Wetland Mitigation Bank Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet

Similar documents
No Land, No Water: Solutions and Programs for Mitigating Land Loss

PROJECT SCORING GUIDANCE. Introduction: National Proiect Selection:

SPECIAL PUBLIC NOTICE

FARMLAND AMENITY PROTECTION. A Brief Guide To Conservation Easements

Land Trust of Santa Cruz County. Strategic Plan. July 2012 to June This is a public version of a more detailed internal plan.

Inside: Why Skagit doesn t need rural sprawl Please renew your membership Thanks! Non-Profit Org. US Postage PAID Permit No. 40 Mt.

S k a g i t L a n d T r u s t

2015 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT STATUTE CHANGES

Kitsap County Department of Community Development

Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation Buffer Lands Program Program Description and Application

Conservation Easement Stewardship

JOINT PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE

Protecting Wild & Scenic River Values Through Land Conservation

DESCRIPTION OF A LAND TRUST

Using Easements to Conserve Biodiversity. Jeff Lerner Defenders of Wildlife

February 7, 2013 BOARD MATTER H-1

Claudia Stuart, Williamson Act Program Manager and Nick Hernandez, Planning Intern

Connecting Conservation and Community

California Office 2001 N Street Suite 110 Sacramento, CA VIA

Fact Sheet Downtown Wasaga Beach Community Improvement Plan

Federal Mandates and Willing Sellers: Real Estate Acquisition for the Missouri River Recovery Program

JOINT PUBLIC NOTICE CORPS OF ENGINEERS STATE OF ARKANSAS Application Number: Date: December 9, 2016 Comments Due: January 3, 2017

You have a special connection to your land.

APPENDIX B. Fee Simple v. Conservation Easement Acquisitions NTCOG Water Quality Greenprint - Training Workshops

Horry County is buying over 3,700 acres on International Drive for $12.9 million. Here s why

Spirit Lake North, LLC

General Development Plan Background Report on Agricultural Land Preservation

Mitigation and Conservation Banking

Georgia Conservation Tax Credit Program Frequently Asked Questions

113,923,000. Article 1 Sec moves to amend H.F. No as follows: 1.2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:

Substitute Item 1 BOT Delegations Additions/Revisions/Chapter 18-21, F.A.C., Rule Development/Delegation of Authority

Chapter VIII. Conservation Easements: Valuing Property Subject to a Qualified Conservation Contribution

Disappearing Idaho Farmland:

STAFF REPORT. Permit Number: Porter. Kitsap County Board of Commissioners; Kitsap County Planning Commission

Greene Land Trust. Balancing Sound Development and Effective Conservation

MARK TWAIN LAKE MASTER PLAN CLARENCE CANNON DAM AND MARK TWAIN LAKE MONROE CITY, MISSOURI

Central Pennsylvania Conservancy Project Selection Criteria Form

AVAILABLE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

MITIGATION POLICY FOR DISTRICT-PROTECTED LANDS

Assets to Acres. Your Gift of Developed Real Estate Can Help Protect New Hampshire s Special Places

Community Development Committee

SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO AREA COMMISSION OPPOSITION :

Rezoning Staff Report St. Croix County Community Development Committee Gerald & Joan Mellgren Hearing Date: July 16, 2015

Protecting Farmland in Maryland: A Review of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program

LIVING LANDS BIODIVERSITY GRANTS: INFORMATION AND APPLICATION. Due: January 16, 2009

AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAND CONSERVATION AND RESILIENCE. THE ELIZABETH RIVER S URBAN LAND TRUST

SENATE BILL No. 35. December 5, 2016

Conservation Subdivisions: Planning for Green Development. Susan Greenfield, Business Development Applied Ecological Services, Inc.

WYOMING COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR) PROGRAM. NYS Farmland Protection Implementation Grants (FPIG) PRE-APPLICATION

Public Notice U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, GALVESTON DISTRICT AND TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Open Space. Introduction. Vision. Defining Open Space. Midway City 2017 General Plan

Wood River Land Trust Staff Report

South Burlington Land Trust

Exploring Ecosystem Services on State Trust Lands in the West

APPROPRIATIONS Congress should prohibit agencies from expending any funds for:

CLACKAMAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. Study Session Worksheet

Land Use Code Streamlining 2012

Title 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 390 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN Phone (651) TDD (651)

Township of Tay Official Plan

Private Land Conservation: Conservation Easements. Matt Singer Land Stewardship Manager

MINUTE ORDER BONNER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES AUGUST 6, 2015

Greenbelt Group Weighs Gordon Hall Issue Change in land preservation deal could have broader implications

CURRENT THROUGH PL , APPROVED 11/11/2009

Conservation Easement Best Management Practices

Our Proposal. The Proposal

Midway City Council 4 December 2018 Regular Meeting. Ordinance / General Plan Amendment

Preserving Forested Lands

Midway City Council 16 October 2018 Work Meeting. Ordinance / General Plan Amendment

***** Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS ***** PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Saskatchewan Farmland Ownership

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF OLYMPIA, LACEY AND YELM FOR IMPLEMENTING DESCHUTES WATER RIGHTS MITIGATION STRATEGY PHASE III

Planning with Conservation Easements

Minister s Function under the Public Works Act 1981

CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS AND CONSERVED LANDS EASEMENT POLICY

How Mitigation Banks and ILF Programs Can Help Conservation

Validation Checklist. Date submitted: How to use this check-list. Ecosystem Credit Accounting System. Version 1.1&2. Project Information

2014 Plan of Conservation and Development

Thurston County Planning Department BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS. Chapter 24.

2009 Project Abstract For the Period Ending June 30, 2011

The GIS Behind Dakota County s FARMLAND AND NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM

Implementation of Permanent Easements and Associated Nutrient Load Reductions

NOTICE DATE: August 19, Joint Public Notice. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of Arkansas

Chapter XVIII LAND USE REGULATION A. ZONING. The most significant scheme for controlling land use in America is zoning, by which

NC DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

Minnesota Water Quality and Habitat Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (MN CREP) Overview February 14, 2017

Snohomish County Purchase of Development Rights Program Strategic Opportunities for Farmland Conservation

CASE STUDY: INCENTIVE MEASURES PROTECTION OF NATURAL HERITAGE ON PRIVATE LAND. Submitted by the Government of New Zealand

Environmental Credit Offsets: Not Just for Wetlands Transportation Engineers Association of Missouri

New York Agricultural Land Trust

WENATCHEE PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULED MEETING October 15, 2014 WENATCHEE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 129 S. Chelan Avenue Wenatchee, WA AGENDA

Module 2. Chesapeake Bay Trust Watershed Restoration Project Management Training. Owners & Stakeholders Jim Morris, P.E.

Texas Land Trust Conference March 6, 2015

The Maryland Puritan Tiger Beetle Habitat Conservation Program

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of June 17, 2017

Application for 1-d-1 (Open-Space) Agricultural Use Appraisal

Conservation Easements: Creating a Conservation Legacy for Private Property

Subtitle H Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

Exclusion Areas & Building Envelopes on Farmland Easements. Bodwell Dairy Farm Kensington, NH

Transcription:

Background: Wetland Mitigation Bank Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet Nearly 3 years after Clear Valley, LLC, (Clear Valley) filed its first permit application for the construction of a wetland mitigation bank on 396-acres of farmland in the Nookachamps basin, Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland (SPF) has reached a settlement agreement that calls for the mitigation of the loss of the farmland, the permanent protection of 220-acres of existing farmland and an amendment to Skagit County s zoning ordinance that will permanently prohibit wetland mitigation banks on farmland within Skagit County. Chronological Timeline On April 6, 2006 SPF submitted comments on a joint public notice published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Ecology regarding the proposed wetland mitigation bank to be placed on farmland within Skagit County and requested the Corps and DOE to review the proposed bank under the federal, state and local policies to protect farmland. On August 25, 2006, SPF submitted public comments on the proposed Grading Permit, suggesting the project did not comply with the county s policies under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to protect prime farmland and the agricultural industry within Skagit County. On December, 19, 2007, SPF submitted a request to Skagit County to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the proposed wetland mitigation bank and to review the project under federal, state, and local policies to protect prime agricultural lands. On March 20, 2008, SPF submitted public comments on Skagit County s Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) under SEPA and public comments on Clear Valley s permit application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Conditional Use Permit. On April 3, 2008, SPF filed an appeal of Skagit County s SEPA Determination for the proposed wetland mitigation bank to be placed on 396-acres of farmland to the Skagit County Hearing Examiner. Skagit County Farm Bureau joined with SPF on the appeal.

On January 23, 2009, after 9-days of hearings, 201 exhibits and 27 witnesses, spread over 10-months, the Skagit County Hearing Examiner ruled in favor of converting 396 acres of farmland into a private commercial wetland mitigation bank. On January 27, 2009, SPF filed a Notice of Appeal with the Skagit County Board of County Commissioners to appeal the hearing examiner s decision. On January 29, 2009, the Skagit County Chief Civil Prosecutor contacted SPF and Clear Valley to discuss the possibility of a negotiated settlement. SPF, Skagit County and Clear Valley began discussions about how to come to an agreement that best served Skagit County s agricultural community. On February 9. 2009, the Skagit County Board of Commissioners adopted a sixmonth moratorium on accepting applications for wetland banks on lands zoned for agriculture. On March 11, 2009, after 42-days of settlement negotiations, the SPF Board of Directors approved a settlement agreement between SPF and Clear Valley, LLC. What are the principal terms of the agreement? This historic and precedent-setting agreement stipulates that SPF s appeal to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will be stayed for a period of 60 days to allow time for the BOCC to consider and adopt a permanent ordinance that deletes private wetland mitigation banks as an allowed use on Ag-NRL (farmland) zoned lands. If the BOCC adopts the permanent ordinance deleting wetland mitigation banks as an allowed use on Ag-NRL zoned lands the following actions will take place: 1. Clear Valley will make payments to the Skagit County Farmland Legacy Program that will over time provide approximately $1,450,200 to fund the purchase of development rights on agricultural lands to offset the conversion of farmland within Clear Valley s project site; and 2. Clear Valley will place agricultural conservation easements on the remaining 220- acres of farmland that they own; and 3. SPF will withdraw our Notice of Appeal to the BOCC. If the BOCC does not adopt a permanent ordinance prohibiting wetland mitigation banking on Ag-NRL zoned lands, then the settlement agreement will become null and void and SPF will resume with an appeal hearing to the BOCC.

Why is SPF agreeing to withdraw its appeal? While the best short-term outcome would have been to halt the project, the long-term costs and impacts would have been too great. There was the likelihood that the farmland now owned by Clear Valley would be sold off as residential building lots if the wetland mitigation bank was not constructed. In addition, SPF and other agricultural groups would be forced to appeal and litigate each future wetland mitigation bank proposal. In filing an appeal of the Hearing Examiner s Decision, SPF was focused primarily on the broader policy implications of farmland preservation over the long-term. The focus on long-term policy guided the SPF Board in its deliberations and negotiations on the settlement agreement: What would be in the best interest of Skagit Valley agriculture 10, 50 and 100 years from now? SPF could have continued to pursue stopping the current project from being built, but would have failed to address the long-term issue and impact of placing commercial wetland mitigation banks on farmland. The Board of Directors has been working tirelessly at the local and state level over the past three years to address the issues surrounding wetland mitigation banking on farmland. This settlement agreement achieves a long-term strategic outcome for Skagit County s agricultural community by eliminating wetland mitigation banks as an allowable use on Ag-NRL zoned lands, and through the mitigation payments to Skagit County s Farmland Legacy Program will enable additional farmland to be protected from conversion to non-agricultural uses. It should be noted that prior to the signing of the Settlement Agreement the BOCC signed into law a 6-month moratorium for wetland mitigation banks on farmland, demonstrating their commitment to this settlement agreement and for the protection of Skagit Valley s critical mass of agricultural lands. Additionally, 220 acres of farmland owned by Clear Valley but not part of the wetland mitigation bank will be permanently protected by the placement of agricultural conservation easements, adding to the more than 6,000 acres of farmland already protected in Skagit County.

Does this agreement prevent other habitat enhancement and restoration projects from taking place on farmland? No. Only the specific practice of commercial wetland mitigation banking is being prohibited on farmland within Skagit County. SPF and the farm community recognize the value and importance of working with conservation groups to make sure the Skagit Watershed remains a vibrant and healthy ecosystem for fish and wildlife today and tomorrow as it did 100 years ago. As one local farmer, Curtis Johnson, puts it, every day is Earth Day for farmers. Does this mean SPF will give up its advocacy at the local and state level for protection of farmland from wetland mitigation banking? No. SPF will only withdraw our objection from issuing permits for the Clear Valley project. We have retained all our rights to continue to review the project for environmental impacts and to have our concerns addressed. The settlement agreement does not require us to stop our work at the local and state levels to advocate for policies and rules that protect farmland in Skagit Valley as well as around the state. Our message is clear: Farmland in the Skagit Valley will be protected. Any conversion efforts will be fought and/or mitigated to ensure that we have a critical mass to continue farming for the benefit of future generations. Moving forward, SPF pledges to continue working for the successful adoption of a county and statewide no-net loss policy for agricultural lands. The erosion of farmland must end if we want to preserve for future generations a productive agri-ecosystem that grows delicious, safe, secure food and provides critical habitat from more intensive urban use. The agricultural heritage and quality of life that we enjoy today in the Skagit Valley are a testimony to the hard work of many and SPF is committed to preserving both. Has there ever been an agreement such as this for wetland bank mitigation on farmland, in Washington state or elsewhere? Wetland banking is a fairly new undertaking in Washington state. To our knowledge there has not been a settlement for wetland bank mitigation on farmland in Washington. Is SPF benefitting financially from the settlement agreement? No. SPF did not receive any funds from the settlement. SPF purposely negotiated to have the settlement directed to Skagit County s Farmland Legacy Program, a public land trust, which has protected over 6,000 acres of farmland since it was created in 1996.

What did SPF pay for the appeal? How were the costs covered? The SPF Board of Directors unanimously agreed to appeal the Skagit County Hearing Examiner s ruling favoring conversion of 396 acres of farmland to a wetland mitigation bank based on the organization s mission to protect and preserve Skagit Valley farmland. The costs for the appeal are projected to be $70,000 and are covered by SPF s Land Protection funds. A percentage of support was provided by the Skagit County Farm Bureau and from some SPF members and supporters. Is anyone else a party to the settlement agreement? Friends of Skagit County (FOSC was asked to be a part of the settlement discussions and agreement and as of March 13, 2009 has declined to participate in the discussions or agreement.