TLCRegionalConceptualization

Regional Conceptualization for Triangle Land Conservancy
This page is for work on thinking through a conceptual diagram for TLC as an organization for the entire region.

Work team is Emily, George, Jeff

3 Dec regional summary [|RegionalSummary.2008.12.03.doc] 20 Nov Miradi file [|RegionalConcep_11-20_Diagram.mpz]

Updated summary sheet [|RegionalSummary.2008.11.10.doc]

Summary Sheet [|RegionalSummary.2008.11.09.doc]

Updated 5 Nov [|regionalconceptualization 11-5.mpz] PDF of diagram [|regional 11-5.pdf]

Updated MPZ (10-25) [|RegionalConceptualization10-25.mpz]

Updated MPZ [|RegionalConceptualization10-17.mpz]

mpz file for Safe and abundant water ONLY (indirect threats) [|Water_RegionalConceptualization.mpz]

4th draft [|RegionalConceptualization4.mpz]

3rd draft with preliminary water indirect threats [|RegionalConceptualization3.mpz]

This is the 2nd draft of the mpz file (with direct threats and unlinked indirect threats) [|RegionalConceptualization2.mpz]

This is the first draft of the mpz file (only with direct threats) [|RegionalConceptualization.mpz]

TLC has supplied two documents from which mission / vision / goals can be drawn - see in the readings file TLC2007_StrategicDirections.pdf and TLC2008_ConservationStrategies.pdf.


 * Summary Documents** along the way

2008.09.23: Updated vision, scope, targets - [|TLCRegionalConcept.2008.09.23.doc] 2008.09.19: [|TLCRegionalConcept.2008.09.19.doc] After class discussion, we decided to
 * remove "clean air" from the target list - dirty air might be an indirect or direct threat to some of TLCs targets, but TLC is not protecting property to supply or maintain clean air
 * put "water for leisure" into the target list somehow - this got lost as we made modifications
 * note that NCDOT and others probably have criteria to define scenic, but we don't need that in the target. Rural / natural landscapes is probably good enough (as opposed to "scenic urban landscapes")
 * agreed that scope was political boundaries, recognizing that in order to conserve some things within those boundaries it might be necessary for strategies that reach across boundaries

TLC aspires to a vision for the Triangle that, as a result of the combined achievements of Triangle Land Conservancy and its partners, the region’s communities will have an ample supply of essential natural resources to maintain a high quality of life and enhance the local economy.
 * Vision**

Lands and waters in Chatham, Durham, Johnston, Lee, Orange and Wake counties.
 * Scope**

1. abundant, safe water for drinking and recreation 2. areas and trails for hiking and observing nature 3. working lands: productive farms and forests 4. scenic rural / natural landscapes 5. viable populations of native plants and animals
 * Targets**


 * First draft based on exact wording from TLC douments:**

Triangle Land Conservancy's mission is to protect important open space—stream corridors, forests, wildlife habitat, farmland and natural areas—in Chatham, Durham, Johnston, Lee, Orange and Wake counties to help keep our region a healthy and vibrant place to live and work.
 * Mission:**

TLC envisions that citizens of the region will be aware of the Triangle’s unique natural resources and value them the same way they value good jobs, comfortable homes, and excellent schools. They will recognize Triangle Land Conservancy’s leadership role in conserving and managing these vital assets and will support the organization as donors, members, and volunteers.
 * Vision:** (from Strategic Framework: July 2006—June 2009) TLC aspires to a vision for the Triangle that, as a result of the combined achievements of Triangle Land Conservancy and its partners, the region’s communities will have an ample supply of essential natural resources to maintain a high quality of life and enhance the local economy:
 * Clean water for drinking and leisure
 * Clean air
 * Space for outdoor recreation
 * Scenic landscapes
 * Productive farms and forests
 * Habitat to support the Triangle’s diverse array of wildlife

Lands and waters in Chatham, Durham, Johnston, Lee, Orange and Wake counties. ** Targets: ** (from REPORT OF THE CONSERVATION STRATEGIES COMMITTEE TO TRIANGLE LAND CONSERVANCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS)
 * Scope: ** (from mission statement)
 * Abundant, safe drinking water for all citizens now and in the future <>
 * Awareness of the benefits of providing a healthful, environment for all citizens, including abundant open space <>
 * Places for individuals, students, and families to connect with nature through convenient, accessible green spaces, greenways, and trails <>
 * Abundance of food produced on local farms <>
 * High quality natural areas that support and maintain viable populations of the Triangle’s diverse animal and plant species <>


 * Second Draft [with comments] for focused vision/scope/targets.**

1. The region's communities will have an ample supply of essential natural resources to maintain a high quality of life and enhance the local economy. <> 2. Citizens of the region will be aware of the Triangle's unique natural resources and value them the same way they value good jobs, comfortable homes, and excellent schools. They will recognize Triangle Land Conservancy's leadership role in conserving and managing these vital assets and will support the organization as donors, members, and volunteers. [How do we make this more compact and into one short statement?] <>
 * Vision:**

<<george - I'd use the opening part of the TLC vision as is - it describes what we want to see. Getting people to recognizing the role of natural areas is a strategy, as is getting them to recognize TLC's role.

TLC aspires to a vision for the Triangle that, as a result of the combined achievements of Triangle Land Conservancy and its partners, the region’s communities will have an ample supply of essential natural resources to maintain a high quality of life and enhance the local economy. <>

<>

Lands and waters in Chatham, Durham, Johnston, Lee, Orange and Wake counties. [Do we want to make this based on ecological rather than political boundaries? maybe a selected ecoregion or habitat types?] <> <<emily- I just looked up the locations of the counties and how they overlap with ecoregions and watersheds. Looks like the listed counties are on the edge of the Peidmont and Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plains ecoregions (which span quite a large distance). The listed counties also form the upper portion of the Nuese watershed and part of the upper portion of the Cape Fear watersheds. Since the counties don't allign with these ecological boundaries, maybe it is okay to stick with the political boundaries. It makes sense that the strategies for maintaining the targets would riquire strategies that reach outside these counties. i.e. providing clean drinking water would mean that you have to look what's happening in the headwaters of the Cape Fear watershed which is not covered in the counties list.>>
 * Scope:**

1. Riparian areas (a) [captures the clean water for recreation and drinking water] [maybe include "watershed of reservoirs (b)," "areas near drinking water intakes (c)" and "groundwater recharge areas (d)" as well if focus is on drinking water?] <> 2. Space for outdoor recreation [maybe add on "and ecological study" since TLC seems to support it already] <> 3. Scenic landscapes <> 4. Productive farms (a) and forests (b) 5. Biodiversity or viable populations of native species <> [I simplified this one to biodiversity instead of "habitat to support the Triangle's diverse array of wildlife" because it seemed more direct. protecting the habitat where the wildlife/biodiversity exists is a means to protecting the wildlife/biodiversity.]
 * Targets:**

< 5. viable populations of native plants and animals <> 6. clean air <<I'm including this, because it's in the strategy documents, but I really don't think this is a priority target for TLC>> >> <<emily- I agree with this revised list of targets.>>

<<george 23 Sep - like this approach of starting with direct threats - let's get those down and then go on to indirect. Also, I tend to be a lumper, so I might put some things together.>> 1. Abundant, safe water for drinking and leisure -- Direct: pollutants and soil entering water -- Direct: water removal rates > recharge rates, for both ground and surface water -- Direct: water prevented from entering ground and surface water (interruption of natural hydrology) -Indirect: damaged riparian areas -Indirect: culverts straight to streams -indirect: cattle and hog farms that give direct access of rivers to animals -indirect: lack of understanding/incentives to use BMPs <<george 23 Sep - is this a strategy issue?>> -Indirect: pollutants entering reservoirs through watershed runoff -indirect: insufficient protection of water supply watersheds (drinking water reservoirs) (waters near intakes not specially protected) -indirect: flashy flows from **too much impervious surface** -indirect: development in inappropriate places (highly desirable location of homes on rivers; lack of regulation/planning to protect riparian zones) -indirect: nonpoint source pollution from urban/suburban development -indirect: point source pollution (i.e. industrial) -indirect: agricultural pollution (i.e. animal waste, pesticite/heribicide/fertilizer) -indirect: groundwater recharge areas not specially protected -indirect: lack of knowledge about where groundwater recharge areas are -indirect: illegal dumping -indirect: improperly maintained septic tanks -indirect: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks --- [list threat here]
 * Direct threats:**

2. Areas and trails for hiking and observing nature --- direct: destruction/alteration of natural areas to hike in and nature to observe --- direct: lack of public access to these areas --- direct: inadequate trails and trail maintenance -indirect: poor definition / delineation of areas to be conserved -indirect: lack of zoning/regional planning for outdoor recreation -indirect: suburban development is the pressure -indirect: unwillingness to commit resources to these areas --- [list threat here]

3. Scenic natural / rural landscapes --- direct: alteration of scenic landscapes -indirect: poor definition / delineation of viewsheds to be conserved -indirect: poor definition / delineation of areas to be conserved -indirect: lack of zoning/regional planning for outdoor recreation -indirect: suburban development is the pressure -indirect: unwillingness to commit resources to these areas (eg, lack of incentives to private landowners to maintain or enhance viewsheds, have view easements, etc) --- [list threat here]

4. Working lands: farms and forests --- direct: Poor soils in region --- direct: land use change from ag to sub/urban --indirect: high land values --indirect: difficulty making a living in farming / forestry --indirect: High monetary incentive to sell to developers --indirect: Suburban development --indirect: lack of support services for working landscapes --indirect: overall economic changes (eg, tobacco and other crop support; ethanol) --indirect: sub/urban dwellers don't like to see trees cut --indirect: complaints about farm operation noise and odors --- [list threat here]

5. Viable populations of native plants and animals --- direct: destruction / fragmentation of habitat for native plants and animals --- direct: killing or harvesting of species --- direct: invasive, non-native species --- direct: suppression of disturbance regimes required to maintain habitat - indirect: High monetary incentive to sell to developers - indirect: growth in suburban and urban development - indirect: lack of connectivity - indirect: lack of zoning/regional planning for outdoor recreation -indirect: unwillingness to commit resources to these areas (eg, lack of incentives to private landowners to maintain or enhance viewsheds, have view easements, etc) --- [list threat here]