheparcel(1pt)

b Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquowithnobuildingsontheparcel(2pts)

3 ParceltouchesadesignatedNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)feature(1pt)

4 Parcelisoutsideapprovedsubdividedlands(ieaplattedsubdivision)(1pt)

Acompositescore(ldquoPriorityIndexrdquo)basedonthesumofthesecriteria(withaminimumvalueof1andamaximumvalueof5)wascalculatedandmappedshowingagradientldquoheatmaprdquoofthepossiblescores(1ndash5)Areasscoringeitherldquo4rdquoorldquo5rdquoweregroupedtogetherasthehighestpriorityretentionareas(red)followedbyareasscoringldquo3rdquowereshadedinorangefollowedbyareasscoredasldquo2rdquoshadedasmustardyellowandareasinldquo1rdquowhereshowninlighteryellow

Summary of Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationReport

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 2: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

Background

The George Washington Regional Commission (ldquoGWRCrdquo) comprising the Virginiacounties of Caroline King George Stafford and Spotsylvania and the City ofFredericksburg commenced the preparation of a Green Infrastructure plan for theregion in 2008 which plan was accepted in 2011 by the Commission This studyexamines how that plan has played out the current status implementation lessonslearnedandsuggestedrecommendationsgoingforward

ScopeofWorkinthisReport

The Project Workgroup Team (the ldquoWorkgrouprdquo) prepared a set of detailed studieswhichareattachedasappendices to this report Akeyquantitativedocument is theldquoPD16Green InfrastructurePlan2016Updaterdquowhich replicated theoriginalGIPlanmethodology to locate new post-2008 development throughout the region andestimated the lossofadditionalGInetwork resulting fromnewdevelopmentrsquos impacton the Regionrsquos remaining GI network Another important element of this workinvolved coordinatingwith a parallel set of studies undertaken by the RappahannockRiverBasisCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestrywhichinvestigatedthevalue of retaining forest land related to the water quality goals set forth for theChesapeakeBay This reportwill note some findings and recommendations from theforestretentionanalysis

ProjectWorkgroup

TheProjectWorkgroup is thecontinuationofaGRWCStormwaterTechnicalAdvisoryCommittee initiated in 2012 This Technical Committee has worked on a number ofprojectsincludingworkonmodelstormwaterordinancesrunwaterqualityworkshopsand nutrient trading simulations It has participated in the meetings of theRappahannockRiverBasinCommission inconnectionwithrecentlycompletedHealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProjectThis Project was enabled through funding from the National Fish andWildlife Foundationrsquos TechnicalAssistance Grant Program and the generous in-kind contributions of the GeorgeWashington RegionalCommission Conservation Concepts LLC the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust Center for NaturalCapital Regional Decision Systems LLC Virginia Department of Forestry and the Rappahannock RiverBasinCommissionandlocalgovernmentstaff

2

TableofContentsPage

I ExecutiveSummary1

II BackgroundoftheGWRCRegionalInfrastructurePlan1

III ScopeofResearch2

IV WorkPlanandRelatedTasks7

MeetingwithLocalJurisdictions

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategies

andPolicies

CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreen

InfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

V Findings14

VI Recommendations15

VII NextStepsandImplementationSchedule17

Appendices

AFindingsandRecommendationsfrom2011Plan

BPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

CPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

DImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

ESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

FTableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject-Phases1amp2

GFocusGroupSummaries

IExecutiveSummary

The central focus of this study was to assess the local impact and level ofimplementation of the 2011 George Washington Regional Commission (ldquoGWRCrdquo)RegionalGreen InfrastructurePlan While formally ldquoadoptedrdquobyGWRC theRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasreferredtothelocalgovernmentsforconsiderationNospecific policies actions regulations or ordinances directly emerged from this planDuringtheperiodsince2011developmenthassignificantlyinfringedonprioritygreeninfrastructure resulting in further fragmentation of the green infrastructure networkandforestcover

The ldquotoolboxrdquo of land use ordinances and instruments available to the localgovernmentstomanagelanduseareextensivebutnotfullyutilizedThisreportnotesthattherearenewldquotoolsrdquowhichshouldbeconsideredbylocalgovernments

This study has been coordinated with an extensive and comprehensive HealthyWatershed Forest Retention study by the Rappahannock River Basin Commission(ldquoRRBCrdquo)andtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry (ldquoVDOFrdquo) Giventhat60percentofthe GWRC region is forested forest retention and its relation to the regionrsquosChesapeake Bay TMDL requirements green infrastructure has taken on a newdimension

TheWorkgroupbelievesthere isanopportunitytorethinkandpresentanewanopenspaceactionagendafortheregionTheoverarchingquestionfortheregionisldquoWhatDoYouWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquo

IIBackgroundofthe2011GWRCGreenInfrastructurePlan

In October 2008 the GWRC received a Virginia Coastal Zone Management ProgramGranttofocusondevelopingaregionalgreeninfrastructuredatasetanddevelopaplanOver thenext twoyears theGWRCconductedanumberof studiesand theproposedplanwasvettedwithpublicmeetingspresentationstothelocalplanningcommissionsandotherstakeholdersIn 2011 the GWRC adopted the PD 16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan (GI Plan)whichidentifiedimportanthighvalueenvironmentalcoreareascontributingcoreareasand connected these core areas creating a web of priority open space Therecommendationsoftheplancalledforan increase intreecanopyatargetof14300acres of new conservation easements support for the Chesapeake Bay WatershedImplementationPlans (WIPs) enhanceddata layer capabilities new treepreservationordinances and outreach to stakeholders The GI Plan was forwarded to the localgovernments as a matter of information with no Call for Action While the City ofFredericksburgandStaffordCountyrsquosgovernmentbodiesformallyadoptedthisplanthe

1

planhasbeenessentiallyanafterthoughtintherespectiveplanningprocessesofallfivelocalities The findings and recommendations of the 2011 Plan are contained inAppendixATherewere three objectives associatedwith this project 1) To ascertainwhere eachlocality stood in implementing their respective parts of the 2011 Regional GreenInfrastructure Plan developed for the local governments in the George WashingtonRegionalCommission(GWRC)regionandtheimpactsthatdevelopmenthashadonthenetwork during this timeframe 2) Examine the current impediments for better andmore rapid implementationof theRegionalGreen Infrastructure (GI)Plan and3)putforth recommendations for future implementation strategies for the GI Plan Thisreportandtheassociatedreports(Appendices)representtheculminationofoverayearof research that was conducted during this project upon which the Findings andConclusionsarebased

IIIScopeofResearch

The findings and recommendations of this report are largely based on the separatedetailedreportsinAppendicesBCandDwhicharesummarizedasfollows

AppendixBPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

This report has provided an important updated dataset providing locations of post-20081developmentandtherelatedbufferlossfromintersectingGIlandcoverThiswillenableplannersandpolicymakerstohaveamoreflexibleandprofessionaldiscussionofgreeninfrastructurepriorities

The 2011GI Planwas based on satellite imagery from 2000 classified by the VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreationinthecreationoftheVirginiaConservationLands Needs Assessment layer For the current project theWorkgroup updated the2008 regional-version of this layer with locations of new development and thensubtractedthecorresponding100meterbufferfromtheGIlayertoproducealdquoresidualrdquomapoftheremainingGIresourcethroughouttheregionby2016Thecomparisonsinthis report then are basedon thedifferences between2008 and2016developmentpatterns The updated building pattern data provided a clear representation ofdevelopment that had occurred since 2008 The Workgroup analysis quantified howmuchintrusionhadoccurredinthepriorityenvironmentalareasintheeight-yearperiodbetween2008and2016

Theprojectteamcloselyreplicatedthemethodologythatwasusedtodevelopthe2011GIPlan selectinga subsetof thebuildingdata that includedall buildings constructed 1The2011regionalGIplanupdated2000VDCRrsquosconservationlandsneedsassessmentdatawiththeimpact of new development from 2000 through 2008 The update report picks up with new

2

after 2008 through the latest date availablewhichwas generally the first quarter of20162 Any new buildings that were sited wholly or partially within three specifiedecologicalmappinglayerswereldquocountedrdquoasincursionsintotheGIareasThelocationsofthesenewbuildingssuggestedpossibledisturbanceoftheecologicalintegrityoftheunderlyingoradjoininggreen infrastructure layers Theecological impactofbuildingslocated outside the previously defined green infrastructure footprint was onlyreferencedinoveralldevelopmentnumbers

A 100-meter buffer was circumscribed around each new building in the 2008-2016updated data set to simulate the natural area disturbed by building construction andlikelysoundlightandodoremissionsfromthenewbuildingactivity Soundlightandodoremissionsdisruptthenaturalenvironmentandecologyof thesurroundinggreeninfrastructurelayers

Theanalysisshowsthattherewasa3757acrelossofGIintheperiod2008-2016Theimpactbyjurisdictionisshownbelow

2009-2016BuildingAcreageLosesbyLocality

LocalityTotal 2008-2016DevelopmentImpact(LostAcreage)

LandArea Hi-Value Contributing Eco- TotalGI PercentLoss(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002KingGeorge 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRCTotal 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

Itisnotablethattheperiodofthisstudy(2008to2016)coincideswiththestartofthenationalhousingmarketcollapseandoneofthemostsevereeconomicdownturnssincetheGreatDepression Becauseof the impactof the2008downturngrowthand landconversionwithintheregionhasbeenrelativelysmall

Still the information clearly shows that there was no plan in place to prioritize theprotectionofhighvalueenvironmentallandscapeThereisalsoaclearldquoSwissCheeserdquoeffect of development encroachment into the regionrsquos green infrastructure networkfragmentingmanyoftheecologicallyimportanteco-corridorsandcoreareas

AppendixCPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Due todevelopmentactivity throughoutVirginiarsquosPlanningDistrict16 the regionhas

3

experiencedlossofforestandtreecanopyresourcesthatlargelymakeuptheregionrsquosGreen Infrastructure (ldquoGI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefitsthroughout the regionWith the 2011 and 2016 studies GWRC staff and consultantshavedocumentedthegradual lossandfragmentationoftheregionrsquosGInetworkAsatool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GIretention could be most beneficial the Workgroup developed the followingprioritizationstrategytoidentifyimportantGIparcels

ThemapbelowprovidesanoverviewoftheGRWCregionThelargestgreenareasarethemilitarybasesofAPHillandQuanticoTotheeastaretheheavilyforestedcountiesofCarolineandKingGeorge The regionabuts thePotomacRiver and comprises themiddle section of the Rappahannock River Basin I-95 runs north and south andcontainsmostofthecommercialactivity

2016GreenInfrastructureUpdateMap

SourcePD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategyMarch2017

PrioritizationMethodology-Usingtheresultsofthe2016GreenInfrastructurenetworkupdateRDSidentifiedallparcelsthatadjoinedoroverlappedeithertheregionrsquoshigh-

4

valueeco-coreareasortheremaininginterconnectingeco-corridorswhichtraversethelandscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributingeco-coreareasconsistingofsmallerforestedandwetlandareas

Thisresultingsubsetofparcelswerethenscoredbasedonthefollowingprioritycriteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core orconnectingeco-corridorareas(1pt)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (asdefined by VDCR consisting of parkland military installations wildlifemanagementareasetc)

a Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquobutwithabuildingontheparcel(1pt)

b Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquowithnobuildingsontheparcel(2pts)

3 ParceltouchesadesignatedNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)feature(1pt)

4 Parcelisoutsideapprovedsubdividedlands(ieaplattedsubdivision)(1pt)

Acompositescore(ldquoPriorityIndexrdquo)basedonthesumofthesecriteria(withaminimumvalueof1andamaximumvalueof5)wascalculatedandmappedshowingagradientldquoheatmaprdquoofthepossiblescores(1ndash5)Areasscoringeitherldquo4rdquoorldquo5rdquoweregroupedtogetherasthehighestpriorityretentionareas(red)followedbyareasscoringldquo3rdquowereshadedinorangefollowedbyareasscoredasldquo2rdquoshadedasmustardyellowandareasinldquo1rdquowhereshowninlighteryellow

Summary of Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationReport

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

2YHUWKHVHYHQRUHLJKWHDUVVLQFHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZDVDGRSWHGGHYHORSPHQWSUHVVXUHZDVUHOLHYHGEWKHQDWLRQDOHFRQRPLFDQGKRXVLQJUHFHVVLRQDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQVORZGRZQWKDWZDVIHOW DVZHOO LQ WKH3DUHD +RZHYHU WKLV VORZGRZQ LQGHYHORSPHQWKDVEHHQ UHODWLYHOVKRUWOLYHGKLOHGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWKDVQRWUHFRYHUHGDQZKHUHLQWKHUHJLRQWRSUHUHFHVVLRQOHYHOVLWKDVUHQHZHGLWV SUHVVXUH RQ WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DVVHW RI WKH 5HJLRQ 7DEOHV VXPPDUL]H WKHFRPSDUDWLYH WUHQGV RI GHYHORSPHQW DQG WKH UHVXOWLQJ ORVW DFUHDJH IURP WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUNUHVXOWLQJIURPGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWRFFXUULQJLQDOOWKUHHFRPSRQHQWDUHDVRIWKHQHWZRUN

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 3: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

2

TableofContentsPage

I ExecutiveSummary1

II BackgroundoftheGWRCRegionalInfrastructurePlan1

III ScopeofResearch2

IV WorkPlanandRelatedTasks7

MeetingwithLocalJurisdictions

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategies

andPolicies

CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreen

InfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

V Findings14

VI Recommendations15

VII NextStepsandImplementationSchedule17

Appendices

AFindingsandRecommendationsfrom2011Plan

BPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

CPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

DImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

ESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

FTableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject-Phases1amp2

GFocusGroupSummaries

IExecutiveSummary

The central focus of this study was to assess the local impact and level ofimplementation of the 2011 George Washington Regional Commission (ldquoGWRCrdquo)RegionalGreen InfrastructurePlan While formally ldquoadoptedrdquobyGWRC theRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasreferredtothelocalgovernmentsforconsiderationNospecific policies actions regulations or ordinances directly emerged from this planDuringtheperiodsince2011developmenthassignificantlyinfringedonprioritygreeninfrastructure resulting in further fragmentation of the green infrastructure networkandforestcover

The ldquotoolboxrdquo of land use ordinances and instruments available to the localgovernmentstomanagelanduseareextensivebutnotfullyutilizedThisreportnotesthattherearenewldquotoolsrdquowhichshouldbeconsideredbylocalgovernments

This study has been coordinated with an extensive and comprehensive HealthyWatershed Forest Retention study by the Rappahannock River Basin Commission(ldquoRRBCrdquo)andtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry (ldquoVDOFrdquo) Giventhat60percentofthe GWRC region is forested forest retention and its relation to the regionrsquosChesapeake Bay TMDL requirements green infrastructure has taken on a newdimension

TheWorkgroupbelievesthere isanopportunitytorethinkandpresentanewanopenspaceactionagendafortheregionTheoverarchingquestionfortheregionisldquoWhatDoYouWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquo

IIBackgroundofthe2011GWRCGreenInfrastructurePlan

In October 2008 the GWRC received a Virginia Coastal Zone Management ProgramGranttofocusondevelopingaregionalgreeninfrastructuredatasetanddevelopaplanOver thenext twoyears theGWRCconductedanumberof studiesand theproposedplanwasvettedwithpublicmeetingspresentationstothelocalplanningcommissionsandotherstakeholdersIn 2011 the GWRC adopted the PD 16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan (GI Plan)whichidentifiedimportanthighvalueenvironmentalcoreareascontributingcoreareasand connected these core areas creating a web of priority open space Therecommendationsoftheplancalledforan increase intreecanopyatargetof14300acres of new conservation easements support for the Chesapeake Bay WatershedImplementationPlans (WIPs) enhanceddata layer capabilities new treepreservationordinances and outreach to stakeholders The GI Plan was forwarded to the localgovernments as a matter of information with no Call for Action While the City ofFredericksburgandStaffordCountyrsquosgovernmentbodiesformallyadoptedthisplanthe

1

planhasbeenessentiallyanafterthoughtintherespectiveplanningprocessesofallfivelocalities The findings and recommendations of the 2011 Plan are contained inAppendixATherewere three objectives associatedwith this project 1) To ascertainwhere eachlocality stood in implementing their respective parts of the 2011 Regional GreenInfrastructure Plan developed for the local governments in the George WashingtonRegionalCommission(GWRC)regionandtheimpactsthatdevelopmenthashadonthenetwork during this timeframe 2) Examine the current impediments for better andmore rapid implementationof theRegionalGreen Infrastructure (GI)Plan and3)putforth recommendations for future implementation strategies for the GI Plan Thisreportandtheassociatedreports(Appendices)representtheculminationofoverayearof research that was conducted during this project upon which the Findings andConclusionsarebased

IIIScopeofResearch

The findings and recommendations of this report are largely based on the separatedetailedreportsinAppendicesBCandDwhicharesummarizedasfollows

AppendixBPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

This report has provided an important updated dataset providing locations of post-20081developmentandtherelatedbufferlossfromintersectingGIlandcoverThiswillenableplannersandpolicymakerstohaveamoreflexibleandprofessionaldiscussionofgreeninfrastructurepriorities

The 2011GI Planwas based on satellite imagery from 2000 classified by the VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreationinthecreationoftheVirginiaConservationLands Needs Assessment layer For the current project theWorkgroup updated the2008 regional-version of this layer with locations of new development and thensubtractedthecorresponding100meterbufferfromtheGIlayertoproducealdquoresidualrdquomapoftheremainingGIresourcethroughouttheregionby2016Thecomparisonsinthis report then are basedon thedifferences between2008 and2016developmentpatterns The updated building pattern data provided a clear representation ofdevelopment that had occurred since 2008 The Workgroup analysis quantified howmuchintrusionhadoccurredinthepriorityenvironmentalareasintheeight-yearperiodbetween2008and2016

Theprojectteamcloselyreplicatedthemethodologythatwasusedtodevelopthe2011GIPlan selectinga subsetof thebuildingdata that includedall buildings constructed 1The2011regionalGIplanupdated2000VDCRrsquosconservationlandsneedsassessmentdatawiththeimpact of new development from 2000 through 2008 The update report picks up with new

2

after 2008 through the latest date availablewhichwas generally the first quarter of20162 Any new buildings that were sited wholly or partially within three specifiedecologicalmappinglayerswereldquocountedrdquoasincursionsintotheGIareasThelocationsofthesenewbuildingssuggestedpossibledisturbanceoftheecologicalintegrityoftheunderlyingoradjoininggreen infrastructure layers Theecological impactofbuildingslocated outside the previously defined green infrastructure footprint was onlyreferencedinoveralldevelopmentnumbers

A 100-meter buffer was circumscribed around each new building in the 2008-2016updated data set to simulate the natural area disturbed by building construction andlikelysoundlightandodoremissionsfromthenewbuildingactivity Soundlightandodoremissionsdisruptthenaturalenvironmentandecologyof thesurroundinggreeninfrastructurelayers

Theanalysisshowsthattherewasa3757acrelossofGIintheperiod2008-2016Theimpactbyjurisdictionisshownbelow

2009-2016BuildingAcreageLosesbyLocality

LocalityTotal 2008-2016DevelopmentImpact(LostAcreage)

LandArea Hi-Value Contributing Eco- TotalGI PercentLoss(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002KingGeorge 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRCTotal 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

Itisnotablethattheperiodofthisstudy(2008to2016)coincideswiththestartofthenationalhousingmarketcollapseandoneofthemostsevereeconomicdownturnssincetheGreatDepression Becauseof the impactof the2008downturngrowthand landconversionwithintheregionhasbeenrelativelysmall

Still the information clearly shows that there was no plan in place to prioritize theprotectionofhighvalueenvironmentallandscapeThereisalsoaclearldquoSwissCheeserdquoeffect of development encroachment into the regionrsquos green infrastructure networkfragmentingmanyoftheecologicallyimportanteco-corridorsandcoreareas

AppendixCPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Due todevelopmentactivity throughoutVirginiarsquosPlanningDistrict16 the regionhas

3

experiencedlossofforestandtreecanopyresourcesthatlargelymakeuptheregionrsquosGreen Infrastructure (ldquoGI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefitsthroughout the regionWith the 2011 and 2016 studies GWRC staff and consultantshavedocumentedthegradual lossandfragmentationoftheregionrsquosGInetworkAsatool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GIretention could be most beneficial the Workgroup developed the followingprioritizationstrategytoidentifyimportantGIparcels

ThemapbelowprovidesanoverviewoftheGRWCregionThelargestgreenareasarethemilitarybasesofAPHillandQuanticoTotheeastaretheheavilyforestedcountiesofCarolineandKingGeorge The regionabuts thePotomacRiver and comprises themiddle section of the Rappahannock River Basin I-95 runs north and south andcontainsmostofthecommercialactivity

2016GreenInfrastructureUpdateMap

SourcePD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategyMarch2017

PrioritizationMethodology-Usingtheresultsofthe2016GreenInfrastructurenetworkupdateRDSidentifiedallparcelsthatadjoinedoroverlappedeithertheregionrsquoshigh-

4

valueeco-coreareasortheremaininginterconnectingeco-corridorswhichtraversethelandscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributingeco-coreareasconsistingofsmallerforestedandwetlandareas

Thisresultingsubsetofparcelswerethenscoredbasedonthefollowingprioritycriteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core orconnectingeco-corridorareas(1pt)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (asdefined by VDCR consisting of parkland military installations wildlifemanagementareasetc)

a Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquobutwithabuildingontheparcel(1pt)

b Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquowithnobuildingsontheparcel(2pts)

3 ParceltouchesadesignatedNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)feature(1pt)

4 Parcelisoutsideapprovedsubdividedlands(ieaplattedsubdivision)(1pt)

Acompositescore(ldquoPriorityIndexrdquo)basedonthesumofthesecriteria(withaminimumvalueof1andamaximumvalueof5)wascalculatedandmappedshowingagradientldquoheatmaprdquoofthepossiblescores(1ndash5)Areasscoringeitherldquo4rdquoorldquo5rdquoweregroupedtogetherasthehighestpriorityretentionareas(red)followedbyareasscoringldquo3rdquowereshadedinorangefollowedbyareasscoredasldquo2rdquoshadedasmustardyellowandareasinldquo1rdquowhereshowninlighteryellow

Summary of Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationReport

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 4: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

IExecutiveSummary

The central focus of this study was to assess the local impact and level ofimplementation of the 2011 George Washington Regional Commission (ldquoGWRCrdquo)RegionalGreen InfrastructurePlan While formally ldquoadoptedrdquobyGWRC theRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasreferredtothelocalgovernmentsforconsiderationNospecific policies actions regulations or ordinances directly emerged from this planDuringtheperiodsince2011developmenthassignificantlyinfringedonprioritygreeninfrastructure resulting in further fragmentation of the green infrastructure networkandforestcover

The ldquotoolboxrdquo of land use ordinances and instruments available to the localgovernmentstomanagelanduseareextensivebutnotfullyutilizedThisreportnotesthattherearenewldquotoolsrdquowhichshouldbeconsideredbylocalgovernments

This study has been coordinated with an extensive and comprehensive HealthyWatershed Forest Retention study by the Rappahannock River Basin Commission(ldquoRRBCrdquo)andtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry (ldquoVDOFrdquo) Giventhat60percentofthe GWRC region is forested forest retention and its relation to the regionrsquosChesapeake Bay TMDL requirements green infrastructure has taken on a newdimension

TheWorkgroupbelievesthere isanopportunitytorethinkandpresentanewanopenspaceactionagendafortheregionTheoverarchingquestionfortheregionisldquoWhatDoYouWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquo

IIBackgroundofthe2011GWRCGreenInfrastructurePlan

In October 2008 the GWRC received a Virginia Coastal Zone Management ProgramGranttofocusondevelopingaregionalgreeninfrastructuredatasetanddevelopaplanOver thenext twoyears theGWRCconductedanumberof studiesand theproposedplanwasvettedwithpublicmeetingspresentationstothelocalplanningcommissionsandotherstakeholdersIn 2011 the GWRC adopted the PD 16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan (GI Plan)whichidentifiedimportanthighvalueenvironmentalcoreareascontributingcoreareasand connected these core areas creating a web of priority open space Therecommendationsoftheplancalledforan increase intreecanopyatargetof14300acres of new conservation easements support for the Chesapeake Bay WatershedImplementationPlans (WIPs) enhanceddata layer capabilities new treepreservationordinances and outreach to stakeholders The GI Plan was forwarded to the localgovernments as a matter of information with no Call for Action While the City ofFredericksburgandStaffordCountyrsquosgovernmentbodiesformallyadoptedthisplanthe

1

planhasbeenessentiallyanafterthoughtintherespectiveplanningprocessesofallfivelocalities The findings and recommendations of the 2011 Plan are contained inAppendixATherewere three objectives associatedwith this project 1) To ascertainwhere eachlocality stood in implementing their respective parts of the 2011 Regional GreenInfrastructure Plan developed for the local governments in the George WashingtonRegionalCommission(GWRC)regionandtheimpactsthatdevelopmenthashadonthenetwork during this timeframe 2) Examine the current impediments for better andmore rapid implementationof theRegionalGreen Infrastructure (GI)Plan and3)putforth recommendations for future implementation strategies for the GI Plan Thisreportandtheassociatedreports(Appendices)representtheculminationofoverayearof research that was conducted during this project upon which the Findings andConclusionsarebased

IIIScopeofResearch

The findings and recommendations of this report are largely based on the separatedetailedreportsinAppendicesBCandDwhicharesummarizedasfollows

AppendixBPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

This report has provided an important updated dataset providing locations of post-20081developmentandtherelatedbufferlossfromintersectingGIlandcoverThiswillenableplannersandpolicymakerstohaveamoreflexibleandprofessionaldiscussionofgreeninfrastructurepriorities

The 2011GI Planwas based on satellite imagery from 2000 classified by the VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreationinthecreationoftheVirginiaConservationLands Needs Assessment layer For the current project theWorkgroup updated the2008 regional-version of this layer with locations of new development and thensubtractedthecorresponding100meterbufferfromtheGIlayertoproducealdquoresidualrdquomapoftheremainingGIresourcethroughouttheregionby2016Thecomparisonsinthis report then are basedon thedifferences between2008 and2016developmentpatterns The updated building pattern data provided a clear representation ofdevelopment that had occurred since 2008 The Workgroup analysis quantified howmuchintrusionhadoccurredinthepriorityenvironmentalareasintheeight-yearperiodbetween2008and2016

Theprojectteamcloselyreplicatedthemethodologythatwasusedtodevelopthe2011GIPlan selectinga subsetof thebuildingdata that includedall buildings constructed 1The2011regionalGIplanupdated2000VDCRrsquosconservationlandsneedsassessmentdatawiththeimpact of new development from 2000 through 2008 The update report picks up with new

2

after 2008 through the latest date availablewhichwas generally the first quarter of20162 Any new buildings that were sited wholly or partially within three specifiedecologicalmappinglayerswereldquocountedrdquoasincursionsintotheGIareasThelocationsofthesenewbuildingssuggestedpossibledisturbanceoftheecologicalintegrityoftheunderlyingoradjoininggreen infrastructure layers Theecological impactofbuildingslocated outside the previously defined green infrastructure footprint was onlyreferencedinoveralldevelopmentnumbers

A 100-meter buffer was circumscribed around each new building in the 2008-2016updated data set to simulate the natural area disturbed by building construction andlikelysoundlightandodoremissionsfromthenewbuildingactivity Soundlightandodoremissionsdisruptthenaturalenvironmentandecologyof thesurroundinggreeninfrastructurelayers

Theanalysisshowsthattherewasa3757acrelossofGIintheperiod2008-2016Theimpactbyjurisdictionisshownbelow

2009-2016BuildingAcreageLosesbyLocality

LocalityTotal 2008-2016DevelopmentImpact(LostAcreage)

LandArea Hi-Value Contributing Eco- TotalGI PercentLoss(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002KingGeorge 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRCTotal 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

Itisnotablethattheperiodofthisstudy(2008to2016)coincideswiththestartofthenationalhousingmarketcollapseandoneofthemostsevereeconomicdownturnssincetheGreatDepression Becauseof the impactof the2008downturngrowthand landconversionwithintheregionhasbeenrelativelysmall

Still the information clearly shows that there was no plan in place to prioritize theprotectionofhighvalueenvironmentallandscapeThereisalsoaclearldquoSwissCheeserdquoeffect of development encroachment into the regionrsquos green infrastructure networkfragmentingmanyoftheecologicallyimportanteco-corridorsandcoreareas

AppendixCPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Due todevelopmentactivity throughoutVirginiarsquosPlanningDistrict16 the regionhas

3

experiencedlossofforestandtreecanopyresourcesthatlargelymakeuptheregionrsquosGreen Infrastructure (ldquoGI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefitsthroughout the regionWith the 2011 and 2016 studies GWRC staff and consultantshavedocumentedthegradual lossandfragmentationoftheregionrsquosGInetworkAsatool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GIretention could be most beneficial the Workgroup developed the followingprioritizationstrategytoidentifyimportantGIparcels

ThemapbelowprovidesanoverviewoftheGRWCregionThelargestgreenareasarethemilitarybasesofAPHillandQuanticoTotheeastaretheheavilyforestedcountiesofCarolineandKingGeorge The regionabuts thePotomacRiver and comprises themiddle section of the Rappahannock River Basin I-95 runs north and south andcontainsmostofthecommercialactivity

2016GreenInfrastructureUpdateMap

SourcePD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategyMarch2017

PrioritizationMethodology-Usingtheresultsofthe2016GreenInfrastructurenetworkupdateRDSidentifiedallparcelsthatadjoinedoroverlappedeithertheregionrsquoshigh-

4

valueeco-coreareasortheremaininginterconnectingeco-corridorswhichtraversethelandscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributingeco-coreareasconsistingofsmallerforestedandwetlandareas

Thisresultingsubsetofparcelswerethenscoredbasedonthefollowingprioritycriteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core orconnectingeco-corridorareas(1pt)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (asdefined by VDCR consisting of parkland military installations wildlifemanagementareasetc)

a Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquobutwithabuildingontheparcel(1pt)

b Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquowithnobuildingsontheparcel(2pts)

3 ParceltouchesadesignatedNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)feature(1pt)

4 Parcelisoutsideapprovedsubdividedlands(ieaplattedsubdivision)(1pt)

Acompositescore(ldquoPriorityIndexrdquo)basedonthesumofthesecriteria(withaminimumvalueof1andamaximumvalueof5)wascalculatedandmappedshowingagradientldquoheatmaprdquoofthepossiblescores(1ndash5)Areasscoringeitherldquo4rdquoorldquo5rdquoweregroupedtogetherasthehighestpriorityretentionareas(red)followedbyareasscoringldquo3rdquowereshadedinorangefollowedbyareasscoredasldquo2rdquoshadedasmustardyellowandareasinldquo1rdquowhereshowninlighteryellow

Summary of Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationReport

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5ampFRQVXOWDQWVFDOFXODWHGWKHUHODWLYHVL]HLQWRWDODFUHVRIHDFKRIWKHQHWZRUN FRPSRQHQWV EHIRUH DQG DIWHU VXEWUDFWLQJ WKH SRVW EXLOGLQJ EXIIHUV IURP DQ RI WKH WKUHHFRPSRQHQW ODHUV VHH7DEOH 7KH ORVV RI WKHVH EXIIHU DUHDV IURP WKH XQGHUOLQJ JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVUHSUHVHQWVDVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWLQWKHRYHUDOODFUHDJHRIWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWDQGWKHLQWHJULWDQGFRQWLQXLWRI WKHHFRFRUULGRUV WKDW LQWHUFRQQHFWFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHV7DEOHVDQGVXPPDUL]HWKHFKDQJHLQWKHDFUHDJHRIHDFKQHWZRUNFRPSRQHQWUHVXOWLQJIURPWKHUHPRYDORI WKHPHWHUEXIIHUDUHDVDURXQGQHZGHYHORSPHQWVLQFH 7KHGHWDLOHGDQGWDEOHVDSSHDULQWKH$SSHQGLFHVRIWKLVUHSRUW7KHILQDOXSGDWHG5HJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 5: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

1

planhasbeenessentiallyanafterthoughtintherespectiveplanningprocessesofallfivelocalities The findings and recommendations of the 2011 Plan are contained inAppendixATherewere three objectives associatedwith this project 1) To ascertainwhere eachlocality stood in implementing their respective parts of the 2011 Regional GreenInfrastructure Plan developed for the local governments in the George WashingtonRegionalCommission(GWRC)regionandtheimpactsthatdevelopmenthashadonthenetwork during this timeframe 2) Examine the current impediments for better andmore rapid implementationof theRegionalGreen Infrastructure (GI)Plan and3)putforth recommendations for future implementation strategies for the GI Plan Thisreportandtheassociatedreports(Appendices)representtheculminationofoverayearof research that was conducted during this project upon which the Findings andConclusionsarebased

IIIScopeofResearch

The findings and recommendations of this report are largely based on the separatedetailedreportsinAppendicesBCandDwhicharesummarizedasfollows

AppendixBPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

This report has provided an important updated dataset providing locations of post-20081developmentandtherelatedbufferlossfromintersectingGIlandcoverThiswillenableplannersandpolicymakerstohaveamoreflexibleandprofessionaldiscussionofgreeninfrastructurepriorities

The 2011GI Planwas based on satellite imagery from 2000 classified by the VirginiaDepartmentofConservationandRecreationinthecreationoftheVirginiaConservationLands Needs Assessment layer For the current project theWorkgroup updated the2008 regional-version of this layer with locations of new development and thensubtractedthecorresponding100meterbufferfromtheGIlayertoproducealdquoresidualrdquomapoftheremainingGIresourcethroughouttheregionby2016Thecomparisonsinthis report then are basedon thedifferences between2008 and2016developmentpatterns The updated building pattern data provided a clear representation ofdevelopment that had occurred since 2008 The Workgroup analysis quantified howmuchintrusionhadoccurredinthepriorityenvironmentalareasintheeight-yearperiodbetween2008and2016

Theprojectteamcloselyreplicatedthemethodologythatwasusedtodevelopthe2011GIPlan selectinga subsetof thebuildingdata that includedall buildings constructed 1The2011regionalGIplanupdated2000VDCRrsquosconservationlandsneedsassessmentdatawiththeimpact of new development from 2000 through 2008 The update report picks up with new

2

after 2008 through the latest date availablewhichwas generally the first quarter of20162 Any new buildings that were sited wholly or partially within three specifiedecologicalmappinglayerswereldquocountedrdquoasincursionsintotheGIareasThelocationsofthesenewbuildingssuggestedpossibledisturbanceoftheecologicalintegrityoftheunderlyingoradjoininggreen infrastructure layers Theecological impactofbuildingslocated outside the previously defined green infrastructure footprint was onlyreferencedinoveralldevelopmentnumbers

A 100-meter buffer was circumscribed around each new building in the 2008-2016updated data set to simulate the natural area disturbed by building construction andlikelysoundlightandodoremissionsfromthenewbuildingactivity Soundlightandodoremissionsdisruptthenaturalenvironmentandecologyof thesurroundinggreeninfrastructurelayers

Theanalysisshowsthattherewasa3757acrelossofGIintheperiod2008-2016Theimpactbyjurisdictionisshownbelow

2009-2016BuildingAcreageLosesbyLocality

LocalityTotal 2008-2016DevelopmentImpact(LostAcreage)

LandArea Hi-Value Contributing Eco- TotalGI PercentLoss(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002KingGeorge 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRCTotal 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

Itisnotablethattheperiodofthisstudy(2008to2016)coincideswiththestartofthenationalhousingmarketcollapseandoneofthemostsevereeconomicdownturnssincetheGreatDepression Becauseof the impactof the2008downturngrowthand landconversionwithintheregionhasbeenrelativelysmall

Still the information clearly shows that there was no plan in place to prioritize theprotectionofhighvalueenvironmentallandscapeThereisalsoaclearldquoSwissCheeserdquoeffect of development encroachment into the regionrsquos green infrastructure networkfragmentingmanyoftheecologicallyimportanteco-corridorsandcoreareas

AppendixCPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Due todevelopmentactivity throughoutVirginiarsquosPlanningDistrict16 the regionhas

3

experiencedlossofforestandtreecanopyresourcesthatlargelymakeuptheregionrsquosGreen Infrastructure (ldquoGI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefitsthroughout the regionWith the 2011 and 2016 studies GWRC staff and consultantshavedocumentedthegradual lossandfragmentationoftheregionrsquosGInetworkAsatool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GIretention could be most beneficial the Workgroup developed the followingprioritizationstrategytoidentifyimportantGIparcels

ThemapbelowprovidesanoverviewoftheGRWCregionThelargestgreenareasarethemilitarybasesofAPHillandQuanticoTotheeastaretheheavilyforestedcountiesofCarolineandKingGeorge The regionabuts thePotomacRiver and comprises themiddle section of the Rappahannock River Basin I-95 runs north and south andcontainsmostofthecommercialactivity

2016GreenInfrastructureUpdateMap

SourcePD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategyMarch2017

PrioritizationMethodology-Usingtheresultsofthe2016GreenInfrastructurenetworkupdateRDSidentifiedallparcelsthatadjoinedoroverlappedeithertheregionrsquoshigh-

4

valueeco-coreareasortheremaininginterconnectingeco-corridorswhichtraversethelandscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributingeco-coreareasconsistingofsmallerforestedandwetlandareas

Thisresultingsubsetofparcelswerethenscoredbasedonthefollowingprioritycriteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core orconnectingeco-corridorareas(1pt)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (asdefined by VDCR consisting of parkland military installations wildlifemanagementareasetc)

a Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquobutwithabuildingontheparcel(1pt)

b Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquowithnobuildingsontheparcel(2pts)

3 ParceltouchesadesignatedNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)feature(1pt)

4 Parcelisoutsideapprovedsubdividedlands(ieaplattedsubdivision)(1pt)

Acompositescore(ldquoPriorityIndexrdquo)basedonthesumofthesecriteria(withaminimumvalueof1andamaximumvalueof5)wascalculatedandmappedshowingagradientldquoheatmaprdquoofthepossiblescores(1ndash5)Areasscoringeitherldquo4rdquoorldquo5rdquoweregroupedtogetherasthehighestpriorityretentionareas(red)followedbyareasscoringldquo3rdquowereshadedinorangefollowedbyareasscoredasldquo2rdquoshadedasmustardyellowandareasinldquo1rdquowhereshowninlighteryellow

Summary of Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationReport

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 6: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

2

after 2008 through the latest date availablewhichwas generally the first quarter of20162 Any new buildings that were sited wholly or partially within three specifiedecologicalmappinglayerswereldquocountedrdquoasincursionsintotheGIareasThelocationsofthesenewbuildingssuggestedpossibledisturbanceoftheecologicalintegrityoftheunderlyingoradjoininggreen infrastructure layers Theecological impactofbuildingslocated outside the previously defined green infrastructure footprint was onlyreferencedinoveralldevelopmentnumbers

A 100-meter buffer was circumscribed around each new building in the 2008-2016updated data set to simulate the natural area disturbed by building construction andlikelysoundlightandodoremissionsfromthenewbuildingactivity Soundlightandodoremissionsdisruptthenaturalenvironmentandecologyof thesurroundinggreeninfrastructurelayers

Theanalysisshowsthattherewasa3757acrelossofGIintheperiod2008-2016Theimpactbyjurisdictionisshownbelow

2009-2016BuildingAcreageLosesbyLocality

LocalityTotal 2008-2016DevelopmentImpact(LostAcreage)

LandArea Hi-Value Contributing Eco- TotalGI PercentLoss(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002KingGeorge 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRCTotal 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

Itisnotablethattheperiodofthisstudy(2008to2016)coincideswiththestartofthenationalhousingmarketcollapseandoneofthemostsevereeconomicdownturnssincetheGreatDepression Becauseof the impactof the2008downturngrowthand landconversionwithintheregionhasbeenrelativelysmall

Still the information clearly shows that there was no plan in place to prioritize theprotectionofhighvalueenvironmentallandscapeThereisalsoaclearldquoSwissCheeserdquoeffect of development encroachment into the regionrsquos green infrastructure networkfragmentingmanyoftheecologicallyimportanteco-corridorsandcoreareas

AppendixCPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Due todevelopmentactivity throughoutVirginiarsquosPlanningDistrict16 the regionhas

3

experiencedlossofforestandtreecanopyresourcesthatlargelymakeuptheregionrsquosGreen Infrastructure (ldquoGI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefitsthroughout the regionWith the 2011 and 2016 studies GWRC staff and consultantshavedocumentedthegradual lossandfragmentationoftheregionrsquosGInetworkAsatool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GIretention could be most beneficial the Workgroup developed the followingprioritizationstrategytoidentifyimportantGIparcels

ThemapbelowprovidesanoverviewoftheGRWCregionThelargestgreenareasarethemilitarybasesofAPHillandQuanticoTotheeastaretheheavilyforestedcountiesofCarolineandKingGeorge The regionabuts thePotomacRiver and comprises themiddle section of the Rappahannock River Basin I-95 runs north and south andcontainsmostofthecommercialactivity

2016GreenInfrastructureUpdateMap

SourcePD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategyMarch2017

PrioritizationMethodology-Usingtheresultsofthe2016GreenInfrastructurenetworkupdateRDSidentifiedallparcelsthatadjoinedoroverlappedeithertheregionrsquoshigh-

4

valueeco-coreareasortheremaininginterconnectingeco-corridorswhichtraversethelandscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributingeco-coreareasconsistingofsmallerforestedandwetlandareas

Thisresultingsubsetofparcelswerethenscoredbasedonthefollowingprioritycriteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core orconnectingeco-corridorareas(1pt)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (asdefined by VDCR consisting of parkland military installations wildlifemanagementareasetc)

a Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquobutwithabuildingontheparcel(1pt)

b Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquowithnobuildingsontheparcel(2pts)

3 ParceltouchesadesignatedNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)feature(1pt)

4 Parcelisoutsideapprovedsubdividedlands(ieaplattedsubdivision)(1pt)

Acompositescore(ldquoPriorityIndexrdquo)basedonthesumofthesecriteria(withaminimumvalueof1andamaximumvalueof5)wascalculatedandmappedshowingagradientldquoheatmaprdquoofthepossiblescores(1ndash5)Areasscoringeitherldquo4rdquoorldquo5rdquoweregroupedtogetherasthehighestpriorityretentionareas(red)followedbyareasscoringldquo3rdquowereshadedinorangefollowedbyareasscoredasldquo2rdquoshadedasmustardyellowandareasinldquo1rdquowhereshowninlighteryellow

Summary of Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationReport

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5ampFRQVXOWDQWVFDOFXODWHGWKHUHODWLYHVL]HLQWRWDODFUHVRIHDFKRIWKHQHWZRUN FRPSRQHQWV EHIRUH DQG DIWHU VXEWUDFWLQJ WKH SRVW EXLOGLQJ EXIIHUV IURP DQ RI WKH WKUHHFRPSRQHQW ODHUV VHH7DEOH 7KH ORVV RI WKHVH EXIIHU DUHDV IURP WKH XQGHUOLQJ JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVUHSUHVHQWVDVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWLQWKHRYHUDOODFUHDJHRIWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWDQGWKHLQWHJULWDQGFRQWLQXLWRI WKHHFRFRUULGRUV WKDW LQWHUFRQQHFWFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHV7DEOHVDQGVXPPDUL]HWKHFKDQJHLQWKHDFUHDJHRIHDFKQHWZRUNFRPSRQHQWUHVXOWLQJIURPWKHUHPRYDORI WKHPHWHUEXIIHUDUHDVDURXQGQHZGHYHORSPHQWVLQFH 7KHGHWDLOHGDQGWDEOHVDSSHDULQWKH$SSHQGLFHVRIWKLVUHSRUW7KHILQDOXSGDWHG5HJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 7: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

3

experiencedlossofforestandtreecanopyresourcesthatlargelymakeuptheregionrsquosGreen Infrastructure (ldquoGI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefitsthroughout the regionWith the 2011 and 2016 studies GWRC staff and consultantshavedocumentedthegradual lossandfragmentationoftheregionrsquosGInetworkAsatool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GIretention could be most beneficial the Workgroup developed the followingprioritizationstrategytoidentifyimportantGIparcels

ThemapbelowprovidesanoverviewoftheGRWCregionThelargestgreenareasarethemilitarybasesofAPHillandQuanticoTotheeastaretheheavilyforestedcountiesofCarolineandKingGeorge The regionabuts thePotomacRiver and comprises themiddle section of the Rappahannock River Basin I-95 runs north and south andcontainsmostofthecommercialactivity

2016GreenInfrastructureUpdateMap

SourcePD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategyMarch2017

PrioritizationMethodology-Usingtheresultsofthe2016GreenInfrastructurenetworkupdateRDSidentifiedallparcelsthatadjoinedoroverlappedeithertheregionrsquoshigh-

4

valueeco-coreareasortheremaininginterconnectingeco-corridorswhichtraversethelandscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributingeco-coreareasconsistingofsmallerforestedandwetlandareas

Thisresultingsubsetofparcelswerethenscoredbasedonthefollowingprioritycriteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core orconnectingeco-corridorareas(1pt)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (asdefined by VDCR consisting of parkland military installations wildlifemanagementareasetc)

a Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquobutwithabuildingontheparcel(1pt)

b Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquowithnobuildingsontheparcel(2pts)

3 ParceltouchesadesignatedNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)feature(1pt)

4 Parcelisoutsideapprovedsubdividedlands(ieaplattedsubdivision)(1pt)

Acompositescore(ldquoPriorityIndexrdquo)basedonthesumofthesecriteria(withaminimumvalueof1andamaximumvalueof5)wascalculatedandmappedshowingagradientldquoheatmaprdquoofthepossiblescores(1ndash5)Areasscoringeitherldquo4rdquoorldquo5rdquoweregroupedtogetherasthehighestpriorityretentionareas(red)followedbyareasscoringldquo3rdquowereshadedinorangefollowedbyareasscoredasldquo2rdquoshadedasmustardyellowandareasinldquo1rdquowhereshowninlighteryellow

Summary of Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationReport

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 8: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

4

valueeco-coreareasortheremaininginterconnectingeco-corridorswhichtraversethelandscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributingeco-coreareasconsistingofsmallerforestedandwetlandareas

Thisresultingsubsetofparcelswerethenscoredbasedonthefollowingprioritycriteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core orconnectingeco-corridorareas(1pt)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (asdefined by VDCR consisting of parkland military installations wildlifemanagementareasetc)

a Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquobutwithabuildingontheparcel(1pt)

b Adjoiningdefinedldquoconservedlandsrdquowithnobuildingsontheparcel(2pts)

3 ParceltouchesadesignatedNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)feature(1pt)

4 Parcelisoutsideapprovedsubdividedlands(ieaplattedsubdivision)(1pt)

Acompositescore(ldquoPriorityIndexrdquo)basedonthesumofthesecriteria(withaminimumvalueof1andamaximumvalueof5)wascalculatedandmappedshowingagradientldquoheatmaprdquoofthepossiblescores(1ndash5)Areasscoringeitherldquo4rdquoorldquo5rdquoweregroupedtogetherasthehighestpriorityretentionareas(red)followedbyareasscoringldquo3rdquowereshadedinorangefollowedbyareasscoredasldquo2rdquoshadedasmustardyellowandareasinldquo1rdquowhereshowninlighteryellow

Summary of Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

SourceRDSPD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationReport

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 9: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

5

Appendix D Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George WashingtonRegionEconomy

This paper provides a qualitative overview of the cost of community services and anestimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure It is the Workgrouprsquosexperiencethatlocalelectedandappointedofficialsweightheeconomicimpactoflandusedecisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact ofgreeninfrastructureonlocaltaxationandjobswerethefocusofthepaperinAppendixD(ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureontheGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy)No quantitativemodels were used rather a literature searchwas conducted to findrelevantinformationthatcouldbeappliedtotheGeorgeWashingtonRegionCostofCommunityServicesstudiesfoundthattheratioofcoststotaxrevenueis lessthan one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 forundevelopedlandandworkinglandThiskindoflanduseissaidtoldquopayitsownwayrdquoTheratioofcoststorevenuesforCommercialandIndustrialLandisalsoapproximately0410Forresidentiallandtheratioofcoststorevenuesisgreaterthanoneaveragingabout 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer andwaterservicesexplainsthehigherratioofcoststorevenuesforresidentialland

These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specificcounties inVirginia ConversionofOpenandWorkingLandtoResidentialLandwouldproducemorerealestatetaxrevenuesbutthesewouldbemorethanoffsetbythecostofnecessarycommunityservices

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have loweremployment growth rates Thepresenceofmultiple purpose forest conservationdidnot impact the influxofpeople into thearea Preservationpoliciesdonot appear toresultinashiftfromhighwagetolowwagejobswagegrowthrateswerenotaffectedbytheamountof land inconservationTheviabilityof the localeconomywasdirectlylinked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lowerfarmlandloss

Theexpectedlossofgreeninfrastructure(andincreaseindevelopedland)asportrayedintheFredericksburgAreaMetropolitanPlanningOrganization(ldquoFAMPOrdquo)studyinKingGeorge Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictionsbecausethecostofserviceswouldbegreaterthanthetaxrevenuescollectedBecausethe FAMPO scenariomodel used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish betweenresidentialandcommercialindustrialdevelopmentaquantitativeimpactestimatewasunabletobeprovided

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 10: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

6

AppendixESummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegionTheWorkgroupreviewedexistingcountycitycodestodetermineifanynewordinancesor regulations hadbeen adoptedby any localities in theGWRC regionbetween2011and2016directedtowardthepreservationofgreen infrastructure Thereviewfoundthatfewnewtoolshadbeenadoptedoverthistimeperiodandoneimportanttoolndashproffers ndashhadbeengreatly restrictedby theVirginiaGeneralAssembly in2016 Theproblem is not the availability of proven tools but rather the political support toestablishpoliciesthatwouldpromptuseofthesetools

Theoverviewincludesamatrixoftheordinancesregulationsandprogramsthateachlocality intheGWRCregionhasavailableforgreen infrastructureprotection Itshouldbenoted thatalthoughsomeGIareahasbeenpreserved through theuseof ldquoClusterDevelopmentrdquothemajorityofGIretentionhasoccurredthroughtheacquisitionoflandforparksortrails

Proffersareaplanning tool thathasbeenusedbymany localities for years Proffershave been a flexible agreement between a developer and the local government toprovideadditionalamenitiesorcashinreturnfordensityincreasesvariancesetcandto offset the impact that new development has on community resources For yearsproffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developmentsOften noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schoolstransportationnetworksandparksopenspacemanyjurisdictionsbenefitedbyhavingareaspreservedorparksdevelopedaspartoftheprofferagreement

In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (which was signed by theGovernor)severelyrestrictingtheuseoftheproffersystemonresidentialdevelopmentsProfferswhichwereintegralinuseinmanylocalitiesisseverelylimitedforopenspacepreservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legalargument forGI concessions ismuchmoredifficult Historically commercial proffershavebeenmostlyusedfortransportationimprovements

IVWorkPlanElementsandRelatedTasks

In addition to the detailed studies included in the Appendices the Workgroupconductedresearchonthefollowingadditionalitems

bull Meetingwithlocaljurisdictionsbull Assessmentofconservationeasementprogramsbull ldquoArchetypeLandscapesrdquoFrameworkforlandconservationstrategiesandpoliciesbull CoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 11: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,

7

bull ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewConservationFinanceTools

MeetingsWithLocalJurisdictions

TheWorkgroupmetwith key stakeholder groups throughout the GWRC region Thestakeholders included elected officials local government staff representatives of thedevelopment industry non-governmental conservation organizations soil and waterconservation district staff real estate brokers revenue commissioners and privatelandownerswhohadpropertiesundereasementsandorwereparticipatingintheLandUseValueTax(LUVT)program

ThestakeholdermeetingsweresetuptodiscussthepreliminaryfindingsoftheGIPlanupdate and to discuss any impediments to GI conservation implementationexperienced in specific jurisdictions during the past six years Several issues wereidentified by both rural and urban localities in the region The primary impedimentsrelatedtoGIimplementationidentifiedbythestakeholdersincluded

1 TheeconomicdrivetoconvertforestlandtodevelopedlandisfargreaterthantheincentivestosustainforestedlandsMS4jurisdictionstormwatermanagersrecognize that in order to meet TMDLSWM requirements high conservationvalue(HCV)forestlandisthemostcosteffectivelanduseforreducingpollutantloadsHowever the financial return to landowners for conversion to intensiveuses is orders of magnitude greater than the financial return for continuedextensive(forestland)useandbeyondtheresourcesoflocalgovernment

2 Jurisdictions with little expectation of economic development AND higherdensities of forestland are in favor of retaining forestland but need offsetrevenuetodosoElectedandappointedofficialsandsenioradministrativeandfinancial staff of non MS4 jurisdictions with little projected future economicgrowth but significant HCV forestland holdings upstream and downstream ofMS4jurisdictionsareinterestedinretainingtheirforestlandbutareinneedofcontinuedgrowth intaxrevenuetokeepupwithpubliceducationhealthandsafetyandbasichumanservicerequirementsTheseofficialsexpressedinterestinthepotentialforTMDLtradingoffsetswereHCVforestlandtobeincludedinsuchaprogram

3 LandUseValueTax(LUVT)programsdesignedtopromotelandconservationareofteninconflictwithrurallocalityrsquosneedsfortaxrevenuetopayforschoolsandotherpublicservices

4 Concernwasraisedbysomeaboutfeesimpleacquisitionoflandbythestateorfederal government causing removal from tax rolls and diminishment of thelocalityrsquosability to raise revenue forcritical services likeschools Thisconcern

8

doesnotappeartotakenoticethatonlyaverysmallamountoflandhasgonetoparksandopenspace

5 Concerns arose about conservation easements because of their perpetuityrequirements This of course is a requirement of Federal and State financialincentives

6 RurallocalitieswithHCVforestlandassetswanttobuildfutureeconomiesbasedon restoration and conservation of blue and green resources However theyhavenotbeenabletocrafteconomicdevelopmentstrategiesthatwillprovideadequate revenues to pay for public expenditures as well as for job growthThey also expressed some concern that new HCV forestland preservationprogramscouldburdenalreadystretchedstaffresources

In addition therewere focus groupmeetingswith land developerreal estate brokersthat elicited interesting insights into what seem to be driving the market forces fordevelopmentandforestretentionpracticesInshortthisgroupnotedthat

1 Whatever forest retentionland conservation program is implemented itCANNOTbecomplicatedexpensiveorbureaucraticandstillbeeffective

2 Theldquoeconomicsrdquoofdevelopmentiswhatdrivesalldecisionsndashithastoworkforboththedeveloper(profits)andthelocality(taxrevenues)

3 TheWorkgroupexperiencesare thatcommunitieswithactiveadvocacygroupsare theoneswithbetterenvironmentaldesignandgrowthpatterns (PiedmontVA being a good example of an area with active environmental and land useadvocacy)

4 Longtermmaintenanceofprivatelyheldldquoopenspacerdquoisaconcernfortherealestatedevelopmentindustry

In moving forward with implementation of the GI Plan in the future it was theconsensusamongthestakeholdersinterviewedthatthesefourprimaryconcernswouldneed to be addressed in order to fully empower localities and the private sector torecognizeandactonthebenefitsoftheGInetworkMoredetailedsummariesofthesemeetingsaswellasobservationsofadditionalissuesareinAppendixF

AssessmentofConservationEasementPrograms

The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan set a quantified goal of 14300 acres ofopen spaceprotection throughconservationeasements ThisnumberwasderivedastheRegionrsquosfair-shareofastate-widegoalatthattimeandwasnotspecificallyadoptedbyanyof the local jurisdictions Since2011 it is estimated that about6400acresofnew conservation easements were created of which 82 were held by the VirginiaOutdoorFoundationThe2011plancalledforsupportbyregionallandtrustsTwolandtrusts became active in the GWRC area but only generated a few hundred acres in

9

conservation easements Despite the fact that 60 of the region is in forests therewerenoDepartmentofForestryeasementsrecordedduringthisperiod SomeofthejurisdictionshavePDRprograms(purchaseofdevelopmentrights)foragriculturallands

Theprincipal reasonfor this lacklusteroutcome is that federalandVirginia taxcreditsaremosteconomicallyjustifiedinareaswherethereisstrongdevelopmentpressuretoconvert rural land to residential and commercial developmentHigh transaction costsand the fact that the easements are perpetual are barriers to broad use In otherVirginiacounties there is financial support for thecreationofconservationeasementsandsuchatoolisoftenspecificallyembeddedinacountyrsquosopenspaceplan

Both Quantico and AP Hill have conservation easement programs but they do notappeartohavebeensignificantoverthe2011to2016period

ldquoArchetypeLandscaperdquoFrameworkforLandConservationStrategiesandPolicies

The Workgroup concluded that there needs to be a varied approach and additionalincentives to implementany substantive forestlandGI retentionAvariedapproach isneeded because communities in Virginia have several different types of landscapearchetypes Eacharchetypehasitsownuniqueculturerelativelevelsofdevelopmentldquopressurerdquoand landvaluations Therefore therearewithineacharchetypedifferentmarket and policy dispositions needed to enable implementation strategies and apropensity for conservation The need for additional incentives is based on therealization that although the jurisdictions in the GWRC region have adopted codesordinances tax incentives and small funding programs to encourage GI retention GIconservationisstillnothappeningInadditiontotheneedforeconomicincentiveslocalgovernment officials indicated interest in creating a separate body charged withmanagingandimplementinganincentiveprogramThereforetheWorkgrouphasdevelopedanewconceptualapproachtoconservationoflandsidentifiedasGreenInfrastructureThisapproachisbasedondiscussionswithlocalgovernmentstaffandelectedofficialsrealestatedevelopersandlandconservationstaffmembersaboutpracticaltoolswithlikelihoodofsuccesstoreducethreatstocurrentlyexistingGreenInfrastructurelikelytooccurinthenext10yearsTheWorkgroupidentifiedfourlandscapearchetypesinwhichtocustomizeGreenInfrastructureconservationstrategies

bull ArchetypeIUrbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIISuburbanLandscapebull ArchetypeIIIRuralLandscapewithneartermsuburbanizationpotentialbull ArchetypeIVRuralLandscapewithlittletonosuburbanizationpotential

10

Of these four landscapes thegreatestpriority for implementationdiscussedbelow isArchetype III The Workgroup feels strongly that based on the metric threat offorestland conversion agencies and organizations concerned abut forestlandGIretentionneedtofocusresourceswherelandsarestillruralyetwithinthecrosshairsofoncomingdevelopmentpressuresArchetypeIStrategyforUrbanLandscapeEnhance treeordinances adopt localGIplans andpromote thedevelopmentofnewurbanparksgreenwaystrailsetcUrban area local governments have demonstrated policy and ordinance support foropenspaceandtreecanopythroughtheformationofnewparksandtreepreservationordinances The preservation of existing areas of tree canopy is an expensivepropositionforlocalitiesinurbanareasThereforetheneedforactivesupportinthesecommunities is critical to the success and demand for such initiatives Enhancingexisting community-based advocacy groups in addition to forming new ones areimperativeforpoliticalacceptanceandactioninurbanareasBudgetaryandregulatorydecisionssupportingforestandtreecanopyretentionwillnotbemadewithoutsupportfrom the community Urban areas should consider investment in tree canopyrestorationprojects (possibly funded in part through the proposedBMPprogram) aswellaswideruseofexistingclusterdevelopmentordinancesArchetypesIIandIIIStrategyforSuburbanandTransitiontoSuburbanLandscapeTheseareascanuseexistingtaxcreditsavailabletopropertyownersfor forestlandGIconservationeasementsandmightbecombinedwithanewlandvalueadjustedforestretentionpaymentsystemThefollowingstepsaresomeideastocreatethefundsforforestretentionpaymentsbull CreateforestlandretentionBestManagementPractice(BMP)approvedbyEPAand

tiedtotheChesapeakeBayTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)programRealestatedevelopersconsultedforthisreport indicatedaninterest inthisBMPconceptTheproposed BMP could also be used in a new Chesapeake Bay forestland retentionprogram proposed in the recently completed project Healthy Watersheds ForestRetentionProjectPhases1and2FinalReport

bull CreateforestlossmitigationoffsetprogramLostforestlandGIareawouldbeoffsetona11ratiowithforestlandGIretentionwithinthesamewatershed

11

bull Usetermeasements(eg20-30years)tolowerthecostofconservationeasementimplementation

ArchetypeIVStrategyforRuralLandscapeThis archetype is most prominent in parts Caroline and King George countiescharacterizedbyforestsandagricultureTherearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworkingtheirwaythroughthelocaldevelopmentprocessThisnew development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigher land rents and where local electrical sub-station capacity is available toassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermitThe Archetype IV landscape contains the largest unbroken tracts of forestland andgrasslands The Workgroup suggests that state and local economic developmentofficials convene meetings in and around this landscape to investigate ways toincentivize the growth of new and existing businesses that directly or indirectly needforestlandandorgrasslandsfortheirproductandservicedeliveryCoordinationwithHealthyWatershedTMDLForestRetentionStudy

OnJune302017theprojectteampresentedaFinalReporttotheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionbasedonovertwoyearsofworkThreeofthosemembersareontheWorkgroupforthisreportThisFinalReportcombinesPhasesIandIIandreaches199pagesitisavailableonline3TheTableofContentsisincludedinAppendixG

The over-arching finding is that proper forest retention can provide important waterqualitybenefittotheCommonwealthandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed Thisstudyrecommends that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Model needs to be modified to takeaccountofforestretentionThestudyanalyticallystudiedtheimpactofconversionofagriculturallandforestsandopenspacetoresidentialorcommerciallandusecanresult

3httpsrrbcnewsfileswordpresscom201401healthy-waters-forest-tmdl-phase-i-ii-final-report-july-3-2017pdf

12

in an increase in stormwater discharge by overwhelming nearby forest buffers andstreams

TheHealthyWatershedsworkisanobviousopportunitytoreopenandrevisitgreeninfrastructureplanning

ABroaderView-TheNexusofEconomicDevelopmentGreenInfrastructureNewFundingMechanisms

Thisstudymakesitincreasingclearthateconomicgrowthwaterqualityandefficientdevelopmentareinterdependentandnotnecessarilyinconflict

Intheperiodsincethe2011RegionalGreenInfrastructurePlanwasadoptedthefieldofconservationfinancehasgrownwiththepossibilityofnewfundingmechanismsandideasthatwouldsupportanactivegreeninfrastructureprogram

1 CreationofpilotforestretentioncreditsbyEPAandotherfederalandstateentitiestowardcompliancewiththeChesapeakeBayTMDL

2 IdentificationofworkingforestspaymentsforforestlandGIretentionareasbylocalgovernmentbodies

3 Fundingofcreditsthroughcompensatorymitigationprojects(iepipelineelectrictransmissionlinesortransportationprojects)inthesamewatershedwhereforestlandGIareaistobepreserved

4 DevelopmentofforestretentionsubdivisionPUDdesignguidelinesanddevelopmentincentivestofostervoluntaryandcollaborativeconservationsiteplanningbyprivatelanddevelopmentplannersandthepublicsiteplanreviewcommunity

5 Brokeringofcreditsbyexistingconservationeasementtaxcreditbrokersand6 DonationoftermandperpetualforestlandGIretentioneasementsby

landownersinareasspeciallydesignatedbyjurisdiction(s)wherelargertractsofforestlandarelocated

TheWorkgroupnotesthevariousrelatedeconomicactivityassociatedwithopenspaceincludingagriculturetourismandrecreation

Toaddresstheunlimiteddiversityofchallengesandopportunitiesforforestlandhealthandretentionacrossall four landscapearchetypes theWorkgroupalsobelievestherecould be opportunities to incentivize existing small businesses to include forestlandecosystem services restoration and maintenance in their delivery of products andservicesAtaxcreditcouldincentivizeprivatecompaniestoaddtotheirexistingmixofservices and products to customers units of restoration of forestland ecosystemservicesTaxcreditsforthefollowinglistofpossibleforestlandecosystemservicescouldbedeveloped

13

1 Timber and forest product provision Forests provide rawmaterials formanyuses

2 RecreationForestsprovideapotentialplaceforrecreation3 GasandclimateregulationForestscontributetothegeneralmaintenanceofa

habitable planet by regulating carbon ozone and other chemicals in theatmosphere

4 Waterquantityandquality Forests capture storeand filterwatermitigatingdamagefromfloodsdroughtsandpollutionForests(andotheropenspaces)represent groundwater recharge zones important to sustain groundwater-dependentusinggroundwaterwellsandtohelpresistgroundsubsidence

5 Soil formation and stability Forest vegetation stabilizes soil and preventserosion

6 Pollination Forests provide habitat for important pollinator species whonaturallyperpetuateplantsandcrops

7 HabitatrefugiaForestsprovidelivingspacetowildplantsandanimals8 Aesthetic cultural and passive use Forests provide scenic cultural and

recreationalvalue

For instance estate landscapemanagement companies could receive a tax credit formarketing and successfully implementing forest-shrub edge pollinator habitatrestorationLandownersarealreadyincentivizedthroughUSDA-NRCSprogramssuchasEQIP to provide such restoration The tax credit would help to align and pull in theprivatesectorandstimulatenewforest-friendlytypesofservicesandproducts

VFindings

1 The 2011 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan was never activated by the localjurisdictions At that time there was political reluctance to implement such a planLacking champions it was sent to the shelf This phenomena is not unusual amongVirginia counties even those with a strong environmental track records due to theadvisoryandvoluntarynatureofregionalplanningeffortsunVirginia

2Thestrongdevelopmentgrowththathadbeenforecastdidnotmaterializeandthenegativeeffectsofthe2008recessionaffectedtheGWRCregionparticularlyhardThishad a positive effect on green infrastructure as land use conversionwas significantlyslower than in earlier years Still the development that did take placedisproportionatelyimpactedprioritygreenspaceandthedevelopmentthattookplacefurtherfragmentedtheGInetwork

3 Virginia jurisdictions have an extensive ldquotoolboxrdquo of ordinances regulations andprocedurestoimplementagreeninfrastructureplanWithoutpoliticalchampionsandleadershiptheproblemistheavailabletoolsarenotusedNotwithstandingtheldquonon-userdquoproblemthereareeffectiveandattractivenewideasandtoolsthathavebeenusedsuccessfully Proffers and land use value taxation are the dominant land use tools

14

RecentlyVirginiahasrestrictedtheuseofproffersseverelylimitingtheiravailabilityforcertainopenspaceuses

4 The only quantified goal of the 2011 Plan was to encourage greater use ofconservationeasementsaprivatevoluntarymethodofconservingopenspaceOfthe14300 acre goal only 6400 acres have come under conservation easement in theRegion since 2011 ofwhich 82were originate by the VirginiaOutdoor FoundationNoteArecenttrendinArchetypeIVareasisthattheselandsarebeingtargetedbysolarfarmdeveloperswhoareofferinglandrents4xhigherthantheprevailingrentspaidbyleasehold farmoperators In thesescenarios large tract forest landsareunderseverethreatwithoutanymandatoryforestlossmitigationstrategyunlessvoluntarilyrequiredbylocalspecialusepermit

5 The economic benefits of preserving priority open space is not well accepted orappreciated Many still believe that land conservation diminishes future economicdevelopment In so far as tax revenues are an indicator of economic health Cost ofCommunityServices studies throughout theUS consistently show that localitieswithopen space conservation policies are more healthy resilient and have less upwardpressureonrealestatetaxrates

6 The findings and recommendations of the Healthy Watersheds Forest RetentionProject(PhasesIampII)stronglycallattentiontothevaluablebenefitsofforestretentionespecially relevant to meeting the regionrsquos TMDL requirements The study by theRappahannock River Basin Commission and the Virginia Department of Forestry is anexampleofthevalueofenvironmentalprioritization

7Thereisnostrongpoliticalvoiceintheregionforactiveopenspacepreservationperse The rationale that resonates is related to water quality concerns and relatedChesapeake Bay restoration commitments The Rappahannock and Potomac Riversgenerate strong local support to preserve their natural benefits With much of theregion forested preserving forests provides an important nexus with water qualityhencethelogicoftheforestretentionstudySupportforgreeninfrastructureneedstobemorespecificastothebenefitsandldquowhatmattersrdquo

VIRecommendations

1 The federal and State governments need to recognize the importance of existingforestlandGIanddeterminealdquovaluerdquofortheirretentionWhetherthroughamitigationoffsetprogramorTMDLcreditsadditional incentiveswillbenecessarytoachieveanysignificantchangeincurrentdevelopmentactivities

2 The 2011 GI Plan needs to be rethought recast and remarketed Rather thanformulatealdquoPlanrdquothebestnextstepistopresentthepossibilitiesandfurthereducatethelocalgovernmentsandotherstakeholdersThetermldquoGreenInfrastructurerdquomaybe

15

tainted and should be rebranded Economic benefits should be part and parcel ofpromotingopenspaceandenvironmentalprioritization

3InaddressingthekeyquestionofldquoWhatDoWeWanttheRegiontoLookLikein510and25yearsrdquothereshouldbeaforumtobringtogetherthestakeholderswhoarekeyto answering that question The GWRC should use their convening power to bringtogetherthesepartiesatleastannually

4Thisreportnotedtheextensiveexistingldquotoolsrdquotoguidetheregionrsquosconservationofopen space There are alsonewapproaches that haveemergedandarebeingusedthat shouldbe investigated Aworkshop todiscuss theuseof tools anddiscussnewideasshouldbeorganized

5TheworkofthisstudywasorganizedtobecoordinatedwiththeworkoftheHealthyWatersheds TMDL Forest Retention Study The forest retention work under theauspicesoftheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionandtheVirginiaDepartmentofForestry has received preliminary political endorsement from selected state and localelectedofficials in the regionaswellas theUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeOutreachtointerestedpartieswillcontinuebytheRRBCandVDOF

6 Eventually implementation has to reach into the formulation of ComprehensivePlans zoning andplanning regulations This canonly comeafter some consensusonwhatthejurisdictionsarepreparedtoacceptandpursue

7 For decades the tax credit has been the economic developerrsquosmost used tool tostimulatenewandexistingbusinessgrowthThisreportsuggeststhecreationofanewtype of credit tied not only to traditional measures of business development but inadditionnewmeasuresofrestorationandmaintenanceofourenvironmentalcommonstheairlandwaterandwildlifesharedbyallandentirelyownedbyno-one

8Therearecurrently56pendingsolarfarmprojectsattheDEQunderthenewpermit-by-ruleprocesswithmoreworking theirway through the localdevelopmentprocessThis new development activity is specifically targeting very rural area landownerswantinghigherlandrentsandwherelocalelectricalsub-stationcapacityisavailabletoassimilate additional generated power into the power grid Moreover this uniquedevelopmenttypeisattractivetorurallocalitiesasitrepresentsaformofdevelopmentthataddstolocaltaxbasewithoutsomeoftheotherusualnegativeimpactsonpublicschool utility and environmental systems associated with conventional industrialcommercial or residential development Northampton County has set a forestconservationstandardinitszoningordinancebyrequiring11forestlossmitigationasageneral condition for the solar power floating zone for any solar power generationprojectsapplyingundertheCountyrsquosspecialusepermit

16

VIINextStepsandImplementationTiming

Implementationwillbeorganizedtocommence inthefallof2017 CoordinatingwiththeimplementationoftheHealthyWatershedsgroupbytheRappahannockRiverBasinCommissionanticipatesthestudyofsomelegislativeinitiativesthatwillbeimportanttoforest retention and green infrastructure The RRBC and VDOF Team has alsoconductedbasinwidepublicmeetingswhosefeedbackisdirectlyrelevanttotheGWRCregion

ThisreportwillbecondensedintoadocumenttobepresentedatafallmeetingoftheGWRCalongwithapowerpointpresentationDependingontheactiontakenbytheGWRCmeetingswillbesetupwiththelocaljurisdictionsandselectedstakeholdergroups

AppendixA

FindingsandRecommendationsFromthe2011GeorgeWashingtonRegionalCommissionrsquosRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan

VIII Findings and Recommendations

A Findings 1 The active development of the Region over the 13 year period from 1996 through 2009 contributed to

a loss of 417 of its tree canopy while gaining 280 of urban bare area 868 of open space and 4346 of impervious surface area The Region is still blessed with an enviable amount of tree canopy land cover relative to other rapidly urbanizing or established urban metro areas

2 The cumulative changes to the Regionrsquos land cover and associated losses to the Regionrsquos tree canopy

resulted in the loss of the tree canopyrsquos ability to naturally manage 22298 million cubic feet of stormwater valued at $106 billion using the average cost assumption of $47515 per cubic foot for man-made stormwater retention facilities The Regionrsquos ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo also lost the ability to remove approximately 289 million lbs of air pollutants annually valued at $774 million per year 124 million lbs of carbon stored in treesrsquo wood and 9616 lbs of annual carbon sequestration

3 Local governments in the region do not generally speaking have reliable data on the amount of

impervious surface area within their jurisdiction to estimate stormwater runoff by sub-watershed or to use to identify priority areas for urban retrofit programs or to target reforestation efforts

4 Active coordination between local government urban stormwater management programs and rural-oriented Soil and Water Conservation District programs is vital to achieve balanced reductions in non-point source pollution The SWCDs will be challenged in addressing agricultural run-off issues and facilitating the development of nutrient management plans for each agricultural operation

5 Between the urban MS4 program requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations requiring a cataloging of installed BMPs in each CBPA community both urban and rural all localities in the region should have a good grasp of the distribution of these facilities throughout their jurisdiction However the over-lapping and (at-times) seemingly contradictory stormwater regulations under various federal and state programs challenge local governments to cost-effectively manage development and associated stormwater-related water quality impacts

6 Public opinion response to alternative regional land use scenarios demonstrated a preference for the

ldquogreenprintrdquo scenario with 36 percent of respondents choosing the greenprint scenario as the preferred option followed by 34 percent for the compact scenario and 25 percent for the jobs-housing scenario Respondents who preferred the greenprint scenario liked it most (32 percent) because of the large areas of preserved open space

7 Many of the planning tools authorized under the Code of Virginia have been utilized by local

governments in PD 16 to manage growth and development and promote directly or indirectly the enhancement of the Regionrsquos green infrastructure

8 Green infrastructure planning practice in the Region heretofore has focused somewhat more on

advancing the stormwater management practices (as part of local governmentsrsquo response to federal and state environmental mandates) However such notable efforts as the acquisition of Crowrsquos Nest ndash Part 2 the adoption of a Spotsylvania County Trailways Plan and local designation of urban development areas demonstrates local movement toward the identification prioritization and

15 Local cost estimates ranged from under $200 to over $1000 per cubic foot $475 was used as a regional cost average but local stormwater program managers in some cases place a higher value on the cost-avoidance benefit of green infrastructure

GWRC Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Page 97

conservation of rural forests working farms and other open spaces for their recognized ecological asset value

9 Local governments have supported exploration (through Rappahannock River Basin Commission and

other initiatives) of innovative approaches to ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo planning such as the development of a regional nutrient credit trading program and other market-based approaches to removing pollutants from the air and water sources that pollute the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

10 There is no established locally-based conservation-oriented land trust in Planning District 16 that can hold conservation easements Consequently local conservation easement negotiations must involve such out-of-region interest as the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and other entities

11 Local governments are interested if designated an ozone non-attainment area in being added to the

Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) that allows referenced local governments authority to adopt a local ordinance to include in site plan review provisions for the preservation or replacement of trees on the development site

12 Local community financial and political support will be needed to achieve continued progress in green infrastructure plan implementation

B Recommendations

1 Adopt quantitative regional goals to achieve reforestation and land conservation outcomes including

a Increasing regional tree canopy by 5 percent (approximately 515 sq miles) thereby restoring a little more than the amount of tree canopy lost in the Region in the 1996-2009 era with priority given to infilling gaps in riparian buffers and other areas that complement water quality protection programs implemented and expanded to respond to Chesapeake Bay watershed implementation planning goals

b Encouraging public and private landowners to increase land acreage in the Region under conservation easement by 14300 acres representing the Regionrsquos pro-rata share of Governor McDonnellrsquos 400000 acre statewide conservation easement goal for his 4-year term

2 Continued collaboration of GWRCrsquos ad-hoc watershed implementation plan committee with full local government technical staff participation and broad involvement of community-wide stakeholders from all sectors to develop a comprehensive cost-effective regional responses to Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2 process and expansion of the installed inventory of BMPs

3 Should a grant opportunity materialize local governments should work through GWRC to create a 1-meter (or better) classified land cover data layer that could better define the Regionrsquos green and grey infrastructure and support comprehensive land use planning green infrastructure planning and watershed implementation and stormwater management planning

4 Pursue legislative support for amending the Code of Virginia (sect 152-9611) to include PD 16 in the legislation so that local governments are empowered (should they b e designated part of ozone non-attainment area) to require tree conservation and preservation in the site plan review process of development proposals

5 GWRC Board endorsement of the Regional Green Infrastructure Plan and direction to staff to communicate the Plan document to local governments and other stakeholders in the Region as an advisory tool to help public and private actors incorporate green infrastructure planning into public and private comprehensive planning and land development processes

AppendixB

PD16GreenInfrastructurePlan2016Update

2016

Regional Decision Systems LLC

9272016

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Plan 2016 Update

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 1

7DEOHRIampRQWHQWVTable of Contents 1

A Genesis 2

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009 2

B Green Infrastructure Map Update 4

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016 5

C Development Impact Analysis 6

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016 7

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016 8

D Changes in Conserved Lands Inventory 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type 9

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality 9

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality 10

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010) 11

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016 12

E Other Green Infrastructure Data 13

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B 14

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV) 15

F Appendices 17

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update 17

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map 19

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map 20

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map 21

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map 22

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map 23

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data 24

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 2

$ HQHVLV )URP)lt WKURXJK WKHHRUJHDVKLQJWRQ5HJLRQDOampRPPLVVLRQ 5amp UHFHLYHGIHGHUDO FRDVWDO ]RQH SURJUDP JUDQW IXQGLQJ IURP WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRDVWDO =RQH 0DQDJHPHQW 3URJUDP WRGHYHORS D UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ IRU WKH 3 VHUYLFH DUHD 7KLV 3ODQ VHH )LJXUH ZDVDGRSWHGEWKH5ampRQ2FWREHU

7KH ILUVW HDU )lt RI WKLV HIIRUW IRFXVHG RQ WKH PDSSLQJ RI LPSRUWDQW DUHDV RI HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW WKURXJK D SURFHVV RI XSGDWLQJ ERWK WKH 9LUJLQLD ampRQVHUYDWLRQ DQGV 1HHGV $VVHVVPHQWparaV9amp1$ (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHOparaV DQG DQGVFDSH ampRUULGRU 0RGHOparaV GDWD GHYHORSHG E WKH 9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5XVLQJPHWHUVDWHOOLWHLPDJHUIURP

Figure 1 PD16 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan 2009

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 3

QOLJKWRIWKHVLJQLILFDQWXUEDQGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFRQWLQXHGLQ3DIWHULWZDVGHWHUPLQHGLQWKHUHJLRQDOSODQQLQJSURFHVV WKDW WKHGDWDZHUH OHVV UHOHYDQWDVDFXUUHQWSODQQLQJ WRROJLYHQ WKHUDSLGSDFHRIXUEDQL]DWLRQDQGODQGVFDSHFRQYHUVLRQ0RUHRYHUWKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJVVWHPIRUWKHODQGVFDSHIHDWXUHV GLG QRW FRQVLGHU ORFDO GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV IRU SURMHFWV ZKLFK ZRXOG HYHQWXDOO FKDQJH WKHFKDUDFWHURIWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHDQGWKHDVVRFLDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHRIWKHDUHDVH[SHFWHGWREHGHYHORSHGLQ WKH IXWXUH ampRQVHTXHQWO LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQZLWK9amp5 WKH LPSDFW RI SRVWGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZDVHVWLPDWHGEFDOFXODWLQJ PHWHUEXIIHU DUHDV DURXQGHDFKSRVWEXLOGLQJDQGGHOHWLQJWKHVHEXIIHUHGDUHDV IURP WKHXQGHUOLQJHFRORJ ODHUV LHKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHVFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHVDQGHFRFRUULGRUVZKLFKWKHQZHUHUHVFRUHGEDVHGRQWKHLUUHPDLQLQJDPRXQWRIDFUHDJH

$GGLWLRQDOOGXULQJWKHXSGDWHRIWKHVWDWHZLGHGDWDFRYHUDJHIRU3ORFDOLWUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVZHUHDVNHGWRUDQNWKHUHODWLYH LPSRUWDQFHRI ORFDO ODQGVFDSHVE ORFDOVWDQGDUGVYHUVXV WKHVWDWHZLGHUDQNLQJXVHGE9amp57KHUHVXOWLQJPRGLILHGVFRULQJRIODQGVFDSHFRUHVQRGHVDQGFRUULGRUVLQ3ZDVDOVRXVHGE5LFKPRQG5HJLRQDODQGampUDWHU3ODQQLQJLVWULFWampRPPLVVLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO$VVXFK WKH3UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVLQWHQGHGWRVHUYHQRWRQODVDJXLGHWRORFDOLWLHVZLWKLQWKH5HJLRQEXWWRDGMRLQLQJUHJLRQVDVZHOOVRWKDWDJHQHUDOOFRQVLVWHQWPHWKRGRORJZDVDSSOLHGDFURVVPXFKRI WKHDUHDUHIHUUHG WRDV9LUJLQLDparaV sup3ROGHQampUHVFHQWacute DQ DUHD H[SHFWHG WRH[SHULHQFH WKHEXONRI9LUJLQLDparaV IXWXUHHFRQRPLFDQGSRSXODWLRQJURZWKRYHUWKHQH[WVHYHUDOGHFDGHV

Q WKH VHFRQGHDU )lt RI WKH3ODQparaV GHYHORSPHQW5amp VWDIIZRUNHGZLWK VHYHUDO VSDWLDODQDOVLVFRQVXOWDQWVWR

DXVHWKHampLWUHHQWRROWRTXDQWLIWKHUHJLRQDODQGORFDOL]HGODQGFRYHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGWUHQGVLQODQG FRYHU FRQYHUVLRQ IURP WKURXJK DQG WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQWDO RU HFRVVWHPVHUYLFHEHQHILWVRIWUHHFDQRSDQGIRUHVWFRYHUWKURXJKRXWWKH5HJLRQ

E GHWHUPLQHZKLFK LI DQ RI SXEOLF GRPDLQ VWDWLVWLFDOPRGHOV DYDLODEOH WKURXJK WKH12$$ampRDVWDO6HUYLFHampHQWHUFRXOGUHDVRQDEOHVWLPDWH WKHDPRXQWRI LPSHUYLRXVVXUIDFHDUHDPRUHDFFXUDWHOWKDQWKHPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHUGDWDXVHGLQWKHampKHVDSHDNHD7RWDO0D[LPXPDLORDG70PRGHO

F LGHQWLI ZLWK WKH KHOS RI WKH 7KH UHHQZDV QLWLDWLYH GHVLUDEOH KXPDQ DFWLYLW sup3UHHQZDacuteFRUULGRUVWKDWFRXOGLQWHUFRQQHFWLPSRUWDQWQDWXUDOFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRUHDUHDV

G LQWHJUDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH VFHQDULR LQWR DOWHUQDWLYH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJVFHQDULRV GHYHORSHG ZLWK WKH ampRPPXQLW9L] 6 H[WHQVLRQ IRU UHJLRQDO ORQJUDQJH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQSODQQLQJSXUSRVHVDQG

H WUDLQ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW VWDII UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV RQ WKH XVH RI D ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ VLPXODWLRQ WRROsup3ampRPPXQLW9L]acute DQG WKH XVH RI D VSDWLDO DQDOVLV WRRO LH $UF6 6SDWLDO $QDOVW ZLWK UHPRWHVHQVLQJGDWDWRLQWHUSUHWDQGFODVVLIODQGFRYHULPDJHU

QWKHILQDOHDU)ltRIWKH3ODQparaVGHYHORSPHQW5ampVWDIIFRQGXFWHGRXWUHDFKSUHVHQWDWLRQVZLWK ORFDO SODQQLQJ DQG SXEOLFZRUNV VWDII 3ODQQLQJampRPPLVVLRQV DQG VRPHRDUGV RI 6XSHUYLVRUV DQG)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWampRXQFLO7KHDQDOVLV UHVXOWVRI WKH ILUVWHDUVZDV LQWHUZRYHQZLWK ORFDOFRQFHUQVH[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHVHSUHVHQWDWLRQVDVZHOODVEWKHUHJLRQDOVWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHUVFRPPLWWHHDQGWKH 1 ǯǯʹͲͲͻǣDzʹͲͲͻdzǤ

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 4

5DSSDKDQQRFN 5LYHU DVLQ ampRPPLVVLRQparaV 7HFKQLFDO $GYLVRU ampRPPLWWHH UHVXOWLQJ LQ D KEULGL]HGGHILQLWLRQ RIUHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH 7KLV KEULGL]HGZKLFK FRPELQHG WKH QDWXUDO DUHD FRQVHUYDWLRQ WKHPHHVSRXVHG E VXFK DGYRFDWHV DV 7KH1DWXUHampRQVHUYDQFZLWK WKH XUEDQ VWRUPZDWHUPDQDJHPHQW WKHPHHVSRXVHG E WKH 86 (QYLURQPHQWDO 3URWHFWLRQ $JHQF 7KH UHVXOWLQJ UHHQ QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHILQLWLRQHVSRXVHGEWKH3ODQLV

ldquoGreen infrastructure is an interconnected network of natural areas other open spaces and management practices that conserve natural ecosystem functions sustains clean air promotes water quality (by mimicking natural processes to infiltrate evapo-transpirate or reuse storm water or runoff) and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildliferdquo

7KH LQWHQWLRQEHKLQGWKLVsup3KEULGL]DWLRQRI WKHPHVacuteZDV WRSURYLGHXUEDQDQGUXUDO UHJXODWHGLH06DQGQRQUHJXODWHGFRPPXQLWLHVDQH[XVEHWZHHQYROXQWDU ORFDOSXEOLFDQGSULYDWHDFWLRQV WRSURWHFWDQGSUHVHUYHORFDOIRUHVWDQGWUHHFDQRSLHSDUWRIWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDQGWKHRQJRLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOHIIRUWVWRLPSURYHZDWHUTXDOLWDQGWKHHFRORJRIWKHampKHVDSHDNHDDQGLWVWULEXWDULHV

UHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH0DS8SGDWH HQHUDOO UHSOLFDWLQJ WKH PHWKRGRORJRI WKH SUHYLRXV XSGDWH RI WKH (FRORJLFDO ampRUH 0RGHO 5ampFRQVXOWDQWV FROOHFWHG WKH ODWHVW EXLOGLQJ IRRWSULQW GDWD IURP WKH 6 GHSDUWPHQWV RI WKH ILYH ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWV LQ3 $VXEVHWRI WKHEXLOGLQJGDWDZDVVHOHFWHGFRQVLVWLQJRIDOOEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGDIWHUWKURXJKWKHODWHVWGDWHDYDLODEOHZKLFKZDVJHQHUDOOWKHILUVWTXDUWHURI7KHVHEXLOGLQJVparaORFDWLRQ ZKROO RU SDUWLDOO ZLWKLQ DQ RI WKH WKUHH HFRORJLFDO ODHUV ZDV LGHQWLILHG WR IRFXV RQ WKRVHEXLOGLQJV ZKRVH SUHVHQFH FRXOG GLVWXUE WKH HFRORJLFDO LQWHJULW RI WKH XQGHUOLQJ RU DGMRLQLQJ JUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUV7KHHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGRXWVLGHWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRRWSULQWZDVLJQRUHG

$VGRQHLQWKHRULJLQDOXSGDWHRIWKHLPDJHUEDVHG9amp5GDWDZLWKEXLOGLQJIRRWSULQWGDWDWKURXJKDPHWHUEXIIHUZDVFLUFXPVFULEHGDURXQGHDFKQHZEXLOGLQJLQWKHXSGDWHGDWDVHWWRVLPXODWH WKH QDWXUDO DUHD GLVWXUEHG E WKH VRXQG OLJKW DQG RGRU HPLVVLRQV WKDW GLVUXSW WKH QDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGHFRORJRIWKHVXUURXQGLQJJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUVVHH)LJXUHRQWKHQH[WSDJHQ)LJXUHWKHEXLOGLQJEXIIHUORFDWLRQVIRUEXLOGLQJVFRQVWUXFWHGLQWKURXJK0DUFKWKDWDIIHFWHGDJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHODHUDUHVKRZQ

KDW ZDV QRW DV DSSDUHQW LQ WKH SUHYLRXV PDSSLQJ VHH )LJXUH RI WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNLVWKDWWKHHFRFRUULGRUVGHILQHGLQWKHVWDWHZLGHHIIRUWEWKH9LUJLQLDHSWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQ9amp5ZHUHGHILQHGDVDFRQWLQXRXVsup3VKRUWHVWSDWKacuteQHWZRUNLQWHUFRQQHFWLQJDQGWUDYHUVLQJFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDQGKLJKYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVampRQVHTXHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUHFRFRUULGRUDUHDZLWKLQHLWKHUWKHKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGDQRYHUHVWLPDWHRIDUHDGXHWRWKHRYHUODSRI FRUULGRUV DV WKH WUDYHUVH HLWKHU RI WKHVH WZR HFRFRUH DUHDV 0RUHRYHU DVVLJQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RIGHYHORSPHQWEXIIHUV WRWKHH[LVWLQJQHWZRUNIHDWXUHVRYHUVWDWHGWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWORFDWHGDORQJHFRFRUULGRUVZKHUHLWDOVRZDVLQWHUQDOWRRQHRIWKHHFRFRUHDUHDV 2 6HH$SSHQGL[IRUGHWDLOHGPHWKRGRORJLFDOVXPPDURIXSGDWHSURFHVV 3 ampDUROLQHampRXQWEXLOGLQJGDWDXVHGSURYLGHGFRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHHQGRI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 5

Figure 2 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map with Development Impact 2009-2016

6RXUFH56amp$XJ

QWULQJWRFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWIRUORVWDUHDLQDQRIWKHWKUHHHFRODHUVGXHWRWKHPHWHUGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU DURXQG QHZ GHYHORSPHQW LH SRVW EXLOGLQJV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV IRXQG LW QHFHVVDU WR UHSURFHVV WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDS WR HOLPLQDWH IURP WKH HFRFRUULGRU ODHU RYHUODSSLQJDUHDVRIHFRFRUULGRUDQGHFRFRUHVLQHIIHFWSODFLQJWKHHFRFRUULGRURYHUODSZKROOLQWKHRYHUOLQJHFRFRUH DUHD 7KH UHVXOW LV D VXEWOHPRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW HFRFRUULGRUV VWRSDW WKHSRLQWZKHUH WKHPHHW WKHHGJHRIHLWKHUDKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJHFRFRUHDUHD2QOEFRQVLVWHQWODFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHVSDWLDOH[WHQWRIWKHHFRFRUULGRUVEHWZHHQWKHH[LVWLQJDQGXSGDWHGSODQVFRXOGDQDOVWVDFKLHYHDFRUUHFWDFFRXQWLQJIRUWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHORSPHQWRYHUWLPHLH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 6

7KHPRVW LPPHGLDWHO QRWLFHDEOH GLIIHUHQFH LV WKH DEVRUSWLRQ RI WKH HOORZ HFRFRUULGRUV LQ WKH RULJLQDOQHWZRUNPDSLQWRWKHXQGHUOLQJKLJKYDOXHRUFRQWULEXWLQJYDOXHHFRFRUHDUHDVOHDYLQJVPDOOHUFRQQHFWLQJULEERQVEHWZHHQWKHVHDUHDV7KHUHVXOWLQJXSGDWHGUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHPDSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUHRQSDJH

amp HYHORSPHQWPSDFW$QDOVLV $VVKRZQ LQ WKHRULJLQDO UHJLRQDOJUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSODQZKLFKXSGDWHGHFRORJLFDO LQWHJULWPDSVZLWKEXIIHUVDURXQGHQFURDFKLQJQHZGHYHORSPHQWEHWZHHQDQGWKHXSGDWHPDSGHPRQVWUDWHVWKHFRQWLQXHGWUHQGRIHQFURDFKPHQWXSRQDQGIUDJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUNDVLWKDGEHHQ RULJLQDOO GHILQHG 5XUDO DQG VXEXUEDQ IRUHVWHG ODQGV KDYH EHHQ DQ DWWUDFWLYH WDUJHW IRU QHZGHYHORSPHQWSURYLGLQJIXWXUHUHVLGHQWVZLWKDVHQVHRIUXUDOLVRODWLRQZLWKRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRsup3FRPPXQHZLWKQDWXUHacuteDQGHQMRPRUHDIIRUGDEOHKRPHSULFHVWKDQLQGHYHORSPHQWVPRUHFHQWUDOOORFDWHGWRWKHH[LVWLQJXUEDQDUHD$VWKHUXUDOODQGVFDSHLVVORZOHURGHGERQJRLQJGHYHORSPHQWWKHPLJUDWRUHFRFRUULGRUVIRXQGEORFDOIDXQDPDQHFHVVDULOEHUHURXWHGDURXQGGHYHORSPHQW+RZHYHUHYHQWXDOOZLWKHQRXJKGHYHORSPHQW WKH UHPDLQLQJ QDWXUDO KDELWDW LV QR ORQJHU SURWHFWLYH HQRXJK WR UHWDLQ DQG VXVWDLQ QDWXUDOZLOGOLIHDQGVSHFLHVZLOOPLJUDWHHOVHZKHUHWRILQGVXLWDEOHKDELWDWRUGLHRII

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

Q7DEOHWKHFRXQWRIDSSURYHGEXLOGLQJVORFDWHGLQDQGRXWVLGHWKHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHIRUHDFKORFDOLWLVVKRZQEURNHQGRZQESUHDQGSRVWWLPHSHULRGVWRSURYLGHVRPHFRQWH[WIRUWKHUHODWLYHORVVRIDUHDRYHUWLPH$IHZREVHUYDWLRQVDERXW7DEOHRQWKHQH[WSDJHDUHQRWHZRUWK)LUVWZKLOHWKHGHILQHGJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJZDVUHODWLYHOXQGLVWXUEHGSULRUWREXLOGLQJVZHUHHUHFWHGLQWKLVDUHDVLQFHUHSUHVHQWLQJDYHUODUJHLQFUHDVHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIWKHampLWparaVGHYHORSPHQWDFWLYLWRYHUWKLVSHULRG6HFRQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGDOPRVWSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQ6WDIIRUGampRVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD6LPLODUOLQ6SRWVOYDQLDampRSHUFHQWRIDOOQHWZRUNGHYHORSPHQWKDVRFFXUUHGVLQFHDQGRYHUSHUFHQWRIDOOGHYHORSPHQWLQWKHFRXQWVLQFHRFFXUUHGLQWKHQHWZRUNDUHD

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 7

RFDOLWXLOGLQJVLQUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWXLOGLQJV2XWVLGHUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLW7RWDOXLOGLQJV

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO 2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV 3FW2I7RWDO

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

RFDOLWUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH$UHDXLOGLQJVDV3HUFHQWRI7RWDOXLOGLQJV(UD

ampRQVWUXFWHG3UH ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ ampRQVWUXFWHGEHWZHHQ 7RWDO2U8QNQRZQ DQG DQG XLOGLQJV

)UHGHULFNVEXUJampLWRI ampDUROLQHampR LQJHRUJHampR 6SRWVOYDQLDampR 6WDIIRUGampR 35amp$UHD

6RXUFHampRPSLOHGE56ampIURPVWUXFWXUHGDWDSURYLGHGEORFDO6DQGRUampRPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHGHSDUWPHQWVWDII

7RSURYLGHDQREMHFWLYHPHDVXUHRIWKHLPSDFWRISRVWGHYHORSPHQWRQWKHLQWHJULWRIWKHSUHYLRXVOGHILQHGUHJLRQDOQHWZRUN5amp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

Table 1 Comparative Statistics on Building Activity amp Inventory Pre-2000 2000-2008 2009-2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 8

Source RDS LLC August 26 2016

Figure 3 Updated Regional Green Infrastructure Map 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 9

Table 2 2009-2016 Building Buffer Acreage Losses by Locality and By Type

Table 3 Net Change in Acreage by Green Infrastructure Component and Locality

Green Infrastructure Network

Component Layer

Acreage Lost from 2009 - 2016 Building Buffers (100 meters)

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 598 8230 29502 52341 000 90670

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 3779 21723 102589 122430 3927 254448

Eco-Corridor Areas 497 16832 5421 7871 000 30621

Total GI Network Acreage Loss 4873 46785 137512 182642 3927 375739

Green Infrastructure Network Component Layer

Percent Share of Acreage Lost by Network Component by Locality

Caroline King George Spotsylvania Stafford Fredericksburg PD 16

High-Value Eco-Core Areas 1226 1759 2145 2866 000 2413

Contributing Eco-Core Areas 7754 4643 7460 6703 10000 6772

Eco-Corridor Areas 1020 3598 394 431 000 815

Pct Loss by Locality 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 100006RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

Locality

Total 2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Land Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Caroline 34359680 -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George 11496960 -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania 25696000 -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford 17213440 -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

Fredericksburg 672000 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

GWRC Total 89438080 -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

6RXUFH56amp$XJXVW

QRUGHUWRSXWLQSHUVSHFWLYHWKHDFUHORVVRYHUWKHODVWHDUVRIUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHDGXHWRGHYHORSPHQWHQFURDFKPHQWWKLVODQGFRYHUFRQYHUVLRQLVHTXLYDOHQWWRWKHORVVRISHUFHQWRIWKHampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJparaVWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRUSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOODQGDUHDDFUHVRIWKH)UHGHULFNVEXUJ6SRWVOYDQLD1DWLRQDO0LOLWDU3DUNZKLFKOLNHWKHUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDVVHWLVVSUHDGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQDQGFRQVWLWXWHVSDUWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJUHJLRQDOJUHHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUHQHWZRUN

ampKDQJHVLQampRQVHUYHGDQGVQYHQWRU 2QHRIWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVRIWKHUHJLRQDOUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUH3ODQZDVWKDWWKH5HJLRQVKRXOGSURPRWHWKH DFTXLVLWLRQ RI DGGLWLRQDO FRQVHUYDWLRQ HDVHPHQWV LQ VXSSRUW RI WKH VWDWHZLGH JRDO DGRSWHG XQGHU ERWKRYDLQHparaV DQGRY0FRQQHOOparaV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQV 7KH3ODQ VHWV RXW D UHJLRQDO JRDO RI DQ DGGLWLRQDODFUHVRI ODQG WREHSODFHGXQGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW WRDFKLHYH WKHUHJLRQparaVsup3IDLUVKDUHacuteRI WKH

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 10

Table 4 Pre- and Post-2011 Conservation Easement Lands Inventory by Locality

VWDWHZLGHJRDO 3URYLGHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQLVDQXSGDWHRQWKH5HJLRQparaVSHUIRUPDQFHWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKLVJRDO

7KH VLPSOHVW DSSURDFK WR DFFRXQW IRU FKDQJHV LQ WKH UHJLRQDO FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU DOWKRXJK QRWQHFHVVDULO WKHPRVWH[KDXVWLYHDQGFRPSOHWH LV WRDQDO]H WKH9amp5FRQVHUYHGODQGVGDWDEDVHIRUQHZHDVHPHQWVDGGHGLQWKH5HJLRQVLQFHZKHQWKH3ODQZDVFRPSOHWHGKLOHRWKHUVRXUFHVFRXOGEHXVHGWKDWPLJKWHQKDQFHWKLVDQDOVLVWKHEHQHILWRIXVLQJ9amp5GDWDLVWKDWWKHVDPHGDWDDUHXVHGWRPHDVXUHSURJUHVVLQWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKWRZDUGDFKLHYLQJWKHDFUHVWDWHZLGHJRDOVRLWSURYLGHVDQsup3DSSOHVWRDSSOHVacuteFRPSDULVRQZLWKVWDWHZLGHFRQVHUYDWLRQSURJUHVVWUDFNLQJ7KHUHVXOWVRIWKLVDQDOVLVLVVKRZQEHORZLQ7DEOH

RFDOLW 7LPH3HULRG $FUHV (DVHPHQWV 3FWRIRFDOampDUROLQHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO LQJHRUJHampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6SRWVOYDQLDampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 6WDIIRUGampRXQW 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO ampLWRI)UHGHULFNVEXUJ 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3$UHD 3UH

WKURXJK 7RWDO 3RVW3FWRIUHJLRQDOampRQVHUYDWLRQRDODFUHV 3RVW3FWRI7RWDO$FUHV8QGHU(DVHPHQW 6RXUFH56ampVXPPDURIampRQVHUYHGDQGVGDWDEDVHPDLQWDLQHGE9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQWRIampRQVHUYDWLRQDQG5HFUHDWLRQGDWHG

)URPWKHDERYHDQDOVLVRQHFDQFRQFOXGH WKDWRI WKH UHJLRQDO3ODQparaV ODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDFUHDJHJRDOKDVEHHQPHWsup3RUJDQLFDOOacuteESULYDWHDQGSXEOLF ODQGRZQHUDFWLRQVZLWKRXWDQRYHUWDQGRUGLUHFWORFDOSXEOLFSROLFDFWLRQWRSURPRWHODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQDVDQLQVWUXPHQWWRVXVWDLQWKHUHJLRQparaVKLJKTXDOLWRI OLIH DQG DV D acute03acute IRU ORFDO VWDWH DQG amp ZDWHU TXDOLW SURWHFWLRQ DQG RWKHU HFRVVWHP VHUYLFHVEHQHILWV

$PDS RI WKH SRVW QHZ FRQVHUYHG ODQGV LQYHQWRU LV VKRZQ RQ WKH QH[W SDJH LQ )LJXUH $UHDVKLJKOLJKWHG LQ UHG LQ )LJXUH DUH ODQGV SODFHG XQGHU HDVHPHQW VLQFH 2FW DIWHU WKH 3ODQ ZDVFRPSOHWHG

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 11

6RXUFH56ampEDVHGRQGDWDIURP9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGVsup3(DVHPHQWVacuteGDWDEDVH

7KH9amp5ampRQVHUYHGDQGV LQYHQWRU LVPDGH XS WZR GDWDEDVHV LH RQH IRU ODQGV XQGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQW RIYDULRXV WSHV DQGDQRWKHU IRU ODQGVRZQHGE IHGHUDO VWDWH DQG ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWXVHG DVSDUNODQG RUPLOLWDU LQVWDOODWLRQV DVZHOO DV ODQGV RZQHG XQGHU IHH VLPSOH WLWOH E YDULRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQODQGV WUXVWV 5amp FRQVXOWDQWV HQKDQFHG WKHVH GDWD LQ ZDV D DGGLWLRQDO ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW RZQHUSDUNVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHOLVWEWKHDFUHDJHVUHSRUWHGZHUHGLVDJJUHJDWHGIRUHDFKORFDOLWLQ3DQGFFRQVHUYHGODQGVH[WHQGLQJEHRQGWKH3VHUYLFHDUHDZHUHFURSSHGWRWKHUHJLRQDOERUGHUDQGODQGVWKDW

Figure 4 PD16 Conserved Lands Inventory (Pre- and Post-2010)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 12

VWUDGGOHG D FRXQW ERUGHUZHUH VSOLW WR UHSRUW WKH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SRUWLRQ RI WRWDO DFUHDJH E WKH DIIHFWHGFRXQWLHV7KHUHVXOWLQJHQKDQFHGFRQVHUYHGODQGVLQYHQWRULVVKRZQLQ7DEOH

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

Abel Reservoir Local Govt 24565 24565

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary Private Trust-TNC 12775 12775

Alum Spring Park Local Govt 2032 2032

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 1954 1954

Aquia Landing Park Local Govt 5849 5849

Arritt Park Local Govt 2650 2650

Austin Ridge Park Local Govt 5760 5760

Autumn Ridge Park Local Govt 3234 3234

Barnsfield Park Local Govt 15730 15730

C T Smith Park Local Govt 1020 1020 Caledon State Park State Govt-VDCR 259539 259539

Caroline Recreation Park Local Govt 4084 4084

Chewning Park Local Govt 1000 1000

Chichester Park Local Govt 11253 11253

Chotank State Natural Area Preserve Private Trust-VOF 110790 110790

City Dock Local Govt 087 087

Civil War Park Local Govt 4502 4502

Cosner Park Local Govt 1100 1100

Crows Nest State Natural Area Preserve State Govt-VDCR 287207 287207

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 50000 50000

Curtis Memorial Park Local Govt 56307 56307

CVBT Holding Private Trust-CVBT 31769 1120 32889

CWT Holding Private Trust-CWT 636 41584 42220

DGIF Holding State Govt-VDGIF 220 220

Dixon Park Local Govt 4682 4682

Duff Green Park Local Govt 5865 5865

Embrey Mill Park Local Govt 18006 18006

Ferry Farm Park Local Govt 19284 19284

Fort AP Hill Military Reservation Fed Govt-US Army 7472719 7472719

Fredericksburg amp Spotsylvania Natl Military Park Fed Govt-USNPS 5608 1163474 9373 2810 1181265

Fredericksburg National Cemetary Fed Govt-USNPS 1096 1096

Gary Melchers Belmont Park Local Govt 6834 6834

Government Island Local Govt 5429 5429

Harrison Road Park Local Govt 2200 2200

Historic Port of Falmouth Local Govt 3342 3342

Hunting Run Recreation Area Local Govt 2000 2000

Hurkamp Park Local Govt 180 180

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 16636 16636

Lake Anna State Park State Govt-VDCR 282343 282343

Lake Mooney Reservoir amp Park Local Govt 190880 190880

Lands End Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 46823 46823

Lee Hill Park Local Govt 2000 2000

Little Falls Boat Ramp Local Govt 10069 10069

Loriella Park Local Govt 20800 20800

Lowe Massey Park Local Govt 540 540 Marshall CenterLegion Fields Park Local Govt 2400 2400

Marshall Park Local Govt 2500 2500

Mary Lee Carter Park Local Govt 400 400

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area State Govt 254260 254260

Maury Playground Local Govt 597 597

MCB - Quantico Fed Govt-USMC 8398617 8398617

Memorial Park Local Govt 747 747

Motts Run Reservoir and Park Local Govt 87351 87351

Ni River Recreation Area Local Govt 500 500

NSWC - Dahlgren Fed Govt 436720 436720

Table 5 Updated Conserved Lands Acreage Inventory 2016

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 13

Conserved Land Property Ownership Caroline

King

George Spotsylvania Stafford

City of

Fredericksburg PD16 Total

NVCT Holding Private Trust-NVCT 7000 7000

Old Mill Park Local Govt 5000 5000

Patawomeck Park Local Govt 46659 46659

Patriot Park Local Govt 13100 13100

Pettigrew Wildlife Management Area State Govt-VDGIF 91662 91662

John Lee Pratt Park Local Govt 6584 6584

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Fed Govt-USFWS 7925 46976 54901

River Road Park Local Govt 3557 3557

Riverfront Park Local Govt 277 277

Robert Farmer Park Local Govt 760 760

Saint Clair Brooks Park Local Govt 20225 20225

Sealston Sports Complex Local Govt 4510 4510

Shiloh Park Local Govt 3320 3320

Smith Lake Park Local Govt 18731 18731

Smith Lake Reservoir Local Govt 18645 18645

Snowden Park Playground Local Govt 2495 2495

Stafford Civil War Park Local Govt 10844 10844

TNC Land Holding Private Trust 17488 17488

TNC Preserve Private Trust 2299 71360 73659

Virginia Central Trail Local Govt 540 540

WL Harris Playground Local Govt 081 081

Wayside Park Local Govt 1050 1050

Widewater State Park State Govt-VDCR 110000 110000

Willowmere Park Local Govt 13660 13660

TOTAL ACREAGE 7859221 925458 1741846 9390872 21204 19938601 Sources

VDCR Conserved Lands Database 6202016 Caroline Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website and staff e-mail King George Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation City of Fredericksburg On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Spotsylvania Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website Stafford Co On-line GIS amp Dept of Parks and Recreation website

( 2WKHUUHHQQIUDVWUXFWXUHDWD 6LQFH WKH RULJLQDO UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH SODQ ZDV GHYHORSHG DGGLWLRQDO VSDWLDO GDWD VRXUFHV DQGUHODWHGPDSSLQJZRUNKDVEHHQGRQHZKLFKFRXOGIXUWKHU LQIRUPORFDO ODQGXVHSODQQLQJDQGWKHSRVVLEOHLQWHJUDWLRQRIODQGFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVLQWRORFDOJRYHUQPHQWVparaFRPSUHKHQVLYHSODQQLQJDQGPDQDJHPHQWRIGHYHORSPHQWLPSDFWRQWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW$PRQJWKHVHQHZGDWDVRXUFHVDUH 7KH 15amp6 6RLO ampODVVLILFDWLRQ 6VWHPGDWD WKDW GHILQH SHUPHDEOH 7SHV $ DQG LPSHUPHDEOH

7SHVampVRLOWSHV7RWKHH[WHQWWKDWGHYHORSPHQWVLWHSODQQLQJFDQFRQFHQWUDWHRQXVLQJDUHDVZLWKVRLO WSHVampIRUFRQVWUXFWLQJLPSHUPHDEOHVXUIDFHVDQGSUHVHUYHWKHDUHDVRI7SHV$VRLOVWRUHWDLQWKHLUQDWXUDOFKDUDFWHUWKHUHZLOOEHOHVVRYHUDOODGYHUVHLPSDFWRQWKHHQYLURQPHQW6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFH

6RXUFHKWWSZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVVXUYHFODVV

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 14

Figure 5 PD16 Regional Map of NRCS Soil Types A amp B

Source Prepared by RDS LLC from NRCS soil data provided by Conservation Concepts LLC

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 15

Source Extracted from VDOF statewide FCV spatial data file by RDS LLC

7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWUparaV VWDWHZLGHPDS RI )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ9DOXHEDVHG RQ ODQGFRYHULPDJHUWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWIRUHVWFRYHUWSHVDVZHOODVWRSRJUDSKSUR[LPLWWRVWUHDPVDQGRWKHUFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWRGHILQHIRUHVWHGODQGVPRVWEHQHILFLDOWRFRQVHUYHDQGSUHVHUYH7KH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI )RUHVWU KDV HVWDEOLVKHG D UHODWLYH )RUHVW ampRQVHUYDWLRQ 9DOXH )amp9 IRU DOO RI WKHIRUHVWODQGLQWKHVWDWH7KLV)amp9UDQNLQJLVEDVHGRQWKHOHYHORIEHQHILWVSURYLGHGEDSDUWLFXODUDUHDRI IRUHVW LQ FRPELQDWLRQZLWK WKH OHYHO RI WKUHDW WKH DUHD IDFHV IURP FRQYHUVLRQ WR DQRWKHU ODQG XVHSULPDULOWRGHYHORSPHQW7KH)amp9PDSGLYLGHVWKHVWDWHparaVIRUHVWODQGVLQWRILYHFDWHJRULHVWKH9LUJLQLDHSDUWPHQW RI)RUHVWU 92) KDV LGHQWLILHG FDWHJRULHV DQG DV KDYLQJ KLJK IRUHVW FRQVHUYDWLRQYDOXHKLOHDOOIRUHVWVSURYLGHDUDQJHRIEHQHILWVDQGWKHWKUHDWRIIRUHVWFRQYHUVLRQLVZLGHVSUHDGWKH92) UHFRPPHQGV WKDW WKHVH KLJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ YDOXH IRUHVWV EH JLYHQ SULRULW LQ ODQG FRQVHUYDWLRQHIIRUWVVXFKDVGRQDWHGFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWV35SURJUDPVRU$J)RUHVWDOLVWULFWV6HH)LJXUHIRUDUHJLRQDOH[DPSOHRIWKLVPDSSLQJUHVRXUFHV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZGRIYLUJLQLDJRYUHVRXUFHVJLV)amp9BVWDWHZLGH]LS

Figure 6 PD16 Regional Map of VDOF Forest Conservation Value (FCV)

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 16

7KH9LUJLQLD+LJK5HVROXWLRQDQGampRYHUGDWDVHWEDVHGRQDQGPHWHUUHVROXWLRQLPDJHU

DQG $5 GDWD WR EH XVHG LQ GHILQLQJ KLJKHU UHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU IRU WKH ampKHVDSHDNH D DQGampRYHUampKDQJHDQG70ZDWHUTXDOLWPRGHOV7KHVHGDWDDQWLFLSDWHGWRKDYHDDFFXUDFUDWHDUHH[SHFWHGWREHFRPHDYDLODEOHLQODWHVXPPHU7KLVGDWDZLOOSURYLGHDFRQVLVWHQWSODWIRUPIRUUHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO ODQG FRYHU DQDOVLV DQG JRLQJ IRUZDUG SURYLGH D EDVHOLQH IRU ODQG FRYHU FKDQJHDQDOVLV WR VXSSRUW HQYLURQPHQWDO SURWHFWLRQ DQG YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG GHYHORSPHQWPRQLWRULQJSURJUDPV 9LUJLQLDparaV KLJKUHVROXWLRQ ODQG FRYHU GDWD GHYHORSHG ERUOGYLHZ 6ROXWLRQV QF 6ZLOO EH DYDLODEOH WR ORFDOLWLHV IROORZLQJ FRPSOHWLRQ RI 6DQERUQparaV TXDOLW DVVXUDQFHTXDOLW FRQWUROSURFHVVDQGDQQHFHVVDUFRUUHFWLRQVE67KHGDWDZLOOEHDYDLODEOHRQWKH9166HUYHUDW

KWWSJLVPDSVYLWDYLUJLQLDJRYDUFJLVUHVWVHUYLFHV

7KH86HRORJLFDO6XUYHKDVGHYHORSHGDZHEVLWH WR IDFLOLWDWH WKHUHYLHZDQGGLVVHPLQDWLRQRI WKH3KDVHDQG8VHDWDEDVHLQFOXGLQJWKDWSURGXFHGXQGHUVHSDUDWHFRQWUDFWLQ9LUJLQLD7KHZHEVLWHZRUNVEHVWXVLQJRRJOHampKURPHDQGFDQEHDFFHVVHGDWKWWSFKHVDSHDNHXVJVJRYSKDVH7KLVGDWDVRXUFH DORQJ ZLWK WKH RWKHUV PHQWLRQHG DERYH SURYLGH DQ H[FHOOHQW UHVRXUFH WR UHGHILQH DQG UHGHOLQHDWH WKH UHJLRQDO JUHHQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH QHWZRUN DQG VXSSRUW WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI ZDWHUVKHGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQV IRU UHJXODWHG DQG QRQUHJXODWHG FRPPXQLWLHV DOLNH W LV DQWLFLSDWHG WKDW WKLVGDWDVHWZLOOEHXSGDWHGEWKHampRPPRQZHDOWKRI9LUJLQLDRQDSHULRGLFEDVLVDQGVHUYHDVDQLQYDOXDEOHUHVRXUFH WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV QRQJRYHUQPHQWDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV HJ FRQVHUYDWLRQJURXSV ODQG WUXVWVHWFDQGVFLHQWLILFUHVHDUFKHUVIRFXVLQJRQ ODQGFRYHUFKDQJHDQGLWVHQYLURQPHQWDODQGZDWHUTXDOLWLPSDFWV

6RXUFHKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVUHYLVHGBZHELQDUBZKLWHSDSHUBSGIDQGIXUWKHUGHVFULEHGDWKWWSZZZFKHVDSHDNHEDQHWFKDQQHOBILOHVKLJKBUHVROXWLRQBODQGBFRYHUBGDWDBLQBWKHBFKHVDSHDNHBEDBZDWHUVKHGBBSGI

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 17

)$SSHQGLFHV

Methodological Summary of Green Infrastructure Map Update $ 3ODQDWD6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ

ampRQYHUW3ODQ)LOHVIURP(656KSWR0DSWLWXGHGEGILOHV 6WDQGDUGL]H0DSDHUVWR(OLPLQDWH2YHUODS

D +LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHampOHDQ8SL 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWK+9(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUO+9(ampampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOO+9(ampDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWR+9ampRUH

5HVLGXDOE ampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVampOHDQ8S

L 8VH3ROJRQ2YHUOD7RROWRampRQIODWHampRUULGRUVZLWKampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVLL 6DYHDV2YUOampRQW(FRampRUHVampRUULGRUVLLL (GLWUHVXOWLQJRYHUODODHUWRPHUJHDOOampRQWU(FRampRUHDUHDVELVHFWHGE(FRFRUULGRULY ([SRUWUHVXOWDV)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVY 6HOHFWDOOFRUULGRUDUHDVQRWLQ)QOampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVH[SRUWWRampRQWU

ampRUH5HVLGXDOF (FRampRUULGRUV

L 2SHQ6WHSVDEUHVLGXDOILOHVPHUJHWRFUHDWH)QO(FRampRUULGRUILOH

3UHSDUH3RVWXLOGLQJDWD 6HOHFWDOOEXLOGLQJSRLQWVIRUHDFKMXULVGLFWLRQZKHUHsup3XLOWltHDUacute 6DYHVHOHFWLRQVHWDVsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacute 0HUJHILYHsup3)36B3VWOGJ3WVacuteLQWR33VWOGJ3RLQWV 2SHQILQDO(FRODHUVZLWK33VWOGJ3RLQWVWDJSRLQWVZLWKODHUIURP

FRUUHVSRQGLQJHFRODHU XLOGEXIIHUODHUIRUHDFKRIHFRODHUEOGJSRLQWV

D 3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUE 3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUF 3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHU

amp ampRQIODWH3RVWOGJXIIHUDHUVZLWK(FRDHUV

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW+9(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO+L9DO(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDV+LJK9DOXH(FRampRUHVODHU

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VWampRQWU(ampOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QOampRQWU(FRampRUHVD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURPampRQWULEXWLQJ(FRampRUHVE 6DYHUHVXOWDVampRQWU(FRampRUHVODHU

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 18

8VH3ROJRQ2YHUODWRROWRVXEWUDFW3VW(FRampRUULGRUOGJXIIHUODHUIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUD (GLWUHVXOWLQJWDEOHWRGHOHWHDOOEXIIHUDUHDVIURP)QO(FRampRUULGRUODHUE 6DYHUHVXOWDV(FRampRUULGRUODHU

7DEXODWHDQGampRPSDUDWLYH$FUHDJHUHVXOWVE(FRDHU(QWHULQPSDFW$QDOVLV

6SUHDGVKHHW

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 19

Figure 7 Updated Caroline County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 20

Figure 8 Updated King George County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 21

Figure 9 Updated Spotsylvania County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 22

Figure 10 Updated Stafford County Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 23

Figure 11 Updated City of Fredericksburg Green Infrastructure Map

Authorrsquos Note The updated eco-corridors shown above transecting underlying High-Value and Contributing Eco-Core areas are shown only for consistency with the 2012 Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The acreages calculated by GI network component shown in the Development Impact Analysis section of this report are not consistent with this graphical depiction as the Eco-corridors terminate at the edge of any connecting High-Value or Contributing Eco-Core area

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 24

Table 6 Detailed Green Infrastructure Update Data

Locality

2008 GI Area by Component (Acres)

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 59334 640 95814 1426 576186 8574

Caroline 34359680 10819070 9719569 150884 20689523 6021 13670157 3979

King George 11496960 1320897 3864070 132507 5317474 4625 6179486 5375

Spotsylvania 25696000 4562397 6874108 234745 11671251 4542 14024749 5458

Stafford 17213440 4628686 3827889 169028 8625603 5011 8587837 4989

GWRC Total 89438080 21366890 24344970 687804 46399665 5188 43038415 4812

Locality

Pct of 2008 GI Area by Component (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of

Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Local Area Local Area

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0244 0093 021 2748 8574 NA

Caroline 3842 50635 39924 21937 4459 11607 3979 NA

King George 1285 6182 15872 19265 1146 8915 5375 NA

Spotsylvania 2873 21353 28236 34130 2515 8755 5458 NA

Stafford 1925 21663 15724 24575 1859 9659 4989 NA

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 4812

Locality

1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area

Total Area Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI GI Share of Balance of Non-GI Pct of

(Acres) Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint Local Area Local Area Total Local Area

Fredericksburg 672000 35840 55407 640 91887 1367 580113 8633

Caroline 34359680 10818472 9715790 150387 20684650 6020 13675030 3980

King George 11496960 1312667 3842347 115675 5270689 4584 6226271 5416

Spotsylvania 25696000 4532895 6771519 229324 11533739 4489 14162261 5511

Stafford 17213440 4576345 3705459 161157 8442961 4905 8770479 5095

GWRC Total 89438080 21276220 24090523 657183 46023926 5146 43414154 4854

Locality

Pct of 1st Qtr 2016 Remaining Green Infrastructure Network Area (Regional Share)

Regional Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Local Share of Regional Non-GI Network Area Acreage Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridor Footprint

Fredericksburg 075 0168 0230 0097 020 NA 134

Caroline 3842 50848 40330 22884 4494 NA 3150

King George 1285 6170 15950 17602 1145 NA 1434

Spotsylvania 2873 21305 28109 34895 2506 NA 3262

Stafford 1925 21509 15381 24522 1834 NA 2020

GWRC Total 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

PD16 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN 2016 UPDATE 25

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact (Lost Acreage)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI Percent Loss

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint Since 2008

Fredericksburg 000 -3927 000 -3927 -410

Caroline -598 -3779 -497 -4873 -002

King George -8230 -21723 -16832 -46785 -088

Spotsylvania -29502 -102589 -5421 -137512 -118

Stafford -52341 -122430 -7871 -182642 -212

GWRC Total -90670 -254448 -30621 -375738 -081

Locality

2008 - 2016 Development Impact

(Change in Regional Share of GI Network Asset by Component)

Hi-Value Contributing Eco- Total GI

Eco-Cores Eco-Cores Corridors Footprint

Fredericksburg -0001 0014 -0004 0007 Caroline -0213 -0406 -0946 -0353 King George 0012 -0077 1664 0008 Spotsylvania 0048 0128 -0765 0093 Stafford 0154 0342 0053 0245 GWRC Total 0000 0000 0000 0000

Source Calculated by RDS LLC based on GI Network update methodology described herein

AppendixC

PD16GreenInfrastructureRetentionPrioritizationStrategy

Kevin F Byrnes AICP

Regional Decision Systems LLC

372017

PD 16 Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization

1

Contents I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis 2

A Introduction 2

B Prioritization Methodology 2

C Prioritization Results by Locality 3

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality 4

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps 5

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map 6

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 7

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map 8

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 9

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map 10

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 11

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map 12

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 13

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization 14

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map 15

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization 16

City of Fredericksburg 17

Caroline County 18

King George County 24

Spotsylvania County 26

Stafford County 28

IV CD DATA DISC 31

2

I Green Infrastructure Prioritization Analysis

A Introduction

With development activity throughout Virginiarsquos Planning District 16 (comprising the City of Fredericksburg and the Counties of Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford) the Region has experienced significant loss of the forest and tree canopy resources that make up the regionrsquos ldquoGreen Infrastructure (or GI)rdquo that provides a variety of ecosystem service benefits throughout the Region1 In previous studies in 2011 and 2016 GWRC staff and consultants have documented the gradual loss and fragmentation of the regionrsquos GI network As a tool to help local governments and land conservation interests prioritize where GI retention could be most beneficial the NFWF project team developed this prioritization strategy to identify important parcels to conserve in their natural state

B Prioritization Methodology

Using the results of the 2016 Green Infrastructure network update we identified all parcels that adjoined or overlapped either the regionrsquos high-value eco-core areas or the remaining interconnecting eco-corridors which traverse the landscape tying the eco-cores together in a shortest-path route through contributing eco-core areas consisting of smaller forested and wetland areas

This resulting subset of parcels were then scored based on the following priority criteria

1 Their status as a parcel within or adjoining either the high-value eco-core or connecting eco-corridor areas (1 point)

2 The parcels which adjoin existing federal state or local ldquoconservedrdquo lands (as defined by VDCR consisting parkland military installations wildlife management areas etc) and undeveloped a Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo but with a building on the property (1 pt) b Adjoining defined ldquoconserved landsrdquo with no buildings on the property (2 pts)

3 Property touches a designated a National Wetland Inventory (NWI) feature (1 pt) 4 Property is outside approved subdivided lands (ie a platted subdivision) (1 pt)

A composite score (ldquoPriority Indexrdquo) based on the sum of these criteria (with a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5) was calculated and mapped showing a gradient ldquoheat maprdquo of the possible scores (1 ndash 5) Areas scoring either ldquo4rdquo or ldquo5rdquo were grouped together as the highest priority retention areas (red) followed by areas scoring ldquo3rdquo where shaded in orange followed by areas scored as ldquo2rdquo shaded as mustard yellow and areas in ldquo1rdquo where shown in lighter yellow

1 The original Regional Green Infrastructure Plan adopted by the GWRC in 2012 documented the many ecosystem service benefits provided by the foresttree canopy of the Region

3

C Prioritization Results by Locality

The Green Infrastructure retention prioritization data for each locality are summarized in Tables 1 and 2

Table 1 Summary Parcel Count by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality No of Parcels w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo3rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo2rdquo score

No of Parcels w ldquo1rdquo score

Total GI Parcels

Fredericksburg 0 6 11 6 23 Caroline Co 282 594 480 122 1478 King George Co 95 2 1108 631 1836 Spotsylvania Co 69 484 1681 1342 3755 Stafford Co 111 365 2043 657 3176 PD 16 Total 557 1451 5323 2758 7092

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Table 2 Summary Parcel Acreage by Locality and Prioritization Score

Locality Aggregate Acreage

w ldquo5rdquo or ldquo4rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo3rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo2rdquo score

Aggregate Acreage w ldquo1rdquo

score

Total GI-Related Acreage

Fredericksburg 000 21766 28795 10198 60759 Caroline Co 6029674 9504049 4210747 379154 20123624 King George Co 1982603 42099 3656908 3465331 9146941 Spotsylvania Co 669903 4200810 9125826 1425486 15422025 Stafford Co 1462617 2810739 3872258 896478 9042092 PD 16 Total 10144797 16579463 20894534 6176647 44753349

Stafford Co data exclude USMCB Quantico installation which would be under Score ldquo5rdquo and ldquo4rdquo column

Maps of the GI retention prioritization results are provided as Figures 1 3 5 7 9 in the following Section II Detailed tables of the highest priority tracts for GI retention in each locality listing the parcel identification numbers prioritization scores and other information are provided in the Appendix of this report while the full detail of GI parcels is provided on an electronic spreadsheet file saved on the CD included with this report

4

D High-Resolution Land Cover Maps and Data by Locality

Maps of the high-resolution land cover data prepared for the 2017 Chesapeake Bay TMDL model run by Worldview Solutions under contract to the Commonwealth of Virginia are provided as Figures 2 4 6 8 and 10 following in Section 2 Provided below (Table 3) is the tabular summary of the area in each locality under each class of land cover

The high-resolution imagery reveal that over 66 percent the regional land area is covered by forests and trees however much of this forest cover is much smaller than the minimum 100 acre threshold criteria for the high-value eco-core areas that are the nuclei of the Regionrsquos Green Infrastructure network Continuing fragmentation of the green infrastructure network will result in a gradual diminution of natural habitat for flora and fauna species that sustain the natural ecology of the Region

Table 3 Summary of High-Resolution Land Caver Imagery Data (2013)

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 4175 44 2582 2727 3016 12544 Impervious (Extracted) 3702 1121 1427 4217 2282 12749 Impervious (Local Data) 3252 897 1908 8034 11148 25239 Barren 745 126 1029 379 1455 3734 Forest 218180 1299 67773 151933 94455 533640 Tree 14571 928 7470 21152 17752 61873 ShrubScrub 2565 51 739 2834 1255 7444 HarvestedDisturbed 12976 27 713 7661 1123 22500 Turf Grass 15618 1957 9256 22060 21552 70443 Pasture 6493 82 6680 15487 6660 35402 Cropland 32922 52 8619 9266 4605 55464 NWIOther 27072 147 8132 14122 10005 59478 Total Acreage 342272 6732 116327 259870 175309 900510

Percent by Locality

1-meter Resolution Land Cover Classes

Middle BasinPD 16 Acreage by Locality by Cover Class

Caroline Fredericksburg King George Spotsylvania Stafford PD 16 Total

Open Water 122 065 222 105 172 139

Impervious (Extracted) 108 1665 123 162 130 142

Impervious (Local Data) 095 1332 164 309 636 280

Barren 022 187 088 015 083 041

Forest 6374 1930 5826 5847 5388 5926 Tree 426 1378 642 814 1013 687

ShrubScrub 075 076 064 109 072 083

HarvestedDisturbed 379 040 061 295 064 250

Turf Grass 456 2907 796 849 1229 782

Pasture 190 122 574 596 380 393

Cropland 962 077 741 357 263 616

NWIOther 791 218 699 543 571 660

Total Acreage 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 Source Developed by RDS LLC from data reported by Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) in ldquoLand Cover Reportrdquo publication (2016)

5

II Green Infrastructure Retention Prioritization and High-Resolution Land Cover Maps

6

Figure 1 City of Fredericksburg GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC

While priority areas within the City for GI retention are concentrated in the north end of the area locally referred to as the ldquoCelebrate Virginiardquo tract which adjoins the Rappahannock River Figure 2 illustrates that as recently as 2013 there were several other large tracts of forest lands which would be beneficial from an ecological perspective to preserve

7

Figure 2 City of Fredericksburg High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Map prepared by RDS LLC based on ArcGIS shp data file provided by GWRC from tiled imagery polygon data

downloaded from httpvginmapsarcgiscomhomeitemhtmlid=6ae731623ff847df91df767877db0eae

8

Figure 3 Caroline County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

9

Figure 4 Caroline Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

10

Figure 5 King George County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

11

Figure 6 King George Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

12

Figure 7 Spotsylvania County GI Retention Prioritization Map

Source Op Cit

13

Figure 8 Spotsylvania Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

14

Figure 9 Stafford County GI Retention Prioritization

Source Op Cit

15

Figure 10 Stafford Co High Resolution Land Cover (2013) Map

Source Op Cit

16

III APPENDIX Tax Parcel Summary for GI Retention Prioritization

17

City of Fredericksburg

Map_ID Area

(Sq Miles) Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

5973 009947 6365947 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-PBB

5953 004620 2956740 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-82A

5952 002448 1566723 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-81A

5950 001528 977890 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6400

5951 005960 3814452 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-6500

5949 009507 6084230 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 1 3 312-A-3001

8416 000761 487026 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-83A

8397 007715 4937580 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A19-1200W

8390 018309 11717730 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-78

8389 001738 1112106 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 1 0 2 A17-6

8387 000231 148032 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 A17-5

5974 000830 531392 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PBC

5972 005615 3593694 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-PA1R

5970 000617 395056 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P9

5968 008614 5513019 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 312-A-P8

5732 000561 358991 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 1 2 304-5517

8402 003291 2106248 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 A19-1A

7216 000284 181647 Eco-Corridor Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 322-PA

5966 002627 1681093 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6H

5960 004024 2575335 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 312-A-P6

5741 004737 3031916 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 306-1-P1

5730 000971 621460 HV Eco-Core Parcel 1 0 0 0 1 304-5513

18

Caroline County

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

2434 0472 781820 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 23-A-22

3139 0215 357072 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 35-A-1

24697 0065 108331 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

11465 0042 68876 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-23

24696 0020 32532 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-24

11463 0019 31383 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 58-A-21A

24680 0016 25845 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-34

4365 0011 17817 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-14D

24698 0008 13900 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 43-A-39

24684 0005 8170 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24685 0003 4979 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24686 0002 3545 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24687 0001 1972 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

24688 0001 1559 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 42-A-7

25384 1700 2818344 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70

2831 0995 1649018 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 27-A-63

24426 0795 1318518 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-44

24469 0759 1257739 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-149

955 0731 1210963 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-26

19283 0715 1184950 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15

19528 0671 1111771 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 72-A-6

116 0661 1096177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-11

18985 0612 1014279 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-16

21891 0587 972250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42

24043 0547 906156 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-26

20191 0539 893290 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-21

20168 0480 795464 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-4

2894 0453 750782 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-46

22263 0447 740857 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-2

20166 0436 722086 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-2

20236 0425 704532 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-9

3967 0423 701815 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-25

18876 0392 648956 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-91

22229 0381 630847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-70

2361 0376 623384 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-2

22258 0368 609251 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-14

1659 0365 605318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-3

24101 0361 598197 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-2

20195 0359 595219 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-25

23937 0358 593486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-17

19284 0335 554772 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-15A

21512 0330 546691 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-58

24095 0322 533583 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-70A

20190 0320 530867 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-20

18873 0314 521121 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-89

3940 0313 518434 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-10

24415 0307 508873 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-81

24883 0306 506943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

3908 0297 491900 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80

172 0296 489854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-27

24099 0292 484715 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-1

23641 0286 473651 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-37

25070 0275 456080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

16393 0272 450313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-73

19

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

25385 0261 432016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-71

23647 0242 400462 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-42

24661 0240 397094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68

23935 0237 393671 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-14

24067 0235 388918 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5

22106 0231 383051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-74

3894 0226 374758 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-68A

2893 0224 370529 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-45

18987 0221 366307 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-18

20167 0217 359757 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-1-3

21979 0216 357364 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-35

21955 0215 356781 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16A

4414 0213 352657 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-38

16399 0208 345087 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-10

24104 0204 338275 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-5

21934 0204 338077 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8E

1737 0200 331358 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-153

24125 0194 321775 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-3

24524 0194 321073 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 21-A-1

22260 0193 320313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 89-A-17

25337 0190 315565 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-33

25071 0187 309331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-23

22185 0186 308289 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-32

18986 0185 307428 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-17

21896 0183 302976 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42E

23791 0178 295094 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-50

2217 0173 286334 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-49

19273 0173 286295 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-14

20193 0170 282399 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-23

24971 0170 281106 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-9

3909 0167 277149 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-80A

24461 0167 276901 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-A-2A

826 0167 276188 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-6

25041 0163 270594 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-56

102 0162 267837 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-10

21471 0160 264749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-29

24226 0158 262315 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-5

23981 0157 260585 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-5

24041 0157 260281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-24

18872 0156 257849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-87C

22004 0155 256783 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51

20194 0152 251802 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-24

19636 0147 243874 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-3-1

24103 0147 243331 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-4

25259 0144 238504 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-24

4053 0144 238486 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-9

24576 0142 235505 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

22156 0138 229476 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-12

22138 0138 229274 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-98

4091 0136 226013 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-1

16407 0136 225412 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-18

19272 0131 217425 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-13

24123 0130 216258 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 99-A-17

24035 0127 211199 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-21

1621 0127 210080 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-12A

20

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

3895 0126 209257 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-69

19253 0122 202652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-6-C

22208 0122 201656 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-55

22205 0119 197560 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-51

25393 0117 194596 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

22030 0109 180347 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-105

22135 0108 178999 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-93

21931 0107 178061 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8B

24568 0106 175262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

25204 0104 172557 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-70

21494 0104 172092 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-41A

22222 0103 171281 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-66

2869 0102 169356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-29

22215 0100 165975 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-6

22027 0097 160854 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-102

24038 0095 158000 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-22

19271 0095 157589 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-12

25394 0094 156556 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

19354 0094 156031 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-5

25353 0092 152183 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51

25382 0092 152036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 97-A-5C

22065 0092 151899 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-35

20188 0090 149032 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-19

1027 0089 148050 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-76

22112 0088 145561 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-81

25086 0086 142203 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 73-A-15

24132 0085 141366 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 BROADDUS POND

3902 0081 135036 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-74

25401 0080 131888 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 HYDRO

20235 0079 131313 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 78-A-8

16398 0078 129252 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 62-A-1

1728 0077 128095 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-140

18976 0077 127345 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-9-4

22005 0076 126403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51A

21956 0076 125176 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-16B

22006 0075 123573 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-51B

25072 0073 121484 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-26

19355 0070 116515 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-8

2968 0069 114272 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-18

1726 0064 106250 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-139

1253 0062 103481 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 11-2-A3

23606 0061 101817 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-14C1

25253 0060 99875 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-15

3880 0057 94652 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-A-58A

2889 0057 93954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-42

23632 0056 92749 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-29

24882 0056 92577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 56-A-12

2433 0054 89002 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 23-A-21

19928 0053 87693 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 74-A-66

20187 0053 87411 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-18

23634 0050 82735 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-30

19335 0049 81161 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-10

22076 0047 78318 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-42

22169 0045 74526 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-1A

22689 0045 74418 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 93-A-65

21

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

23540 0044 72403 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-2

21516 0043 71604 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-64

4389 0043 71387 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-25

24699 0043 70747 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 43-A-55

24428 0042 70075 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-46

4043 0042 69992 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-8

18875 0042 68940 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 68-A-90

22083 0041 68406 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-52

21895 0041 67660 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-42D

18982 0041 67342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 69-A-14

24102 0040 66741 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 98-A-3

427 0040 65559 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1

22017 0039 63912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-3-1

19264 0037 62035 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-8-3A

2973 0037 61860 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21C

812 0037 61616 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-31

22139 0036 60450 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-99

25074 0036 59007 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22001 0035 58010 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4B

23539 0035 57850 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-1

2887 0035 57218 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-40

19356 0032 52936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9

163 0031 51847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-20

2895 0031 51314 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-47

22154 0030 50182 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-A-10A

24436 0030 49951 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-4

10349 0026 43255 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-A-91

1181 0026 43140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 109-A-19

24448 0026 43076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-A-37A

158 0025 41847 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-19

23646 0025 41472 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-41

25402 0024 38968 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

25404 0023 38051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

1002 0022 37028 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-57

25355 0022 36885 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 95-A-51B

3774 0022 36849 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40-3-4

25075 0022 36797 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-3

22026 0022 36066 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-100

21756 0021 35245 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 84-A-87

25065 0021 34888 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

23631 0021 34591 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-A-28

2110 0021 34491 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-3-1B

971 0020 32936 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-37

2236 0019 32312 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 17-A-60

24430 0019 31577 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-1

21827 0017 27638 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-5

24468 0017 27543 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-141

21884 0016 27016 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-37A

2890 0016 26223 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-43

24435 0016 25765 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 12-4-3

3106 0014 23963 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 3-A-38

21821 0014 23593 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-6-2

1627 0013 21755 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-6

25403 0013 21046 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

799 0012 20195 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-19

22

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

982 0011 18922 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-43

2888 0011 18267 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 28-A-41

22060 0010 17001 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-32

1619 0010 16670 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-11

1624 0010 16262 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-4

986 0009 15435 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47

22148 0009 14912 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 88-2-6

21972 0009 14745 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-29

21490 0009 14717 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-39

22063 0009 14493 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-33B

4167 0009 14179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-5

19330 0008 14067 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-2

21935 0008 13294 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-8F

468 0008 13160 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 102-A-1B

24572 0008 13140 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

178 0008 13123 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 101-A-31

22059 0008 12931 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-31

25066 0008 12599 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-2

19285 0008 12566 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 70-A-18

23549 0008 12525 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 94-10-8

809 0007 12342 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 107-A-29

24665 0007 12264 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-1

20206 0007 11937 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 77-A-36

5590 0007 11693 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-E

21488 0007 11382 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 83-A-37

1632 0007 11217 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-9A

19329 0007 11105 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-1

1021 0007 10926 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-71A

988 0007 10886 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 108-A-47B

25365 0006 10437 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 96-A-16

25400 0006 10115 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 HYDRO

10194 0006 9254 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-3

10195 0005 9114 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 55-8-4

19332 0005 8632 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-4

4443 0005 8606 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-A-63

19357 0005 8356 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-A-9A

4127 0005 8175 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-A-9

19333 0005 7954 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-5

1618 0005 7726 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 15-1-10A

5589 0004 7207 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 44-2-D

1271 0004 6394 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 11-A-1

24669 0004 5841 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41-A-2

2967 0003 5475 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-17

4069 0003 5466 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 42-3-10

19331 0003 5051 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 71-2-3

2033 0003 4964 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-22

25255 0003 4654 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 86-A-4

24574 0003 4496 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

1725 0002 4037 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16-A-138

16386 0002 3973 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 61-A-68

24694 0002 3943 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-4

2955 0002 3791 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 4 29-8-A

24691 0002 3455 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43-16-3

22126 0002 2844 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 87-A-88A

21887 0002 2584 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-A-3A

23

Map_ID Area Acres GI Layer Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority Index MAP-PIN

24583 0001 2381 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-6

21829 0001 2118 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 85-7-1

24571 0001 2076 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-21

2049 0001 1343 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-17

4787 0001 1234 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 43A2-6-25

24573 0000 0669 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 29-A-32

2019 0000 0595 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-C-1

2048 0000 0524 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 16B-4-D-16

24

King George County ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID

9447 252 417429 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 4354

13509 212 352237 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 310

12306 191 317202 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1508

7615 061 101050 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6175

8 043 71341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13696

6 031 51609 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13698

46 011 18287 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13658

12 009 14591 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13692

11220 009 14150 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2591

160 008 14018 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13544

116 008 12715 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 13588

12319 006 10472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1495

10957 006 9983 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2852

12384 005 8158 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 1429

13439 004 6023 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 380

7222 002 4004 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 6618

13446 002 3274 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 373

11593 001 1421 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2218

11276 001 1225 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2535

11563 001 1052 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2248

11342 000 818 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2469

11583 000 807 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2228

11289 000 589 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2522

11546 000 472 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2265

11330 000 409 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2481

11285 000 341 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2526

11259 000 011 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 2552

13513 213 352255 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 306

127 033 55391 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13577

7041 018 30000 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6750

91 018 29126 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 13612

11170 009 15410 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 2640

7 005 8137 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 13697

11207 005 7771 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 0

13450 003 5772 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 369

13311 003 5583 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 508

13452 003 5531 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 367

13445 003 4732 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 374

13224 003 4672 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 595

11411 002 4130 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2400

13403 002 3836 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 416

13418 002 3755 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 401

13386 002 3698 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 433

7713 002 2608 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6077

10424 001 1633 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3382

7366 001 1453 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6442

7259 001 1435 H-V Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6593

10016 000 353 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3788

10352 000 222 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 3454

11549 000 201 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2262

12170 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1644

11847 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1965

12000 000 031 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1813

11722 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2090

25

ID Area Acreage GW_GI_Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 PriorityIndex PARCELS_ID 11928 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1885

11662 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2149

11794 000 030 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2018

12089 000 029 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1724

12154 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1660

12157 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1657

11837 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1975

11988 000 028 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1825

11712 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2100

11990 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1823

11839 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1973

11915 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1898

12164 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1650

11714 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2098

11651 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2160

11783 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2029

11918 000 027 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1895

11834 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1978

11843 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1969

11994 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1819

12077 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1736

11653 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2158

11786 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2026

12083 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1730

11707 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2105

11718 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2094

12162 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1652

11926 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1887

11913 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1900

11657 000 026 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2154

11791 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2021

11992 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1821

11648 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2163

11841 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1971

11782 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2030

12087 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1726

11715 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2097

11923 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1890

11654 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2157

11788 000 025 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 2024

12085 000 024 H-V Eco-Core 1 2 0 1 4 1728

26

Spotsylvania County

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6949 0041384 2648576 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-3

6950 0036277 2321728 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 20-5-4

195 0035551 2275264 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 10-A-35

25798 0031229 1998656 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 32-A-117D

41693 0030572 1956608 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 46-A-106

6612 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-4

6610 0015825 10128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 19-6-2

6969 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1A

6968 1521704 97389056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-1

63647 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49B

63645 0984626 63016064 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49

5175 0707002 45248128 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18-A-22D

20364 0458559 29347776 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-A-98

22977 0336766 21553024 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 25-A-10A

203 0250013 16000832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39B

37856 0229073 14660672 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 37-A-12A

20456 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-20-D

20400 0163159 10442176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6

6982 0151549 9699136 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-9

205 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39D

201 0149211 9549504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-39

6677 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-24

6675 0141763 9072832 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-A-22A

6989 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11C

6986 0124973 7998272 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11

6971 0123932 7931648 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4

6974 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4C

6972 0122929 7867456 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-4A

7028 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-34A

6981 0112579 7205056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-8

6987 0112078 7172992 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-11A

6980 0107795 689888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-7

184 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26C

182 0102169 6538816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26A

6993 0101019 6465216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12C

59785 0082021 5249344 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 8-A-21A

20401 0080476 5150464 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6A

6952 00683 43712 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-6

25791 0067381 4312384 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 32-A-114

5582 0051364 3287296 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 18C-A-U

6951 0039318 2516352 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-5-5

63613 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-35

63609 0036451 2332864 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 9-A-33

6994 0036378 2328192 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12D

6630 0035248 2255872 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-1

41691 0034895 223328 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 46-A-104

6646 003279 209856 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-17

6645 0032786 2098304 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 19-9-16

41692 0030206 1933184 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 46-A-105

20402 0028985 185504 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 24-12-6B

6997 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12G

6995 0026863 1719232 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 20-A-12E

6947 0016484 1054976 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 20-5-1

63646 0014343 917952 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 9-A-49A

27

Map_ID AREA ACREAGE GI_LAYER PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 PRIORITY 4 Priority Index MAP_PIN

6608 0013394 857216 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 19-5-5

183 0012544 802816 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-26B

6621 0008912 570368 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 19-7-C2

178 0008034 514176 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 10-A-25A

5 0005267 337088 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-C

2189 0004339 277696 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10D-2-74

6 0001579 101056 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B1

4 0001342 085888 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10-2-B

211 0001292 082688 51177 Eco-Corridor 1 2 -- 1 4 10-A-45

247 0000495 03168 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-5

242 0000447 028608 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-1

246 0000445 02848 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-4

245 0000438 028032 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-3

243 0000222 014208 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2

244 0000209 013376 51177 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 10A-1-2A

28

Stafford County

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

38880 1711 2835518 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49516

43001 0303 502710 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22016

50496 0259 428905 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 15295

50797 0240 397437 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5484

35333 0194 321963 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 49517

46988 0193 319822 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22019

13494 0189 312649 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30467

51719 0187 309253 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

19994 0177 294015 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30668

16832 0136 225730 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23452

20978 0110 183133 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 30466

29830 0108 178883 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23448

43949 0083 137320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22017

50601 0078 130003 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 22018

53047 0072 120169 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 10912

13884 0030 50215 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 1 5 23451

49201 0030 49307 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 55365

47135 0029 48407 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5606

44125 0026 43164 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3239

48924 0013 21838 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9130

44940 0013 21025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3369

32084 0012 20068 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 9131

43318 0008 12495 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 5329

56644 0005 7783 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41338

52906 0005 7767 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 41337

38794 0004 7119 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31237

34835 0004 7089 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31346

36692 0004 6476 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31338

27113 0004 6137 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31364

34926 0004 6041 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31363

49790 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 7002

39212 0004 5859 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31238

40270 0003 5775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31361

16232 0003 5587 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31362

40466 0003 5503 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31360

36775 0003 5160 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31347

37391 0003 5134 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31365

16703 0003 4997 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31327

36645 0003 4765 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31345

48821 0002 3949 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 3378

49254 0001 1748 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 45438

36364 0001 1547 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 1 5 31260

42511 45875 76041982 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1144

56607 5467 9062025 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 1149

39690 2613 4331479 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 49515

51328 0536 888975 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 22018

48031 0366 606014 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3413

5118 0240 397519 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23447

46974 0155 257383 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3407

50051 0113 188050 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15293

46748 0113 186742 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 10921

21522 0091 150472 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5591

39734 0085 141107 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 30786

40266 0074 122846 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 30433

29

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50846 0070 116275 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 1 1 1 4 40195

3731 0050 82420 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 1 -- 4 30694

43848 0034 57087 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3376

33055 0030 49148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6963

43960 0029 48279 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 15274

43804 0025 41512 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 40195

53274 0023 37421 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5608

42906 0018 29981 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 40380

20350 0016 26629 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52730

42347 0014 23982 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52729

43507 0013 20921 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5267

50487 0013 20879 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

55584 0010 16110 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 3367

20874 0010 15897 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52727

21049 0009 14801 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52726

21051 0008 13015 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52725

48158 0008 12957 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45420

47160 0007 12165 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45419

50358 0006 10645 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 41339

17331 0006 9226 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 52724

47208 0005 8408 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45428

45210 0005 8148 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45421

45899 0005 7956 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45423

45108 0005 7937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45429

45133 0005 7917 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45430

46768 0005 7885 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45422

45955 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45432

46196 0005 7784 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45431

46745 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45426

47764 0005 7780 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45427

45191 0005 7777 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45433

47318 0005 7775 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 45434

46565 0005 7677 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5564

37394 0004 6886 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31359

37103 0004 6225 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31256

36241 0004 6010 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31230

40103 0004 5947 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31337

37170 0003 5569 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31235

27042 0003 5516 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31236

46900 0003 5469 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 5566

37093 0003 5450 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31320

37098 0003 5426 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31232

36829 0003 5424 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31234

40386 0003 5374 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31326

36574 0003 5357 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31322

50386 0003 5308 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7003

36679 0003 5159 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31336

40029 0003 5120 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31321

34677 0003 5062 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31233

36946 0003 4940 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31323

35685 0003 4937 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31325

18236 0003 4932 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31324

46598 0003 4589 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7007

49708 0003 4402 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7004

49710 0002 3929 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7000

30

ID Area Acreage GI Layer Priority1 Priority2 Priority3 Priority4 Priority Index LRSN

50584 0002 3779 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 7001

44768 0002 3328 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 1 1 1 4 6999

36537 0000 0747 51179 HV Eco-Core 1 2 -- 1 4 31259

25526 0000 0320 51179 Eco-Corridor 1 2 1 -- 4 23446

AppendixD

ImpactsofLossofGreenInfrastructureon

theGeorgeWashingtonRegionEconomy

Impacts of Loss of Green Infrastructure on the George Washington Region Economy

A Qualitative Commentary

By

October 27 2016

2

Executive Summary This report was prepared to provide a qualitative estimate of the impact of green infrastructure on the George Washington Region economy for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan The larger project and report was funded through a National Fish and Wildlife Federation Technical Capacity Grant to Conservation Concepts LLC

The need for a qualitative estimate of the economic impact of green infrastructure is based on the project teamrsquos experience that local elected and appointed officials weigh the economic impact of land use decisions heavily in addition to environmental and social benefits The impact of green infrastructure on local taxation and jobs were the focus of the study No quantitative models were used rather a literature search was conducted to find relevant information that could be applied to the George Washington Region

Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a

3

shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

In addition the value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

4

Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Center for Natural Capital with assistance from Robena Reid and Jack Bennett Funding was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation (NFWF) through a Technical Capacity grant to Conservation Concepts LLC for the project Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and the City of Fredericksburg to meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mandates through the George Washington Regional Commissions Regional Green Infrastructure Plan Invaluable special assistance was also provided by Kevin Byrnes Regional Decision Systems LLC and by Matt Noonkester with City Explained Inc

In addition the following individuals provided technical assistance and commentary for this project

Jessica Sargent The Trust for Public Lands

Karen Cappiella The Center for Watershed Protection

Katie Chang Educational Services Manager The Land Trust Alliance

Regional Decision Systems

5

Contents Executive Summary 2

Acknowledgements 4

Overview 6

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes 8

General Findings 8

Farmland Information Center Studies 9

Recent COCS Study in Virginia 10

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values 10

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs 11

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region 13

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendations 18

6

Overview This report was prepared in an attempt to portray the economic value of green infrastructure to local elected and appointed officials in Central Virginia We define ldquogreen infrastructurerdquo or GI for this report in the suburban-rural context as open space used for agriculture forestry recreation water supply and water quality protection and wildlife habitat Land used in this way as Green Infrastructure impacts local employment options and community fiscal resources New development including residential or commercial construction also has fiscal consequences therefore appropriate resources should be engaged to accurately forecast the employment and fiscal considerations of any future land uses so that these will meet the needs of future generations

This report provides a qualitative commentary on two ways to look at the economic impact of green infrastructure 1 cost of community services and 2 job creation The value of ecosystem services was not included in this project due to lack of awareness and understanding by the general public and particularly local government officials

Local public facilities and services are frequently financed via user fees and taxes levied on the assessed value of property Real estate taxes based upon assessed valuations are a major component of local government revenues Green infrastructure typically lacks structural improvements therefore its assessed value is lower than parcels that include dwellings or other forms of construction However lower assessed appraisals also reflect the fact that fewer municipal services are required to support undeveloped land

The type of economic analysis used to portray the net impact of the property taxes and municipal services for a particular land use category is called a Cost Of Community Service (COCS) analysis This measurement tool examines the amount of property revenues collected by a community netted against the public services used or consumed by different types of land use including residential undeveloped and commercial properties Because local tax revenues can change based on the specific fees valuations and collection rates COCS studies should be performed using unique quantitative fiscal information for each community Due

7

to limited resources for this paper a qualitative rather than quantitative COCS commentary has been prepared

Policy makers do not generally see green infrastructure as a job creation program since forest agricultural or other types of open space typically do not require a large workforce However how green infrastructure might provide future occupations is unknown and a failure to preserve the land permanently forecloses any associated potential direct and indirect employment options There is a need to devote additional research to the link between green infrastructure and jobs as a greater understanding of ecosystem services begins to be understood quantified and monetized by the public and private sectors

8

Impact of Green Infrastructure on Local Taxes

General Findings Cost of Community Services (COCS) studies quantify the costs and revenues associated with different categories of land use COCS studies are a commonly used approach to examine the cost and revenue contributions to communities of different kinds of land use They also are used to compare the cost and revenue changes associated with moving from one land use category to another for example the costs and revenues associated with land changing from Working and Open Land to Residential use or to Commercial and Industrial use A COCS study is a ldquosnapshotrdquo in time and is descriptive rather than predictive It shows what services private residents receive in return for the taxes they pay to their local government

Several studies of tax revenues and expenditures for Working and Open Land (including farmland and forests) Residential Land and Commercial and Industrial Land were reviewed In general most Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land

The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

The American Farmland Trust has developed and completed numerous Cost of Community Services studies in order to estimate the fiscal impact of different land use options to a community These studies examined the expenditures for public services versus the amount of property and other tax revenue collected to

9

support municipal services In general residential development consistently costs more in local government services than is generated via property and other levied taxes1

Mathew J Kotchen of UC Santa Barbara and the National Bureau of Economic Research and Stacey L Schulte of the University of Colorado wrote a paper titled A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Services Studies The 2008 paper used the results of 125 studies and found that

bull Commercialindustrial and agriculturalopen space cost to revenue ratios are less than one

bull Residential ratios are greater than one

Farmland Information Center Studies The Farmland Information Center prepared a Fact Sheet in August 2010 presenting the results of 151 Cost of Community Services Studies for jurisdictions throughout the United States including six jurisdictions in Virginia

The study reported cost to revenue ratios for six jurisdictions in Virginia Augusta County Bedford County Clarke County Culpeper County Frederick County and Northampton County

The study found that cost to revenue ratios in these Virginia Communities averaged

- 03510 for Open and Working Land

- 11810 for Residential Land and

- 0410 for Commercial and Industrial Land

1 The Trust uses the actual property tax revenues collected (plus some other fees) and assigns expenses based on the actual services consumed Most farms and conservation lands are enrolled at the reduced assessment rate however there is never 100 enrollment They do NOT use a hypothetical market rate for examining tax revenue for conservation land when performing a COCS study

10

Recent COCS Study in Virginia The Trust for Public Land conducted a study titled Virginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservation in August 2016 It found in research conducted on a subset of conserved lands in Virginia that Residential Lands need $118 in community services for each dollar paid in local taxes Working and Open Lands require $035 in community services for each dollar collected in property taxes

Collectively these reveal that the conversion of Green Infrastructure (loss of Open and Working Lands) to Residential Land would be quite costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services will be greater than the tax revenues collected by land use type The increased cost of services for residential land is due to the necessity of providing police fire protection sewer and water services and roads for residential land

Green Infrastructure Impact on Property Values GI and open space also have an impact on property values There is an inflection point before which local government can increase revenue by encouraging development but after which property values will begin to be negatively impacted by a lack of open spaceGI See links below some of which are already included in the bibliography

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=green+infrastructure+and+property+values

o httpswwwepagovgreen-infrastructurebenefits-green-infrastructure

bull httpswwwgooglecomwebhpsourceid=chrome-instantampion=1ampespv=2ampie=UTF-8q=open20space20and20property20values

o httpswwwjstororgstable3146847seq=1page_scan_tab_contents

11

Direct Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Studies found for this paper on the relationship of jobs to green infrastructure were found to be in the context of the impact of farm and forestland preservation on jobs rather than merely the impact of acres of existing farm and forestland This is likely due to the fact that where there is little intensive (commercial and residential) development there is little loss of extensive development (open space) It is in those localities where there is consequential growth there is also a concern about loss of farmland (as just one form of open space) It is in these areas where studies have been done to examine the impact of policies to protect green infrastructure

The protection of farm and forestland land contributes to viable local extensive industry with employment opportunities as well as local food security Local farm and forestland preservation programs can induce industry investments that support employment and profitable farm operations Research conducted by (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna (2002)) found that communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation (Lewis Hunt and Plantigna 2003) The viability of the local economy is directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss (Lewis and Carpenter 2003)

Indirect Impact of Green Infrastructure on Jobs Green Infrastructure related conservation programs play a role in attracting and retaining new businesses by offering desirable amenities including recreation opportunities These components are important to businesses that do not rely on geographically fixed capital investments such as manufacturing plants processing factories or other industry specific facilities Industries and occupations that are geographically untethered usually have low mobility costs since their productive output is not dependent on a specific operation location or production facility It is therefore relatively easy for these industries to relocate to a more desirable

12

community accordingly community amenities and quality of life features may be used to attract and retain a workforce based on the broad appeal of the local community As a result the preservation of undeveloped land can contribute to overall community employment viability and job retention

Green Infrastructure related land conservation offers amenities that attract and retain high income and low environmental impact employment new residents and other community opportunities These amenities include local quality of life elements including 1) reduced expenses for specific municipal services such as water sequestration treatment and purification and 2) esthetic appeal elements which are important for attracting high income design and ldquoincubatorrdquo types of businesses

13

Impact of Loss of Green Infrastructure in George Washington Region To estimate the future possible loss of green infrastructure and economic impact a mapping analysis was conducted comparing the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organizationrsquos (FAMPO) 2040 Community Plans scenario with the George Washington Region Green Infrastructure Plan (2012) ldquoGreenprintrdquo scenario The FAMPO ldquoCommunity Plansrdquo scenario portrays the future land use pattern expected in 2014 based on fulfillment of local comprehensive plans while accommodating development sufficient to support 2014 population and employment projections The 2040 Community Plan scenario assigned values of developed under-developed or undeveloped to each parcel in the planning area These categorized parcels were compared to existing green infrastructure as shown in the Plan to estimate the expected net change under current comprehensive plans

Tables 1 shows the fate of each jurisdictionrsquos acreage of green infrastructure in 2040 ndash categorized as developed underdeveloped or undeveloped The shaded area of Table 2 shows that by 2040 King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties will have converted 65 46 and 37 of their existing GI to developed or underdeveloped land uses respectively

Table 1 - Expected status of existing green infrastructure in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline

5685

29407

168160

203251

Fredericksburg

18

181

681

881

King George

8689

24145

17974

50809

Spotsylvania

14345

39007

61518

114871

Stafford

11033

19997

58392

81877

39771

112738

306724

451688

14

Table 2 - Percent of existing green infrastructure expected to be developed under-developed or undeveloped in the year 2040 under FAMPOs 2040 Community Plan scenario

Existing Green Infrastructure gt 2040 Community Plans Scenario Jurisdiction DEV UNDER UNDEV Total Acres

Caroline 3 14 83

203251

Fredericksburg 2 21 77

881

King George 17 48 35

50809

Spotsylvania 12 34 54

114871

Stafford 13 24 71

81877

6 15 79

451688

Economic Value of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Services New environmental economic models have been developed to estimate the dollar value of the ecological community services provided by various undeveloped land covers including forest canopy agricultural land and open land These ldquoecosystem servicesrdquo include water purification storm water management air pollution mitigation and erosionflood control Using the American Forestrsquos CITYgreenreg model the George Washington Regional Commission estimated these types of services provided by existing forest cover (George Washington Regional Commission et al) Summary values are shown in Table 3 Considering the value of forestland for stormwater control only the model calculated a per acre value of $36671 The 2009 total value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars for stormwater control only

15

Table 3 - Summary Estimate of Ecosystem Services Values for 2009 Tree Cover

16

Conclusions 1 Cost of Community Services studies found that the ratio of costs to tax

revenue is less than one for Open and Working Land with a ratio on the order of 0410 This kind of land use is said to ldquopay its own wayrdquo For residential land the ratio of costs to revenues is greater than one averaging about 1210 The cost of schools police and fire protection and sewer and water services explains the higher ratio of costs to revenues for residential land The ratio of costs to revenues for Commercial and Industrial Land is also approximately 0410 These ratios generally held for studies throughout the United States and for specific counties in Virginia Conversion of Open and Working Land to Residential Land would produce more real estate tax revenues but these would be more than offset by the cost of necessary community services such as police fire and water and sewer services

2 Communities with conservation land management activities did not have lower employment growth rates and that forest conservation with multiple purposes resulted in an influx of people Preservation policies do not appear to result in a shift from high wage to low wage jobs wage growth rates were not affected by the amount of land in conservation The viability of the local economy was directly linked to the rate of farmland loss in general resilient local economies had lower farmland loss

3 The expected loss of green infrastructure (and increase in developed land) as portrayed in the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) study in King George Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties could be costly for local jurisdictions because the cost of services would be greater than the tax revenues collected2 Because the FAMPO scenario model used for the spatial analysis did not distinguish between residential and commercialindustrial development a quantitative impact estimate was unable to be provided The expected loss of green

2 Past Virginia COCS studies were used as a proxy for the StaffordSpotsylvaniaFredricksburg area COCS studies are a snapshot in time and these studies were conducted in 2003

17

infrastructure would also likely create downward pressure on community employment viability and job retention in the region

4 The value of green infrastructure to provide stormwater services was found to be significant Considering the value of the regionrsquos forestland for stormwater control only a per acre value of $36671 was estimated The 2009 total stormwater value for all of the regionrsquos 659245 acres of tree canopy was estimated to be 24 billion dollars

18

Recommendations 1 Jurisdictions should carefully examine employment and fiscal impacts over

many decades since land use decisions involve substantial capital investments that can be irreversible In addition to short term community interests such as employment expectations other aspects of economic impact such as the ability of local employers to provide desirable and diverse occupations continuity and stability of employment and income occupational advancement and quality of life are legitimate indicators of community economic vitality

2 Additional research is needed to discern long term land use impacts upon communities including the occupations that may rely upon different forms of land uses and the long term fiscal future of land use options including the future dollar contributions of land conservation actions for the local area residents With this information land use policy organizations using existing economic models may be able to provide specific dollar estimates of the services and averted costs provided by conserved land and the potential cost of these services if existing forest and open spaces are depleted This information may be useful to government planning organizations that are tasked with developing long term land use investments that not only meet current community needs but proactively seek to minimize future public service costs by protecting natural assets for future generations

3 It would be useful to commission a quantitative COCS study for the George Washington region This information would assist government officials and community leaders tasked to design appropriate tax policies that would simultaneously fund government operations and provide economic incentives to recognize and support the contributions that undeveloped land provides to the communities in the region

19

Bibliography

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Culpeper County Virginiardquo March 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Frederick County Virginiardquo November 2003

American Farmland Trust ldquoThe Cost of Community Services in Northampton County VArdquo June 1999

American Farmland Trust ldquoCost of Community Services Study Bedford County VArdquo September 2005

American Farmland Trust Farmland Information Center ldquoFact Sheet Cost of Community Services Studiesrdquo August 2010

George Washington Regional Commission ldquoUrban Ecosystem Analysis for the George Washington Region (PD 16) Calculating the Value of Naturerdquo no publication date

Mathew J Kotchen UC Santa Barbara and NBER Stacey L Schulte University of Colorado ldquoA Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studiesrdquo July 25 2008

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoFiscal Impact of Different Land Uses The Pennsylvania Experiencerdquo Timothy Kelsey 1997

Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension ldquoCosts and Revenues of Residential Development A Workbook for Local Officials and Citizensrdquo Timothy Kelsey and Martin Shields 2000

Headwaters Economics ldquoProtected Lands and Economics A Summary of Research and Careful Analysis on the Economic Impact of Protected Federal Landsrdquo Ray Rasker Executive Director Summer 2014

20

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ldquoGeorge Washington Region Scenario Planning Study Your Vision Our Futurerdquo October 2012

The Trust for Public Land ldquoVirginiarsquos Return on Investment in Land Conservationrdquo August 2016

The Trust for Public Land ldquoConservation An Investment That Paysrdquo Erica Gies 2009

The Trust for Public Land ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Land Conservationrdquo edited by Constance TF de Brun March 2007

The Trust for Public Land ldquoReturn on the Investment from the Land and Water Conservation Fundrdquo Jessica Sargent-Michaud November 2010

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoEconomic Connections Between Forests and Drinking Waterrdquo June 21 2011

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoThe Economic Benefits of Protecting Virginiarsquos Streams Lakes and Wetlands and the Economic Benefits of Better Site Design in Virginiardquo 2001

The Center for Watershed Protection ldquoUser Manual for the Clean Water Optimization Tool Eastern Shore Marylandrdquo January 30 2015

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation ldquoEconomic Benefits of Cleaning Up the Chesapeake A valuation of the Natural Benefits Gained by Implementing the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprintrdquo Spencer Phillips and Beth McGee October 6 2014

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy ldquoTax and Property Value Effects of Conservation Easementsrdquo Jeffrey Sundberg and Richard F Dye 2006

The Nature Conservancy ldquoConservation Easementsrdquo 2016

New York State Office of the State Comptroller ldquoEconomic Benefits of Open Space Preservationrdquo March 2010

21

Defenders of Wildlife Conservation Program ldquoOpen Space Property Value Premium Analysisrdquo Tim Kroger June 2008

Resources for the Future ldquoValue of Open Space Evidence from Studies of Non Market Benefitsrdquo Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls January 2005

Internal Revenue Service ldquoConservation Easement Audit Techniques Guiderdquo January 3 2012

United States Environmental Protection Agency ldquoWater Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writersrdquo Office of Wastewater Management Water Permits Division June 2009

Economic Policy Institute ldquoCounting Up to Green Assessing The Green Economy and Its Implications for Growth and Equalityrdquo Ethan Pollack October 9 2012

AppendixE

SummaryofLandUseToolsAvailabletoLocalitiesofGWRCRegion

Summary of Land Use Tools Available To Localities of GWRC Region

In Virginia the State Code requires and permits local governments to adopt a large framework of regulations and ordinances that allow government to manage protect and promote development within their respective jurisdiction From a land preservation perspective many of these regulations and ordinances can be viewed as ldquotoolsrdquo that localities could use to assist in implement green infrastructure (GI) networks In addition there are both voluntary and targeted activities that localities can utilize to augment some of regulatory tools such as land acquisition and voluntary land protection practices This Appendix attempts to summarize what is in the ldquotoolboxrdquo and which ldquotoolsrdquo each of the localities in the GWRC region currently utilize or at least have included in their respective county codes Mechanisms For GI Implementation in Virginia The mechanisms available for GI implementation in Virginia include four broad categories each of which have been summarized below The categories include

bull Land use policies zoning and regulations bull Local spending and tax policies bull Land acquisition and bull Voluntary land protection techniques

Land Use Polices Zoning and Regulations The legal framework for land use management in Virginia begins with the Comprehensive Plan which typically includes broad policies goals objectives and guidance as well as specific regulations that pertain to zoning stormwater (MS4) erosion and sediment control etc An overview of this legal framework is below Comprehensive Plan

bull Comprehensive plans are mandated by the state (152-2223 State Code) bull Comprehensive plans must satisfy state intent and promote general welfare

(152-2200) bull Comprehensive plans are not self-implementing (152-2224)

Land Use Regulations Zoning (152-2280 2283 2284)

bull Agricultural zoning and Forestry zoning bull Open Space zoning Horticultural zoning bull CulturalHeritage zoning bull IncentiveDensity Bonus zoning bull Cluster Development zoning bull Sliding scale zoning bull Large lot zoning bull Performance zoning

bull Overlay zoning bull Agricultural and Forestal districts bull Purchase of development rights (PDR) bull Lease of development rights (LDR) bull Transfer of development rights (TDR) bull Land evaluation and site analysis (LESA) and bull Community Development Authorities (CDAs)

Local Spending and Taxing Policies

bull Capital improvements program (CIP) bull Preferential assessment bull Special assessment bull Revenue sharing agreements among jurisdictions and regions bull Joint service agreement and bull Land Use Valuation Tax program (LUVT)

Land Acquisition

bull Fee simple bull Conservation easements bull Purchase and lease-back agreements and bull Land banking

Voluntary Land Protection Techniques

bull Land donations bull Land trusts bull Land swaps bull Recognitionstewardship agreements and bull Carbon sequestration credits

Other approaches that might be considered though not being used include

bull Trading creditmitigation authority bull Developments of regional impact (DRI) bull Timber conservation and production zones bull Soil-suitability zoning (outside of wetlands) bull Fixed-area ration zoning bull Time-phased development bull Environmental assessment chapter in comprehensive plan bull State designated areas of critical concern and bull Multi-PDC corridor plans

Proffers Proffers are a tool that has been used by many localities for years Proffers are an agreement between the developer and the local government to provide additional amenities or cash in

return for density increases variances etc and to offset the impact that new development has on community resources For years proffers have been negotiated on both commercial and residential developments Often noting the impacts the new residential developments had on schools transportation networks and parksopen space many jurisdictions benefited by having areas preserved or parks developed as part of the proffer agreement In 2016 the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation (and the Governor signed) severely restricting the use of the proffer system on residential developments This ldquotoolrdquo which was integral in use in many localities is no longer available for open space preservation trails etc While commercial proffers are still legal making the legal argument for GI concessions is much more difficult Historically commercial proffers have been mostly used for transportation improvements Tools of the GWRC Region The attached table represents a summary of the ldquotoolsrdquo that the five jurisdictions have within their respective county or city codes The extent to which these tools have been utilized was main topic of the focus group meetings Those discussions have been summarized in Appendix -F

ExistingLandUseRelatedTools2016GWRCLocalities

ALandUsePoliciesOrdinancesampDevelopmentStandards Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program Policy Ordinance Program

AgriculturePreservation X X SWCD X X X XSP1 XConservationorClusterSubdivision X X X X X X X X X XForestPreservation X X X X X X X X X XFloodplainampWetlandRegulationsampMapping X X X X X X X X X XHistoricPreservation X X XC1 X X X X XSP2 X X X X X XParkampOpenSpacePreservation X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XRiparianBufferProtectionOrdinances(RPA) X X X X X X X X X XRegionalGreenInfrastructurePlan X X X XSteepSlopes X X X XSoils X X XStormwaterMS4WIPOpt-inVSMPPlan XC2 Opt-in XC2 Opt-In X X X X X X X X XTransferorPurchaseofDevelopmentRights X X X X X X XTreePreservation X X X X

OtherZoningampLandDevelopmentOrdinances

BAcquisitionofLandampEasements

ConservationEasements X X X X X

AgriculturalEasements X X

HistoricEasements X

ConservationLandBanks

WetlandBanks X X

StreamRestorationBanks

CFinancingConservationampFundinginGeneralConservationFinance X

StewardshipFundingArrangements X X X X

PublicOpenSpaceProgramsandBallotCampaignsReferendaResults(Bonds)

PublicFundingPrograms

Fundraising

RestrictedGifts X X X X

LandUseValuationAssessmentPractices X X X X X X X X

CapitalImprovementPlan-GI(ProbablyonlyinMS4) X X X X

NotesC1-CountyprogramworkswithMaryWashingtonUniversityandCarolineCountyHistoricalSocietyC2-CountySoilandErosionpolicyandprogramStormwaterisVSMP

SP1-RighttofarmprogramAlsoworkwithSWCDSP2-CountyprogramworkswithNationalParkServiceMaryWashingtonUniversityandtheSpotsylvaniaHistoricalSociety

CarolineCounty KingGeorgeCounty SpotsylvaniaCounty StaffordCounty CityofFredericksburg

AppendixF

TableofContents-HealthyWatershedsForestRetentionProject

Phases1amp2

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 2

L ISTOFFIGURES6

LISTOFTABLES7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS8

BACKGROUNDLEADINGTOPROJECT10

PHASEII14

VIRGINIA15

PENNSYLVANIA15

FORESTRETENTIONMODELINGMETHODOLOGYANDFINDINGS16

CITYOFFREDERICKSBURG19

GENERALMETHODOLOGYFORCURRENTLANDCOVERFORCOUNTYAREAS19

UNIQUEMETHODSORASSUMPTIONSBYCOUNTY20

SCENARIOMODELING29

VIRGINIA29

PENNSYLVANIA29

SCENARIODESCRIPTIONS30

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL30

SCENARIO(B)2025COMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(C)2025GREENPRINTFORESTRETENTION31

SCENARIO(D)2025PHASEDDEVELOPMENTIMPACTONCOMMUNITYPLANSBUILDͲOUT31

SCENARIO(A)2025MODIFIED532BAYMODEL31

CORRELATIONWITH2014CHESAPEAKEBAYWATERSHEDAGREEMENTSTATEDGOALSANDOUTCOMES 12

PROJECTDESIGN13

PROJECTDESIGN 14

STUDYAREAS15

VIRGINIA(PHASEI) 16

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)17FORECASTINGLANDCOVERCHANGE2010ndash202518VIRGINIA(PHASEI)18

SUPPORTINGDEMOGRAPHICASSUMPTIONS 21

POPULATIONPROJECTIONSFORPD16ANDRAPPAHANNOCKWATERSHEDAREA22PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)24POPULATIONTRENDSANDPROJECTIONSFORTHEYBCWATERSHED24LANDCOVERCONVERSIONTRENDS2001Ͳ201125DIFFERENTIALCONVERSIONTRENDSINURBANANDRURALMUNICIPALITIESOFTHEWATERSHED26

VIRGINIA 30

PENNSYLVANIA 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 3

SCENARIO(B)2025FORESTRETENTION33

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO34

SCENARIORESULTS35

PHASEIIENGAGEMENTDISCOVERYOBJECTIVES37

PENNSYLVANIA37

OPENSPACEampFORESTRETENTIONTOOLSINVAANDPA41

4 MULTIͲYEARAPPLICATIONOFLANDUSEVALUATIONTAXATION80

5 EXPANDINGLOCALTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORITY80

6 TREECONSERVATIONFOROZONENONͲATTAINMENT81

PHASEIIKEYFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES87

1 FORESTCONSERVATIONTMDLCREDIT87

2 STORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLANNINGREGULATIONampCHESAPEAKEBAYPROGRAMS87

3 STATICVSDYNAMICTMDLMODEL90

1 TRACKINGFORESTACREAGEUNDERLUVTORCONSERVATIONEASEMENTPROGRAMS90

2 INTRAͲBASINCREDITTRADING91

3 ROLEANDIMPORTANCEOFCOMMUNITYPLANNINGANDTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANINVIRGINIA93

4 LANDUSEampZONINGCONSIDERATIONS94

PHASEIIAPPROACH 37

VIRGINIA37

ORGANIZINGANDSEEKINGSTAKEHOLDERINPUT 38

VIRGINIA38PENNSYLVANIA39

A TAXampFISCALPOLICYTOOLS 42

B ENVIRONMENTALPLANNINGANDREGULATIONTOOLS46C LANDUSEANDZONINGPOLICIES56D VOLUNTARYLANDOWNERACTIONS68E LANDampDEVELOPMENTRIGHTSACQUISITION74F FORESTRETENTIONTOOLSENHANCEMENTOPPORTUNITIES78

1 CONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY782 CONSIDERATIONOFTERMCONSERVATIONEASEMENTS783 RECOGNITIONOFRESOURCEPROTECTIONAREARESTRICTIONS79

7 PROMOTINGUSEOFCONSERVATIONSUBDIVISIONDESIGN(CSD)PLANNING 82

8 FACTORINGECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY849 RECOGNIZINGNATURALCAPITALASTAXABLEASSETS8510NUTRIENTANDCARBONSEQUESTRATIONCREDITTRADING85

A VIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIASHAREDFINDINGS 87

B VIRGINIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSANDCHALLENGES 90

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 4

5 USEOFVIRGINIArsquoSCLUSTERDEVELOPMENTSTATUTE95

6 CONFLICT BETWEEN LANDUSE VALUE TAXATION (LUVT) PROGRAMS AND NEED FOR TAX REVENUE TOMEET OTHER

NEEDS95

7 LIMITATIONSOFTREEPROTECTIONAUTHORIZATION98

8 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFSTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE99

9 FEESIMPLELANDACQUISITIONANDEASEMENTS99

1 ldquoCLEANANDGREENrdquoPREFERENTIALTAXASSESSMENTPROGRAM100

2 COLLABORATIVESTORMWATERSOLUTIONS100

3 NUTRIENTCREDITTRADINGINPENNSYLVANIA101

4 LOCALPLANNINGZONINGANDDEVELOPMENTCONTROLSINPENNSYLVANIA101

5 THECHALLENGEOFDATAͲDRIVENCOORDINATEDWATERSHEDPLANNING102

6 SECTORVIEWSVSHOLISTICVIEWS102

7 TECHNICALASSISTANCECAPACITYLIMITSEDUCATIONALNEEDS103

8 PEERREVIEWOFPLANNINGUNITSMODELDATAANDINACCURACIESINTHEMODELINGPROGRAM103

9 CRITICALIMPORTANCEOFPENNSYLVANIASTATEINVESTMENTANDLEVERAGE104

TOOLBOXOPTIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS106

1 FACTORECOSYSTEMSERVICEFUNCTIONSINTOCONSERVATIONEASEMENTTAXCREDITPOLICY106

2 RECOGNIZENATURALCAPITALASARESOURCEANDTAXABLEASSET106

3 PROVIDEENHANCEDSWMCREDITFORHIGHCONSERVATIONVALUEFORESTLANDBUFFERSͲAMODEL108

4 FURTHERINCENTIVIZINGEXPANSIONOFRIPARIANFORESTBUFFERSANDFORESTRETENTION109

5 PROMOTEFORESTEDSTREAMBUFFERPROTECTIONANDREFORESTATION112

6 EXPANDTREEPROTECTIONUNDERCODEOFVIRGINIA(sect152Ͳ9611)113

7 EXPANDEDUSEOFONEMETERLANDCOVERIMAGERYANDLIDARELEVATIONDATA114

8 LINKMULTIͲYEARLUVTPROGRAMWITHTERMEASEMENTSANDAFDS115

9 ACHIEVINGABALANCEDINVESTMENTPORTFOLIOSTRATEGIESAPPROACH116

1 PROMOTINGFORESTRETENTIONVIAINCENTIVESFORMS4COMMUNITIES117

C PENNSYLVANIAͲSPECIFICFINDINGSCHALLENGES 100

VIRGINIA 106

PENNSYLVANIA 117

HEALTHYWATERSFORESTRETENTIONSTUDYFINALREPORTFINALREVIEWDRAFT63017900PM 5

IMPLEMENTATIONPATH(S)118

1 FOLLOWINGANEXISTINGNATURALRESOURCEASSESSMENTPLAN118

3 ROLEOFSOILampWATERCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(VA)ampCOUNTYCONSERVATIONDISTRICTS(PA)120

4 COORDINATEDSTATEampLOCALPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA121

5 VIRGINIAGENERALASSEMBLYLEGISLATIVEACTIONAGENDA122

6 COORDINATEDCHESAPEAKEBAYPARTNERSHIPPOLICYANDADMINISTRATIVEACTIONAGENDA126

APPENDICES127

APPENDIXAͲ2DETAILEDLANDCOVERDATA(PHASE1)136

SCENARIOAMODIFIED2025TMDL532ANDBFORESTRETENTION1ϱϵ

SCENARIO(C)2025URBANFORESTRETENTIONSCENARIO1ϲϭ

SCENARIO(D)2025RURALRIPARIANBUFFERRESTORATIONSCENARIO1ϲϰ

CUMBERLANDCOPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϴ

YORKCOUNTYPORTIONOFYBCWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϲϵ

YELLOWBREECHESCREEKWATERSHEDTMDLRESULTS1ϳϬ

DETAILEDMUNICIPALITYPOPULATIONDATA1ϳϭ

PENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII) 118

EMBARKINGONAPRECISIONCONSERVATIONSTRATEGYFORVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIA118

2 ASSESSCURRENTLOCALPLANNINGEFFORTSANDPOLICIES 119

APPENDIXAͲ1 127

VIRGINIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)127A CAROLINECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)128B KINGGEORGECOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)129C SPOTSYLVANIACOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)130

D STAFFORDCOUNTYTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)131E CITYOFFREDERICKSBURGTMDLRESULTS(PHASEI)132

APPENDIXBSUMMARYOFLITERATUREREVIEWFINDINGSONFORESTLANDECOSYSTEMSERVICESAPPLICABLETOTHEPROJECT 143Ͳ157APPENDIXCPENNSYLVANIALOCALITYͲSPECIFICTMDLRESULTS1ϱϴPENNSYLVANIA(PHASEII)1ϱϴ

APPENDIXDCHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAANDPENNSYLVANIAOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES 1ϳϱ

I CHRONOLOGYOFVIRGINIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϱ

II CHRONOLOGYOFPENNSYLVANIAPHASEIIOUTREACHEFFORTSTOLOCALITIES1ϳϵAPPENDIXEPROJECTTEAMMEMBERSANDPERSONNEL1ϴϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϲ

gt^dKampamphZ^ amphZEK amphZddgt WEK

ϭ dŚĞŚĞƐĂƉĞĂŬĞĂLJtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϬϮ dŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌĂƐŝŶtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϯ dŚĞzĞůůŽǁƌĞĞĐŚĞƐƌĞĞŬtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϱϰ ŽŶƐĞƌǀĞĚĂŶĚĂƐĞŵĞŶƚgtĂŶĚƐŝŶƚŚĞZĂƉƉĂŚĂŶŶŽĐŬZŝǀĞƌtĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ ϭϲϱ ĂƌŽůŝŶĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϲ ltŝŶŐĞŽƌŐĞŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϳ ^ƉŽƚƐLJůǀĂŶŝĂŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ ϮϬϴ ^ƚĂĨĨŽƌĚŽƵŶƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϭϵ gthsdWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐŝŶsŝƌŐŝŶŝĂ ϰϰ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨŽŶǀĞŶƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞƐŝŐŶƐ ϴϯϭϭ DĂƚĐŚŝŶŐZƵƌĂůĂŶĚhƌďĂŶEĞĞĚƐůƵĞƌĞĞŶĐŽŶŽŵLJŽŶĐĞƉƚ ϵϮϭϮ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐǀƐƵĨĨĞƌtŝĚƚŚƐ ϭϭϭϭϯ dŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEy ϭϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐĂŶĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶdƌĞŶĚƐ ϭϲϭϭϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽĂŶĚDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐgtŽĐĂƚŝŽŶDĂƉ ϭϲϮ

gtdztdZ^ampKZ^dZdEdKE^dhzampEgtZWKZdampEgtZstZampdϲϯϬϭϳϵϬϬWD ϳ

gt^dKampdgt^ dgtEK dgtddgt WEKsZEW^

ϭ ϮϬϭϱgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌƐƚŝŵĂƚĞƐ ϭϴϮ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐŽĨŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞgtĂLJĞƌ ϭϴϯ ŝƚLJŽĨampƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϵϰ ϮϬϭϬŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶ Ϯϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ ϮϮϲ ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂďLJƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϯϬ Ϯϯϳ WŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶďLJ^ƵďͲƌĞĂŝŶWŝůŽƚ^ƚƵĚLJƌĞĂ Ϯϯ

WEE^zgtsEW^ϴ WƌŽũĞĐƚĞĚWŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƌŽǁƚŚ ďLJŽƵŶƚLJWŽƌƚŝŽŶϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϰϬ Ϯϰϵ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌdƌĞŶĚƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϱ

ϭϬ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨgtŽĐĂůgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϲ

ϭϭ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϮ WĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚ gtĂŶĚ ŽǀĞƌ ĨŽƌ hƌďĂŶ ĂŶĚ ZƵƌĂů DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐϮϬϬϭͲϮϬϭϭ Ϯϳ

ϭϯ ϮϬϭϯgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌŽĨhƌďĂŶĂŶĚZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚLJƌŽƵƉƐŝŶztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚ Ϯϴϭϰ gtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂĨŽƌztĂƚĞƌƐŚĞĚĂLJampĂƐƚ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐ ϯϮϭϱ WƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ϯϯϭϲ ampŽƌĞƐƚZĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶdŽŽůďŽdž^ƵŵŵĂƌLJDĂƚƌŝdž ϰϮϭϳ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚĞĚƵĨĨĞƌĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ϱϰϭϴ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŚƌĞĞͲŽŶĞZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶampŽƌĞƐƚƵĨĨĞƌĞƐŝŐŶ ϭϭϮ

WWEyϭϵ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌĂƚĂ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚ ϭϱϵϮϬ ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϮϱampŽƌĞƐƚdƌĞŶĚ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ϭϱϵϮϭ ŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶŽĨ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĂŶĚWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϮ DWƐEĞĞĚĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚgtŽĂĚƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽͿ ϭϲϬϮϯ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽKĨĨƐĞƚ^ĂǀŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϬϮϰ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐ^ŝŵƉůŝĨŝĞĚgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϭϮϱ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲϯϮϲ ^ƚƌĞĂŵZĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶDWdžƚĞŶƚZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽKĨĨƐĞƚampŽƌĞƐƚgtŽƐƐ ϭϲϯϮϳ ƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚKΘDŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϯϮϴ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽgtĂŶĚŽǀĞƌ ϭϲϰϮϵ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZƵƌĂůDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚŝĞƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϰϯϬ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚgtŽĂĚŝŶŐƐďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϭ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶƵĨĨĞƌDWdžƚĞŶƚďLJŽƵŶƚLJ ϭϲϱϯϮ ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽDWŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƐƚƐ ϭϲϱ

AppendixG

FocusGroupSummaries

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

1

Caroline)County)Focus)Group)Meeting)(January(3(2017)(

(Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Nancy(Long(Board(of(Supervisors(ViceMChairperson(Port(Royal(District((Mark(Bissoon(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Phone(804M633M9834(Email(mbissooncocarolinevaus((Susan(Morgan(Commissioner(of(the(Revenue(Office((Gary(R(Wilson(Director(Department(of(Economic(Development(Email(gwilsoncocarolinevaus((Alan(Partin(Assistant(County(Administrator(Email(apartincocarolinevaus(Phone(804M633M5380(

(Dave(Nunnally(Senior(Environmental(Planner(Caroline(County(Planning(amp(Community(Development(Office((804)(633M4303(Email(dnunnallycocarolinevaus((Matt(Coleman(Virginia(DOF(Senior(Area(Forester(8044503145(Email(matthewcolemandofvirginiagov((Arthur(Terry(Private(Landowner(Mattaponi(Project((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Mike(Collins(Center(for(Natural(Capital)

)Major)Observations))

1 While(development(pressures(are(not(anywhere(near(where(they(might(be(in(other(parts(of(the(GWRC(region(those(in(attendance(agreed(that(preservation(of(the(upland(and(wetland(forested(areas(in(the(County(is(beneficial(

2 There(were(acute(concerns(of(setting(aside(large(area(that(would(subsequently(be(taken(off(of(the(local(tax(base(Mr(Bisson(noted(a(need(to(develop(some(new(methods(to(keep(these(properties(on(the(tax(rolls(in(some(manner((He(volunteered(to(work(with(the(group(to(develop(some(potential(policiesapproaches(

3 In(general(county(staff(and(others(expressed(interest(in(developing(a(landnutrient(exchange(that(could(be(beneficial(in(preserving(upland(forested(areas((County(staff(has(neither(the(resources(nor(the(experience(in(running(an(exchange(

4 Mr(Wilson(cautioned(against(any(new(regulations(and(restrictions(noting(that(current(projects(are(being(bogged(down(during(the(development(process((He(noted(that(certain(areas(of(the(County((particularly(those(near(IM95(and(targeted(as(growth(areas)(should(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

2

be(given(some(leeway(in(the(mitigation(process(and(that(this(could(lend(itself(to(helping(preserve(the(more(environmentally(sensitive(areas(of(the(County(

5 There(was(a(general(feeling(that(the(citizens(of(Caroline(County(were(unfamiliar(with(conservation(easements(and(how(they(could(be(beneficial(to(the(land(owner(They(felt(that(increased(citizen(education(could(spur(the(use(of(such(easements(((

King)George)County)Focus)Group)(December(13(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Mike(Chandler(Virginia(Tech(Land(Use(Education(Program((Jack(Green(Director(Department(of(Community(Development(King(George(County(P(5407757111((Marta(Perry(Conservation(Technician(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2401((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD(

4811(Carr(Drive(Fredericksburg(VA(22408(540M656M2402((Lewis(Ashton(III(King(George(Farm(Bureau((Al(Hales(Hales(ndash(Hamilton(Enterprises((Bruce(A(Reese(PE(LS((Representing(Fredericksburg(Building(Association)(Executive(Vice(President(Legacy(Engineering(809(William(Street(Suite(C(Fredericksburg(VA(22401(Phone(5403738350((Darren(Cofey(GWRC(Consultant((Kevin(Byrnes(GWRC(Consultant((Doug(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts((Ross(Pickford(Conservation(Concepts(

((Major)Observations))

1 Mr(Reese(noted(that(the(development(community(although(wary(of(land(preservation(initiatives(simply(wants(a(level(playing(field(and(to(be(knowledgeable(of(what(the(regulations(and(restrictions(are(in(the(County((They(would(not(favor(new(regulations(

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

3

but(would(be(agreeable(to(meeting(more(voluntary(initiatives(such(as(cluster(zoning(etc((In(fact(the(preferred(such(zoning(as(it(reduces(their(development(costs(and(could(result(in(increased(densities(He(also(noted(that(they(would(be(supportive(and(interested(in(a(landnutrient(exchange(if(the(developer(could(get(ldquocreditrdquo(for(any(improvements(they(installed(in(terms(of(water(quality(((

2 Mr(Green(also(expressed(interest(in(an(exchange(program((The(details(of(which(would(be(the(more(complicated(issue(but(felt(it(could(benefit(the(County(in(the(long(run(He(mentioned(however(that(the(county(does(not(have(the(resources(to(supplement(such(a(program(

3 There(was(some(discussion(of(the(benefits(of(the(tax(abatement(program(from(a(landownerrsquos(perspective(in(that(it(isnrsquot(always(as(beneficial(as(one(might(believe(particularly(when(the(property(is(hardwood(forested(and(the(payoff(is(then(much(longer(in(terms(of(time(to(harvest(the(wood(etc(Mr(Ashton(mentioned(that(there(are(some(land(owners(who(are(not(interested(in(conservation(easements(because(they(are(only(available(in(perpetuity((

(

Stafford)County)Focus)Group)(December(14(2016)(

((Eldon(James(James(and(Associates((Greg(Evans(Mitigation(Program(ManagerChesapeake(Bay(Program(Lead(Forestland(Conservation(Division(Virginia(Department(of(Forestry((Michael(Anderson(Tri(CountyMCity(SWCD((Rishi(Baral(Stafford(County((Joseph(Fiorello(Stafford(County((Mohan(B(Karki(Stafford(County((Paul(Santay(Stafford(County((Kathy(Baker(Stafford(County(

(Brian(George(Stafford(County((Jason(Winner(MarstelMDay((Etta(Lucas(Conservation(Specialist(TriMCountyCity(SWCD((Robin(Long(AGPDR(Committee(Stafford(County((Jeff(Harvey(Stafford(County((Andy(Pineau(Stafford(WetlandsCB(Board((Michael(Smith(Stafford(County((Darrell(English(Stafford(County(Planning(Commission((

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

4

Kathy(Harrigan(Friends(of(the(Rappahannock((

Robert(Gollahon(Norfleet(Land(amp(Wood(

( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

5

STAFFORD(CO(GREEN(INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST(RETENTION(STUDY(INTERESTED(PARTIES(MEETING

April52017

LocalAttendeesKathyBakerStaffordCoAssistantPlanningDirectorJeffHarveyStaffordCoDirectorPlanningandZoningPaulSantayStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionJoeFiorelloStaffordCoWetlandsBoardRishiBaralStaffordCoEnvironmentalDivisionGregEvansVADeptofForestryConsultantTeamDougPickfordRossPickfordKevinByrnesMikeCollinsPeggyStevensandDanielSaltzbergBothJeffandKathyindicatedthattheyhadreviewedtheGIPlanandhavebeeninterestedinapplyingsomeoftheprotectionsbutitwasnrsquotincludedbyreferenceinthenewcomprehensiveplanandhasnrsquotbeenofficiallyrecognizedKathyindicatedthatthePDRprogramisjuststartingandthecountyhasmadeafewsmallpurchasesaspartofitTheyhavebeenabletoputasmallbudgettogetherthatcombinessomecountyfundswhicharematchedwithStateRevolvingFundrevenuesJeffindicatedthatthecountyhadadoptedclusterdevelopmentrequirementsandmostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasbeenfollowingtheseguidelinesMostofthenewresidentialdevelopmenthasoccurredintheruralareasofthecountyonundevelopedforestorfarmlandCountystaffindicatedaninterestintheestablishmentofadedicatedentitythatwouldberesponsibleforlandconservationStaffhasnothadthetimeorresourcestodomorewithconservationeffortsTheydidbelievethatthereisagrowinginterestinthecitizensformorelandconservationastheyseemoredevelopmentoccurringPaulindicatedthatthecountyhadreceivedapprovalfromtheDEQtoreducethesizeoftheirMS4areaandhavethusbecomereclassifiedasanonZMS4jurisdictionPaulalsostatedthatthecountywasontracktomeettheir2025TMDLgoalsduetotheirreclassificationasanonZMS4jurisdictionandwouldnotneedtolookforTMDLcreditselsewhereInmeetingfollowZupJeffHarveyofferedthefollowingobservations(viaemail)ProfferLegislationHereisalinktothebillsponsoredbyDelegateDudenheferthatproposedchangestotheprofferlegislationhttplisvirginiagovcgiZbinlegp604exe171+ful+HB1674

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

6

AswediscussedthecurrentlegislationlimitstheflexibilityfortheCountytonegotiatewithdeveloperstooffZsettheimpactsofprojectsthroughproffersInmyopinionthisreducedflexibilitymakesitmoredifficultforlocalitiestojustifytothecitizenryrezoningpropertiesforhigherdensityIffewerpropertiesarerezonedthatplacesmorepressuretogeneratelargeZlotruraldevelopmentsthatacceleratethelossandfragmentationofforestlandsTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)TheCountyrsquosTDRprogramhasbeeninexistencefortwoyearsbutsofarhasnothadanytakersTDRisconsideredtobebyZrightdevelopmentanddoesnotrequireanyzoningchangesItisinessencerelocatingdevelopmentfromonetractoflandtoanotherOneofthepotentialmattersholdingthisbackisthattheStaffordprogramdoesnotprovideanydensitybonusesforTDRLargelotsubdivisiondevelopmentremainstobepopularinStaffordCountyThereislikelynotabigpricedifferentialbetweenlotsintheruralareasrelativetothepriceoflotsintheUrbanServicesAreawherewaterandsewerutilitiesandotherurbanamenitiesarefoundThislackofpricedifferentialisprobablynotenoughtojustifytheexpenseofbuyingthedevelopmentrightstheircarryingcostandtheadditionaldevelopmentcoststolandthemonareceivingpropertyTheCountyBoardofSupervisorsdidnotwanttosetadensitybonusbecauseoftheconcernofincreasedbyZrightdevelopmentwherethecapitalfacilitycostsofthenewhomesarecoveredbythetaxpayersOnepotentialincentivetotipthescaletomakeTDRmoreviableandpreserveforestlandswouldbetoallowtheuseofimpactfeesforschoolswheredensitybonusesaregivenforeachtransferreddevelopmentrightTheCountyalreadyusesimpactfeesforbyZrightdevelopmenttofundtransportationimprovementsSchoolconstructioncostscomprisealargechunkoftheCountyrsquosCapitalImprovementsPlanbudgetOffZsettingschoolconstructioncostsmaymaketheideaofdensitybonusesmorepalatableForestNutrientCreditProgramWealsodiscussedthepossibilityofthestateestablishingaforestwaterqualitycreditprogramwherethecreditscouldbeboughtsoldortradedForestcreditswouldbecalculatedforjurisdictionsbyVDOFThecreditswouldbebasedonforestlandsprotectedbyconservationeasementsandreportedtoVDEQbythelocalitySinceforestcoverwilllikelybereducedovertimeIthinkconservationeasementsmaybethebestwaytoensurethattheforestcreditvaluesstayconstantandnotremovedbynewdevelopmentsRatesfornutrientcreditswouldneedtobedeterminedTheycouldbebasedontheacreageofforestedlandsIwoulddiscouragedeterminingcreditsbasedonthequalityoftheforestsinceforestsarerenewableresourcesandwillbetimberedperiodicallyIsuspectthatmostlocalitieshavemoreforestlandsoutsideofconservationeasementsthaninconservationeasementsItmayrequireVDOFtoestablishabaselineforestcoverfactorforforeststhatarenotprotectedNonZprotectedforestswouldbeassignedalowerwaterqualityvaluethanprotectedforestsNonprotectedforestswouldnotbeassignedacreditvalueIfthewaterqualitycreditvalueofforestlandsexceededtheTMDLnutrientreductionloadrequirementsalocalitycouldsellortradethosecreditsThecreditsforalocalitywouldbeincreasedasmoreforestlandisplacedinconservationThistypeofmonetizationofconservationeasementscouldhelptooffsetsomeofthenegativetaximplicationstolocalitiesforlowerconservationvaluesofpropertiesIwouldproposethatthesaleortradeofthecreditswouldbeusedtopromoteeconomicdevelopmentAlllocalitieseitherhaveor

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

7

areauthorizedbystatecodetohaveanEDAorIDATheycouldbethemechanismtobuysellortradethecreditsThisfitscloselyintothecurrentauthorityforEDAswheretheycanactasabankerbrokersellerordeveloperofpropertiesThecaveatwouldbethatthepurchaseofcreditswouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsandtheproceedsofasalewouldhavetobeusedforeconomicdevelopmentpurposes(buyinglandmonetaryincentivesmarketingetchellip)EDAscouldbuyandusecreditsforeconomicdevelopmentprojectsthataretobelocatedinsubZwatershedsthatdonotmeetTMDLgoalsprovidedthecreditsandonZsitemitigationmeasuresresultinacalculatednegativeorneutralpollutantloadLocalitieswouldneedtoreportannuallytoVDEQorVDEQ(whicheveragencywouldbetheregulatoryauthority)astowhatcreditshadbeensoldtradedorpurchasedandwhatnewforestlandswereplacedinconservationIfalocalityaccidentallysoldmorecreditsthanitwasentitledtothelocalitywouldbeliableformonetaryrepaymentofthecreditseitherfrompurchasingcreditsfromanotherlocalityordirectrepaymenttoVDOForVDEQTherewouldneedtobesomediscussionofhowthemonetaryvalueofthosecreditsmightbederivedIfafreemarketapproachwastakenEDAscouldmarketthecreditsandselltothehighestbidderInthecaseofatradebetweenlocalitiessayforthepurposeofpurchasingwaterorsewertreatmentplantcapacitybetweenadjacentjurisdictionstherecouldbeamonetaryvalueascribedtothetradeVDEQcouldestablishminimumandmaximumpurchasepricesasameanstoassistEDAsfromsmallerjurisdictionsthathavelimitedsupportstaffandexpertisetodetermineiftheyaregettingafairdeal( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

8

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFOREST RETENTION STUDY INTERESTED PARTIES MEETING

February 8 2017

Attendees Ross Pickford Kevin Byrnes Mike Collins Peggy Stevens Tim Ware Greg Evans Wanda Parrish Kirsten Talken-Spaulding Jacob Pastwick Richard Street Paul Much of the countyrsquos recent GI efforts have been on acquiring and developing trails Funds for these efforts have been through grants They have also been working with local developers to protect GI through the use of proffers but this has been fairly minimal Currently there has been little interest by County board members for using PDRs but there has been a little interest in the use of TDRs One problem the county has with much of itrsquos openforest land area is that many of these properties have ldquolegacyrdquo rights for the subdivision of small parcels for family Also there could be some interest in term easements but it hasnrsquot been explored The county is beginning the Comp Plan revision process this year The county has had a difficult time finding funding sources for GI acquisition protection They were using conservation easement set-asides under the former stormwater management water quality control requirements but when DCRDEQ changed to the current Runoff Reduction Method there is no longer a credit for conservation set-asides Now there is no incentive for tree preservation or conservation easements and they havenrsquot been doing them Richard has identified some property owners interested in doing conservation easements or land conversions but these havenrsquot gone forward He also mentioned that the county doesnrsquot get credit for BMPs built before 2005 and they would like to get credit for them (such as regional stormwater control ponds) Ms Talken-Spaulding of the National Park Service says they have been working with various historic trusts to acquire additional land outside of the established park boundaries In addition they do occasional mitigation projects that restore GI areas when they do road widenings and such The LWCF () if fully funded could be a real source for GI protection During general discussions a proposal to create a private funding mechanism such as a tax return contribution designation for GI conservation that could be combined with government contributions as well as payments due to linear corridor project off-sets drew a lot of interest (( (

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

9

2617 Notes Present Doug Pickford Mike Collins Kevin Byrnes Peggy Stevens Daniel Saltzberg Scott Plein Jay Norman 1 Opening comments from Kevin Byrnes and Doug Pickford to set context for work

bull Kevin (later in conversation) referenced a time in the past when the predominantly Democratic BOS in Stafford County approved a Potomac Watershed Overlay Zone Next election the Dems were out and the newly-elected majority Repub BOS threw out the restrictive overlay zone Kevin suggested that memories of this contentious time may still influence the Comprehensive Plan amendment process in Stafford Co

2 Scott Plein bull Green Infrastructure is not part of Comprehensive Plan and therefore has no influence

on developer bull GI needs better recognition in the Comp Plan mostly developers will follow what is

prescribed (my note we heard this in KG too) as long as they know what is expected and it does not affect their bottom line

bull Sensible growth patterns do not seem to be in existing Comp Plans the rural crescent in PW County is a good example ndash much too random and the potential for 5 ndash 10 acre lot by right development eats away at the overall potential of preserving the most critical areas in a locality

bull A LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ldquoSMARTERBETTERENVIRONMENTAL ldquo GROWTH PATTERNS IS CRITICAL

bull Need to quantify in $s what the economics are for this ldquosmart growthforest retentionrdquo alternative and then translate into a targeted ldquoacresrdquo preserved ndash be it by locality or watershed

bull ECONOMICS THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE DEVELOPER ndash HAS TO WORK FOR THE LOCALITY

bull Long term maintenance of the open space is a real issue ndash who how much how is it monitored

bull Ideally cluster developments will maintain 65-75 of the site in natural areas ndash density incentives need to be 30 - 50

bull Does enabling legislation need to be considered bull If a program is set up criteria needs to consider a ldquominimumrdquo acreage standard

Preservation of ldquoopen spacerdquo created through the harvest and cutting down of the forest doesnrsquot achieve anywhere near the same ecological benefithellipdriven by code requirements and minimum lot sizes which make it easiest for the developer to create a blank slate and then do nominal landscaping after clearing the land putting in utilities and street networks

bull The program CANNOT be complicated expensive or bureaucratic bull GI would be better called preservation of ecological areas and corridors bull Environmental groups need to advocate for SMART growth strategies not for 5 and 10

acre building lots [noted that PEC has advocated for big lots not SMART growth]

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

10

3 Mike Collins How can we design a transactional process for a new forest land retention offset program Assumes that buyer is local government Assumes cash available in PD16 could be $125M

bull Yes science of economics has been done to calculate TMDL per acre (to Scottrsquos query)

bull The NVCT group has been cognizant of determining archetypes of ldquocommunitiesrdquo that may or may not be supportive of conservation efforts as opposed to being completely economic based (MY COMMENTS HERE ndash THIS TO ME IS VERY IMPORTANT ndash WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED ndash IT IS ALL ABOUT ECONOMICS ndash IT HAS TO WORK FOR EVERY PARTY INVOLVED)

4 Jay Norman bull Nutrient trading in VA is in early stages and only a few participants Stronger in

James and Potomac basins than in Rappahannock bull NT is a small circle with steep learning curve Unless the potential market is larger

than $500 million the potential attraction of brokers will be small The learning curve for nutrient tradingwetland credits etc is pretty steep A very small group of brokers currently operate in VA on landag brokerage transactions and a much smaller group is doing tax credit work Small demand for a training program at this juncture

bull Tree Canopy trading functioning in Montgomery County MD might serve as a

good example ordinanceregulation However this is an urbansurburban model that may or may not be applicable to the rural trending suburban model

bull Alexandria City has mapped every tree bull TMDL could come from saving hardwood treeshellipor forested slopes of a certain

grade within some distance of permanent stream

5 Scott bull referenced tree bill passed by General Assembly in the past P Ticer and D Bulova

involved

6 Mike How to give developer value for preserving eco value of land

7 Scott bull Wherersquos the money coming from bull Object is to prevent bio-physical changes to the land

8 Various

bull MS4 credit holders would be pressured to buy bull Forest Mitigation money would come from Utility companies and others bull Process needs to be cost effective efficient and private sector (Mike)

9 Mike Certification in Forest land retention for Brokers and sales agents

10 Scott True cluster development to preserve eco value is about 60-70 open land

Green InfrastructureForest Retention Project January 17 2017

11

11 Jay

bull Very few true land brokers in VA bull $125M value is not much money

FOLLOW UP Beyond circulating these comments to those who attended and soliciting their input fromin the conversation ndash the GI working group will meet with local staff and stakeholders to ascertain their views on what are the key issues in implementing this plan and what may be the impediments to implementation I donrsquot want to speak for the group here but it is becoming fairly obvious that we have many of the tools in place already to do this work but what we are lacking is commitment from government and incentivesguidance to or for the private sector to do this The ldquoHOWrdquo has been elusive How do we make this easy AND an economic winwin (

Page 12: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 13: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 14: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 15: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 16: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 17: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 18: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 19: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 20: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 21: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 22: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 23: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 24: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 25: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 26: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 27: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 28: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 29: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 30: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 31: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 32: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 33: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 34: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 35: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 36: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 37: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 38: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 39: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 40: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 41: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 42: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 43: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 44: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 45: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 46: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 47: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 48: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 49: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 50: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 51: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 52: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 53: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 54: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 55: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 56: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 57: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 58: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 59: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 60: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 61: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 62: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 63: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 64: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 65: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 66: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 67: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 68: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 69: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 70: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 71: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 72: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 73: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 74: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 75: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 76: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 77: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 78: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 79: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 80: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 81: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 82: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 83: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 84: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 85: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 86: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 87: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 88: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 89: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 90: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 91: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 92: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 93: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 94: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 95: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 96: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 97: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 98: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 99: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 100: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 101: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 102: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 103: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 104: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 105: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 106: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 107: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 108: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 109: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 110: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 111: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 112: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 113: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 114: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 115: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 116: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 117: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 118: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 119: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 120: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 121: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 122: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 123: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 124: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 125: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 126: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 127: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,
Page 128: GWRC | George Washington Regional Commission · 2020. 9. 3. · Final Report to NFWF Project Title: Program Development for Implementing Stormwater Management by Caroline, King George,