Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Program Lake Pepin TMDL May 31, 2007
Presentation Overview County Context FNAP Planning Process FNAP Implementation Integrating Conservation Efforts
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1950-1954 Developed between 1950-1954 Developed before 1950
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1955-1959 Developed between 1955-1959 Developed before 1955
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1960-1964 Developed between 1960-1964 Developed before 1960
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1965-1969 Developed between 1965-1969 Developed before 1965
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1970-1974 Developed between 1970-1974 Developed before 1970
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1975-1979 Developed between 1975-1979 Developed before 1975
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1980-1984 Developed between 1980-1984 Developed before 1980
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1985-1989 Developed between 1985-1989 Developed before 1985
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1990-1994 Developed between 1990-1994 Developed before 1990
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 1995-1999 Developed between 1995-1999 Developed before 1995
Parcel Development Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 2000-2005 Developed between 2000-2005 Developed before 2000
County Population Past, Present and Future 600,000 500,000 512,670 400,000 300,000 355,904 200,000 100,000 0 584 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
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
Minnesota Ecological Classification System
Loss and Fragmentation of Natural Systems
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
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
Elements of a Successful Protection Plan Citizen opinion Maps Tools Funding options Findings and Strategies
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
70 Meetings with Citizens and Stakeholders Citizens Farmers Developer/Realtors Natural Resource Agencies City staff Township officers
Obtaining and Utilizing Good Information
Overall Findings Rapid Growth is #1 citizen concern (Feb. 2001 survey) 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 584 355, 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%
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.
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
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
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
Natural Area Findings Voluntary, incentivebased approaches can protect natural areas Local plans and funding are required to leverage other funding sources
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
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
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
Farmland Protection Strategy 42,000 acres in highest priority areas
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
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
Natural Area Protection Strategy 36,000 Acres
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)
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
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?
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?
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
Funding Strategy County Board approves a $20 million bond referendum Formation of a Citizen Group Development of a Educational Campaign
Citizen Campaign
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 0.009887% and the amount that will be raised by the new tax rate in the first year to be levied (2003) is $2,550,000. 57% YES 43% NO
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
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
Farmland
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
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
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
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
Farmland Project Examples
Stewardship Plans Required Erosion Control Buffers Voluntary Irrigation Nutrient and Manure Management Pasture Management Pest Management Natural Area Management
Farmland Protection Project Easement with 150-foot Buffer
Farmland Easements with Natural Areas
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)
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
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
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
Farmland Projects 2003-2005
Farmland Protection Summary Year # of Projects Acreage Estimated Total Cost Estimated County Cost 2003 7 756 $3.0 million $1.3 million 2004 6 945 $4.7 million $2.0 million 2005 6 763 $2.7 million $1.7 million 2007 7 1,035 $4.8 million $3.8 million 26 3,527 $15.2 million $8.8 million
Natural Areas
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
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
Dodge Nature Center
Pine Bend Bluffs SNA
Eagan Core Greenway
Pilot Knob
Vermillion River AMA/WMA
Vermillion River Natural Area
Natural Areas Summary Year # of Projects Acreage Estimated Land Value Estimated County Cost 2003 6 624 $17.2 million $3.1 million 2004 6 193 $2.7 million $750,000 2005 10 1,140 $13.7 million $2.2 million 2006 1 32 $.9 million $.3 million 2007 5 647 $17.2 million $2.0 million 28 2,611 $4.2 million $8.4 million
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
Miesville Ravine Regional Park Reserve Master Plan
Property Location Map
Needs Assessment
Traditional Protection Scenario
Alternative Protection Scenario
County Vision Principles Sustainability Interconnectedness Collaboration Economic Viability Growing and Nurturing People
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
Regional Parks & Trails
Zoo Lebanon Hills Regional Park Regional Trails/Greenways Apple Valley High School Eastview High School City to City Trails/Greenways Cobblestone Lake
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
For Further Information Al Singer: 952-891-7001 al.singer@co.dakota.mn.us Web Page: www.co.dakota.mn.us/planning/fnap