Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Program. Lake Pepin TMDL May 31, 2007

Transcription

1 Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Program Lake Pepin TMDL May 31, 2007

2 Presentation Overview County Context FNAP Planning Process FNAP Implementation Integrating Conservation Efforts

3 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1950

4 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1955

5 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1960

6 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1965

7 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1970

8 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1975

9 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1980

10 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1985

11 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1990

12 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 1995

13 Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Developed between Developed before 2000

14

15 County Population Past, Present and Future 600, , , , , , , ,

16 Dakota County 375,000 acres 384,000 people 14% of seven county population 21 cities 16,000 people in 13 townships 220,000 acres in agricultural use No land-use authority

17 Minnesota Ecological Classification System

18 Loss and Fragmentation of Natural Systems

19 Reasons to Plan Citizens Jury, Focus Groups County Citizen Surveys County Role in Natural Area Protection 96% County Role in Farmland Protection 91% Somew hat important 37% Very important 69% Somew hat important 27% Not too important 2% Very important 54% Not too important 5% Don't know /refusted 1% Not at all important 1% Don't know /refusted 2% Not at all important 2% Source: 2001 County Residential Survey

20 In 1998, Dakota County received a two-year LCMR grant to: Inventory Farmland and Natural Areas Increase Awareness Among Citizens, Landowners, Farmers, and Local Officials Conduct Financing Options Survey Develop Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan and Toolbox

21 Elements of a Successful Protection Plan Citizen opinion Maps Tools Funding options Findings and Strategies

22 The Planning Effort was based upon a Partnership Dakota County 1000 Friends of Minnesota Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Dakota County Township Officers Association Friends of the Mississippi River Minnesota Farmers Union Minnesota Land Trust The Trust for Public Land University of Minnesota Extension Service

23 70 Meetings with Citizens and Stakeholders Citizens Farmers Developer/Realtors Natural Resource Agencies City staff Township officers

24 Obtaining and Utilizing Good Information

25 Overall Findings Rapid Growth is #1 citizen concern (Feb survey) 500, , , , , , , , ,000 50, , 904 Citizens want County to play a role in protecting farmland and natural areas Surveys indicate a willingness to pay $9.65 per $100K house value per year for protection Don't Know/Refused 5% Total Against 29% Total For 66%

26 Farmland Findings Local farm economics influenced by land prices, investment, and land use conflicts. Cities/Twp plans are critical to protecting agriculture. Generally, 1/40 zoning and Ag. Preserve have been effective until now. Successful programs protect farmland in large contiguous blocks.

27 Farmland Findings Voluntary, incentive-based approach can protect farmland (e.g. Lancaster County and Dunn Twp.) Local plan and funding required to leverage federal funding Public purpose for protecting farmland

28 Farmland Findings Elements of a Publicly Funded Farmland Protection Program: Alignment with Comprehensive Plans Differential Tax Assessment Agricultural Districts (Metro Ag. Preserve Program) Right-to-Farm Ordinances Agricultural Zoning (1/40, stops rural residential) Urban Growth Boundaries (MUSA sewer & water) PDR/TDR

29 Natural Area Findings Scenic qualities of natural areas make them prime development sites City/Twp. plans critical to protecting natural areas Natural areas can be protected on private lands using conservation easements

30 Natural Area Findings Voluntary, incentivebased approaches can protect natural areas Local plans and funding are required to leverage other funding sources

31 Natural Area Findings High priority natural areas were identified by citizens Successful programs use connected natural area corridors There is a public purpose for protecting natural areas

32 Farmland Strategies Protect farmland in contiguous blocks next to natural corridors using conservation easements from willing sellers and donors Promote the use and enhancement of the Metropolitan Ag. Preserves Program Assist cities and townships with local growth management controls to guide development away from priority farmland using subdivision ordinances and transfer of development rights

33 Initial Farmland Criteria Outside of 2040 MUSA and zoned 1/40 Enrolled in green acres/ag. preserve Productive land (class 1, class 2, irrigated) Adjacent to natural areas Near rivers and streams using best management practices In large contiguous blocks Used in the future as farmland or open space Note: Specialty farms inside MUSA considered open space

34 Farmland Protection Strategy 42,000 acres in highest priority areas

35 Natural Area Strategies Protect priority natural areas in corridors using conservation easements and fee title acquisition from willing sellers and donors Work with other agencies to protect County priority natural areas Work with large landowners and agencies to protect, restore, and manage natural areas on their properties

36 Natural Area Criteria Lands of biologic significance Adjacent to lakes, rivers, and streams Improve protect water quality Provide wildlife habitat Some level of public access Natural corridors

37 Natural Area Protection Strategy 36,000 Acres

38 Dakota County Experience Adopted Plan (1/29/02) Secured funds ($93,500 LCMR) for landowner outreach, program development Adopted a Federal and State legislative position and worked with local legislators to introduce bills ($5 million) Funds for wildlife area in Eureka Twp ($100K)

39 Dakota County Experience Support local and DNR efforts to protect priority areas (UMORE, Pine Bend Bluffs, Empire Wetland Complex) Annual support by County tax payers of agricultural programs ($2.4 million per year) Explore possibility of new southwestern regional park Work toward shaping Metro Council Blueprint to protect priority farmland and natural areas

40 Discussion of Key Issues with County Board County Involvement: How much? Public Funds: Does the County want to spend County dollars or partner with other governmental dollars Public Access: Is public access required for any property to be eligible? Permanent Land Protection: Does the easement need to be permanent? How can the County guarantee that a property will remain agriculturally zoned when the County has no land use controls?

41 Discussion of Key issues with the County Board What are the potential impacts on neighboring properties adjacent to (parcels with) easements? Can a voluntary program create results that make the public investment worthwhile? How does the County value investments in preservation of farmland and natural areas in the context of parks/open space?

42 Elements of a Widely Supported Program Protect environment especially water Protect a mix of farmland and natural areas Include a broad, geographic focus Funds should be used for protecting both public and private property Fund permanent rather than temporary easements Work with willing sellers/cities and townships Match County funds with other funds

43 Funding Strategy County Board approves a $20 million bond referendum Formation of a Citizen Group Development of a Educational Campaign

44 Citizen Campaign

45 2002 Ballot Language PRESERVATION OF WATER, OPEN SPACE, NATURAL AREAS AND FARMLAND Shall Dakota County be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in the amount of $20,000,000 maturing over a term not to exceed ten years, to acquire and improve land and interests in land for the purposes of preserving and protecting water, open space, farmland and natural areas, with all spending reviewed in an annual public audit? BY VOTING YES ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. The maximum amount of the increased tax levy as a percentage of market value is % and the amount that will be raised by the new tax rate in the first year to be levied (2003) is $2,550, % YES 43% NO

46 Program Goals and Objectives Protect priority farmland and natural areas $10 million of referendum funds for farmland easements and $10 million for natural area protection Acquire conservation easements or fee title from willing landowners Leverage County funds with Non-County Funds

47 Public Outreach Willing Landowners Apply County Staff Determines Eligibility General Program Process On-site meetings with Landowners Advisory Committee Evaluates and Ranks Farmland and Natural Area Projects County Board Approves Projects Appraisal and Negotiations County Board Approves Acquisition Land Owned by Other Public Entity w/ County Easement Private Ownership w/ County/Others Holding Easements

48 Farmland

49 Farmland Protection Goals Protect farmland in contiguous blocks next to natural areas/corridors using permanent, agricultural easements from willing sellers Protect Highly Productive Soils Conserve Land for Water Quality Benefits Provide Additional Wildlife Habitat Preserve Options for Flexible, Future Use

50 Farmland Eligibility Criteria Locally Zoned and Planned for Agriculture (1/40) Agricultural History/Use of Property (as assessed) Landowner Commitment (Ag. Preserve) Productive Lands - at least 75% of land with USDA Prime/locally significant soils 40-acre Minimum Size Water Quality Benefits -1/2 mile from state-protected streams/rivers or adjacent to land already protected

51 Farmland Prioritization Criteria Financial 100 points -Landowner Donation 55 points -Retaining/Clustering Building Rights 35 points -Leveraging non-county Funds 10 points Adjacency/Proximity 40 points Agricultural Use 15 points Unique Qualities 15 points Future Stewardship Practices 30 points

52

53 Elements of Farmland Easements Land remains in private ownership Doesn t interfere with accepted farming practices Excludes current and future structures, roads and future Right-of-Way Permanent Cost based upon appraised value ($3,000-$5,900/ ac) Stewardship Plan (permanent buffers) is required County monitors/enforces easement

54 Farmland Project Examples

55 Stewardship Plans Required Erosion Control Buffers Voluntary Irrigation Nutrient and Manure Management Pasture Management Pest Management Natural Area Management

56 Farmland Protection Project Easement with 150-foot Buffer

57 Farmland Easements with Natural Areas

58 New Financial Incentives Increased from 30% to 50 % of Total Points Increasing Exponential # of Points for Land Value Donation (5 points for 5%, 35 points for 20%, and 55 points for 25%) Bonus Points Retaining and Clustering Building Rights (up to 35 points) Working with Other Programs (up to 10 points)

59 Easement Scenario I Acquire All Building Rights Property Size: 160 acres Farmstead: 10 acres Unused Building Rights: 3 Estimated Cost For Acquiring: 3 remaining building rights Permanent agricultural easement on 150 acres ~$700,000 or $4,500/acre

60 Easement Scenario II Acquire One Building Right Property Size: 160 acres Farmstead: 10 acres Unused Building Rights: 3 Estimated Cost For Acquiring: 1 building right Cluster remaining two, five-acre building sites Permanent agricultural easement on 140 acres ~$420,000 or $3,000/acre

61 Scenario Comparison County Acquires All (3) Building Rights County Acquires One Building Right Land 150 acres 140 acres Protected Remaining 0 2 Building Sites Cost $700,000 $420,000

62 Farmland Projects

63 Farmland Protection Summary Year # of Projects Acreage Estimated Total Cost Estimated County Cost $3.0 million $1.3 million $4.7 million $2.0 million $2.7 million $1.7 million ,035 $4.8 million $3.8 million 26 3,527 $15.2 million $8.8 million

64 Natural Areas

65 Natural Area Protection Goals Protect lands with existing and/or restorable natural characteristics as part of a larger patch and/or interconnected network of lands using conservation easements or fee title acquisition from willing sellers Protect Ecologically Important Areas/Species Provide Additional Wildlife Habitat Adjacency to Protected Waters or Wetlands Provides Additional Environmental Benefits

66 Natural Area Prioritization Criteria Size and Quality of Natural Area Adjacency Water Quality Benefits Cost Leveraging Non-County Resources City/Township Support Threat Public Access Unique Features

67 Dodge Nature Center

68 Pine Bend Bluffs SNA

69 Eagan Core Greenway

70 Pilot Knob

71

72 Vermillion River AMA/WMA

73 Vermillion River Natural Area

74

75 Natural Areas Summary Year # of Projects Acreage Estimated Land Value Estimated County Cost $17.2 million $3.1 million $2.7 million $750, ,140 $13.7 million $2.2 million $.9 million $.3 million $17.2 million $2.0 million 28 2,611 $4.2 million $8.4 million

76 Overall Program Summary Number of Projects: 56 Land (being) Protected: 6,100 Acres Total Estimated Land Value: $65 Million Estimated County Cost: $18 Million Estimated Fund Balance: $2 Million

77 Miesville Ravine Regional Park Reserve Master Plan

78 Property Location Map

79 Needs Assessment

80 Traditional Protection Scenario

81 Alternative Protection Scenario

82 County Vision Principles Sustainability Interconnectedness Collaboration Economic Viability Growing and Nurturing People

83 Using Green Infrastructure as a Conservation Framework Cleaner Water and Air Improved Human Health More Economic Incentives Increased Private-Sector Involvement Better Connections to Nature and Place Greater Ecological Health and Resilience Enhanced Global Competitiveness

84 Regional Parks & Trails

85 Zoo Lebanon Hills Regional Park Regional Trails/Greenways Apple Valley High School Eastview High School City to City Trails/Greenways Cobblestone Lake

86 Active Living: Central Park Concept for Athletic Complexes Example for Discussion Purposes Only Apple Valley Greenway (to Lebanon Hills Regional Park) Strolling Pond Community Center Waterfowl Pond Apple Valley Greenway (to southern athletic complex and cobblestone Apple Valley Central Park Trails and Features Community Center Scenic loop trail (2.5 miles) Fitness equipment Tunnel under Johnny Cake Gymnasiums Lighted x-country ski trails Senior Center Beautiful landscaping Strolling pond Waterfowl pond Room rental Picnicking around fields Ice arena (inside and outside) Sports dome Prepared by the Dakota County Office of Planning

87 For Further Information Al Singer: Web Page: