CFAC Report
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Carolyn
Mar 20, 2011, 5:47:04 PM3/20/11
to OLC Missoula County Coordination Subcommittee
Hi Jim and Alicia-
To get the ball rolling on addressing BCC's request for OLC to review
and comment on the CFAC and Time to Grow reports, I've put together
comments summarizing my initial thoughts/concerns related to the CFAC
report. I'm looking for your feedback. I will follow in the next day
or so with comments related to the Time to Grow report. Thanks,
Carolyn
_________________________________________________________________________________
In general, the CFAC report does a good job of identifying the impacts
of changing land use patterns and development on agriculture in
Missoula County over the past 30 years. The maps, figures, and tables
provide important support for the trends and statements summarized in
the document. For the most part, I found 4 of the 5 recommendations
identified in the report appropriate given the described and
quantified impacts to agriculture. However, the conceptual foundation
identified in the report as food security and one recommendation both
gave me cause for concern:
1. The report repeatedly states that food security in the Missoula
region needs to be improved. However, the definition of food security
is not clear. Is CFAC's goal to feed 100% of Missoula County's
residents locally or some percentage of the population? The goal for
food security should have been clearly identified and supported -
something along the lines of "CFAC has identified the goal of feeding X
% of Missoula County's population locally (define local - County-
level?, within X mile radius, etc.) as recent trends in local markets
indicate "something" and the capability of the remaining agricultural
lands are "something". Who better than CFAC to help identify these
goals and help the county initiate that discussion? Without this type
of information, the "desired" amount of agricultural land will always
be viewed and criticized by the pro-development community, as a moving
target.
2. The use of Cornerstone Areas to identify priority areas for
conserving agricultural lands has been identified as Recommendation
1. A primary concern for this approach is that Missoula County
currently does not have a process in place to conduct an impact
assessment to support such an effort. Agriculture has been clearly
documented to have ecological impacts to wildlife, native ecosystems,
and water quantity and quality. To clearly understand the
implications of Cornerstone Areas would require a more inclusive
process whereby potential impacts to existing native grasslands,
wildlife, water quantity and quality, current land use patterns, etc.,
should be evaluated. Further, if the County accepts the use of
Cornerstone Areas for agricultural preservation, would they also not
be obligated to accept the pro-development community's request to
identify "zones of human habitat" (my made-up term)?
Also, from my own professional experience, I have learned that drawing
circles on a map to identify wildlife habitat is the worst possible
approach to undertake where private lands are involved. Usually the
circles are drawn as a result of surveys or observations that have
confirmed the presence of that species on a site. But unless you have
conducted surveys on all potential sites, you do not know the quality
of habitat or species occurrence in areas that have been left out of
the circle. The Cornerstone Approach would have the same results.
Most private landowners understand and very much resent the arbitrary
nature and unfairness of this type of approach and consequently it is
often met with much resistance.
To get the ball rolling on addressing BCC's request for OLC to review
and comment on the CFAC and Time to Grow reports, I've put together
comments summarizing my initial thoughts/concerns related to the CFAC
report. I'm looking for your feedback. I will follow in the next day
or so with comments related to the Time to Grow report. Thanks,
Carolyn
_________________________________________________________________________________
In general, the CFAC report does a good job of identifying the impacts
of changing land use patterns and development on agriculture in
Missoula County over the past 30 years. The maps, figures, and tables
provide important support for the trends and statements summarized in
the document. For the most part, I found 4 of the 5 recommendations
identified in the report appropriate given the described and
quantified impacts to agriculture. However, the conceptual foundation
identified in the report as food security and one recommendation both
gave me cause for concern:
1. The report repeatedly states that food security in the Missoula
region needs to be improved. However, the definition of food security
is not clear. Is CFAC's goal to feed 100% of Missoula County's
residents locally or some percentage of the population? The goal for
food security should have been clearly identified and supported -
something along the lines of "CFAC has identified the goal of feeding X
% of Missoula County's population locally (define local - County-
level?, within X mile radius, etc.) as recent trends in local markets
indicate "something" and the capability of the remaining agricultural
lands are "something". Who better than CFAC to help identify these
goals and help the county initiate that discussion? Without this type
of information, the "desired" amount of agricultural land will always
be viewed and criticized by the pro-development community, as a moving
target.
2. The use of Cornerstone Areas to identify priority areas for
conserving agricultural lands has been identified as Recommendation
1. A primary concern for this approach is that Missoula County
currently does not have a process in place to conduct an impact
assessment to support such an effort. Agriculture has been clearly
documented to have ecological impacts to wildlife, native ecosystems,
and water quantity and quality. To clearly understand the
implications of Cornerstone Areas would require a more inclusive
process whereby potential impacts to existing native grasslands,
wildlife, water quantity and quality, current land use patterns, etc.,
should be evaluated. Further, if the County accepts the use of
Cornerstone Areas for agricultural preservation, would they also not
be obligated to accept the pro-development community's request to
identify "zones of human habitat" (my made-up term)?
Also, from my own professional experience, I have learned that drawing
circles on a map to identify wildlife habitat is the worst possible
approach to undertake where private lands are involved. Usually the
circles are drawn as a result of surveys or observations that have
confirmed the presence of that species on a site. But unless you have
conducted surveys on all potential sites, you do not know the quality
of habitat or species occurrence in areas that have been left out of
the circle. The Cornerstone Approach would have the same results.
Most private landowners understand and very much resent the arbitrary
nature and unfairness of this type of approach and consequently it is
often met with much resistance.
hjcu...@aol.com
Apr 5, 2011, 2:26:51 PM4/5/11
to OLC Missoula County Coordination Subcommittee
Carolyn:
When I received your email, I didn't realize that you had made a
Google post so I drafted something myself and sent it to you and
Alicia via email. And today I thought to check the Google site and
found your entry. We seemed to be interpreting our responsibility to
OLC and BCC a bit differently. Although I emailed an attachment of an
assessment of both reports to you both, I will attempt to paste it
here. The draft I prepared is more of a summary than a recommendation
so perhaps both yours and mine may be useful. What do you think?
OLC Evaluation and Feedback on the Reports:
Losing Ground (CFAC) and A Place to Grow (MOR/MBIA)
Introduction: The sub-titles of the two reports (CFAC: The Future of
Farms and Food in Missoula County and MOR/MBIA: An Informed Discussion
on Agriculture & Land Use in Western Montana) would suggest
considerable overlap in subject content. Since this perception is
largely correct in comparing the agricultural characteristics of the
county, the first four sections of this evaluation/summary lists
major points made with page references provided for each report
followed by a summary comparing the positions taken by each. The
recommendations for steps to be taken to preserve agricultural land
differ so widely between the two reports that each is considered
separately.
1. Agricultural Resources in Missoula County
• Approximately 130,000 acres of privately owned agricultural land
exists in the county. (CFAC-24, 27 MOR-7, 15)
• Of this total, over 29,000 acres are covered with soils having the
highest productivity designated as Prime or Prime if Irrigated.
(CFAC-24 MOR-7)
• Soils of lesser productivity (Statewide and Local Importance) cover
the remaining 100,000 acres. (CFAC-24 MOR-7)
• Long established irrigation systems provide water to 15,000 acres of
cropland (CFAC-28, 29 MOR-17)
• In addition, an estimated 170,000 acres of public forest available
for lease for summer grazing. (MOR-15)
• Summary: The findings of the two reports complement each other in
their evaluation of our agricultural resources,
2. Agricultural Trends in Missoula County 1986-2008
• 24% of the total cropland totaling 29,000 acres has been converted
to non-agricultural use for a loss of 1440 ac/year. (CFAC-26,27, 28)
• The average farm size has decreased by 50%. (CFAC-16)
• The number of farms has more than doubled. (CFAC-16 MOR-22)
• The actual number of farmers listing agriculture as their primary
occupation has remained relatively constant (CFAC-17)
• A majority of present farmers now have another primary occupation
other than agriculture. (CFAC-17 MOR-22)
• Although farmers now receive higher prices for their product,
profits have not kept pace with retail food prices or inflation.
(CFAC-19 MOR-22)
• In 1950, 70% of the food grown and processed in Montana was done so
in the state compared to 10% now. (CFAC-14 MOR-20)
• Missoula County’s farmers and ranchers are getting older with their
age now at an all time high of 60. (CFAC-17 MOR-20)
• Summary: Both reports confirm the validity of the identified trends.
3. The Effects of Sub-division Development on Agricultural
Lands
• Strong pressure exists to use farmland for development. (MOR-23)
• Much of the county land covered with prime soil lies within and
nearby Missoula with an undetermined amount already developed and is
no longer available for agriculture. (CFAC-32 MOR-9)
• From 1990-2009 almost 22,000 acres were sub-divided in Missoula
County. CFAC-28)
• Summary: The two reports concur that sub-division development
pressure is severe in certain portions of the county and that this has
contributed to the loss of highly productive agricultural land.
4. The Future of Agriculture in Missoula County
• Technological advancements in farming have provided large out of
state farms with a competitive advantage as demonstrated by the rise
of multi-national agri-business operations (MOR-20, 21)
• Food processing plants have largely disappeared in Montana following
the trend toward a greater concentration of the processing industry.
(MOR -22)
• The above trends work to the financial disadvantage of the
relatively small scale local food producers and processers (MOR-22)
• The mountains and weather in Western Montana act as constraints on
agricultural productivity and profitability (MOR-20)
• The scenic values of the Missoula Valley attract people driving land
values to levels that no longer reflect their agricultural potential
(MOR-20)
• If Missoula County were to depend entirely upon the available local
resources, with our present mixed diet, there is not enough
agricultural land available to furnish our present and future needs,
(MOR-15, 16)
• Although there are enough natural resources in the county to meet
Missoula’s current and future food needs, depending on the diet, local
food self-sufficiency is a goal we should pursue only if it is forced
upon us. (MOR-VI)
• Our county’s three Farmers Markets selling locally grown meat,
fruit, and vegetables provide local producers with a rapidly expanding
market. (CFAC-20)
• Farm to Institution programs offer increasing markets to local
producers. UM’s Farm to College program now spends 20% of their $3.7
million annual budget on Montana produced foods. (CFAC-20)
• Grocery stores and restaurants are increasing and buying local
foods. CFAC-20)
• Missoula County farmers shifting to producing higher quality foods
and selling to local markets have experienced a 199% increase in
direct sales in a recent ten year period. (CFAC-19)
• Survey results show that 71% of producers would like to sell more
products locally and a majority of consumers would like to buy them.
(CFAC-21)
• The rationale for strengthening our local food system is to provide
additional markets for local producers, not to divorce ourselves from
the global food system upon which we should not become entirely
dependent. (CFAC-15)
• Summary: The MOR/MBIA report focuses on the national and global
farming and processing trends which have placed our local producers at
a financial competitive disadvantage in their production of
traditional farm and ranch products. Scenic values have accelerated
population growth resulting in elevated land values. The CFAC report
documents several factors resulting in expanding local markets for
local producers. Farmers and ranchers willing to exploit this trend
have modified their production practices to take advantage of the
increased demand for non-traditional farm and ranch products. The MOR
report acknowledges that enough agricultural resources exist, if
necessary, to furnish food security for Missoula County. The CFAC
report states that although this goal may be attainable, it doesn’t
suggest that we should divorce ourselves from the global economy but
neither should we become entirely dependent upon it.
5. Rational and Recommendations for Preservation of Agricultural Land
a. A Place to Grow: Zoning versus Subdivision Review ( MOR/MBIA)
• Unlike zoning, subdivision regulation generally refers to controls
implemented during the subdivision process (42)
• As approved in 1973 and modified in 1975 and 1993, the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act (MSPA) mandated that local governments
review subdivisions for their impact on several criteria including
agriculture.(44,46)
• The “impact on agriculture” criterion was designed to protect
surrounding agricultural land rather than to inhibit the development
of the farm land within the proposed development. (42)
• Subdivisions do not destroy the ability of a community to grow all
the food needed. (50)
• Nothing in legislative history suggests that the “impact” criterion
contemplates the cumulative impact of a subdivision on the county’s
ability to sustain its food growing capacity (50)
• The use of the “impact on agriculture” criterion is a subterfuge to
accomplish open space objectives (47)
• Zoning, not subdivision review, is the appropriate tool for
preserving agricultural land and preventing its conversion to non-
agricultural uses. (50)
b. Losing Ground: Recommendations for Our Food Future (CFAC)
• Human populations and their demand for food continue to rise (38)
• Agricultural soils are a finite resource that is being permanently
lost (39)
• Due to increasing energy costs, transporting food long distances may
become cost prohibitive (39)
• The demand and markets for local foods are increasing (39)
• Although purchased conservation easements funded largely by the
Missoula County Open Space Bond have protected many acres of
agricultural land from development, this effort needs to be
supplemented through the use of additional tools and policies. (34)
These include:
o The identification of Agricultural Cornerstone Areas through an
amendment to the Growth Policy to focus on the most highly productive
regions threatened by development (42)
o Mitigate the loss of important agricultural lands by enacting Ag
Resource Standards for inclusion in the county zoning ordinances and
subdivision regulations (42,43)
o Identify and implement additional landowner incentives which allow
landowners to continue to use their land for agricultural purposes
(43)
o Assisting beginning farmers and ranchers in securing land and in
establishing viable operations (43,44)
o Provide assistance to local markets and processing plants in
expanding their ability to purchase local food (44)
Summary: Whereas the MOR/MBIA report concludes that zoning is the only
acceptable tool for the preservation of land for agricultural
purposes, CFAC recommends the study and implementation of several
different tools which would work together to achieve the desired goal.
When I received your email, I didn't realize that you had made a
Google post so I drafted something myself and sent it to you and
Alicia via email. And today I thought to check the Google site and
found your entry. We seemed to be interpreting our responsibility to
OLC and BCC a bit differently. Although I emailed an attachment of an
assessment of both reports to you both, I will attempt to paste it
here. The draft I prepared is more of a summary than a recommendation
so perhaps both yours and mine may be useful. What do you think?
OLC Evaluation and Feedback on the Reports:
Losing Ground (CFAC) and A Place to Grow (MOR/MBIA)
Introduction: The sub-titles of the two reports (CFAC: The Future of
Farms and Food in Missoula County and MOR/MBIA: An Informed Discussion
on Agriculture & Land Use in Western Montana) would suggest
considerable overlap in subject content. Since this perception is
largely correct in comparing the agricultural characteristics of the
county, the first four sections of this evaluation/summary lists
major points made with page references provided for each report
followed by a summary comparing the positions taken by each. The
recommendations for steps to be taken to preserve agricultural land
differ so widely between the two reports that each is considered
separately.
1. Agricultural Resources in Missoula County
• Approximately 130,000 acres of privately owned agricultural land
exists in the county. (CFAC-24, 27 MOR-7, 15)
• Of this total, over 29,000 acres are covered with soils having the
highest productivity designated as Prime or Prime if Irrigated.
(CFAC-24 MOR-7)
• Soils of lesser productivity (Statewide and Local Importance) cover
the remaining 100,000 acres. (CFAC-24 MOR-7)
• Long established irrigation systems provide water to 15,000 acres of
cropland (CFAC-28, 29 MOR-17)
• In addition, an estimated 170,000 acres of public forest available
for lease for summer grazing. (MOR-15)
• Summary: The findings of the two reports complement each other in
their evaluation of our agricultural resources,
2. Agricultural Trends in Missoula County 1986-2008
• 24% of the total cropland totaling 29,000 acres has been converted
to non-agricultural use for a loss of 1440 ac/year. (CFAC-26,27, 28)
• The average farm size has decreased by 50%. (CFAC-16)
• The number of farms has more than doubled. (CFAC-16 MOR-22)
• The actual number of farmers listing agriculture as their primary
occupation has remained relatively constant (CFAC-17)
• A majority of present farmers now have another primary occupation
other than agriculture. (CFAC-17 MOR-22)
• Although farmers now receive higher prices for their product,
profits have not kept pace with retail food prices or inflation.
(CFAC-19 MOR-22)
• In 1950, 70% of the food grown and processed in Montana was done so
in the state compared to 10% now. (CFAC-14 MOR-20)
• Missoula County’s farmers and ranchers are getting older with their
age now at an all time high of 60. (CFAC-17 MOR-20)
• Summary: Both reports confirm the validity of the identified trends.
3. The Effects of Sub-division Development on Agricultural
Lands
• Strong pressure exists to use farmland for development. (MOR-23)
• Much of the county land covered with prime soil lies within and
nearby Missoula with an undetermined amount already developed and is
no longer available for agriculture. (CFAC-32 MOR-9)
• From 1990-2009 almost 22,000 acres were sub-divided in Missoula
County. CFAC-28)
• Summary: The two reports concur that sub-division development
pressure is severe in certain portions of the county and that this has
contributed to the loss of highly productive agricultural land.
4. The Future of Agriculture in Missoula County
• Technological advancements in farming have provided large out of
state farms with a competitive advantage as demonstrated by the rise
of multi-national agri-business operations (MOR-20, 21)
• Food processing plants have largely disappeared in Montana following
the trend toward a greater concentration of the processing industry.
(MOR -22)
• The above trends work to the financial disadvantage of the
relatively small scale local food producers and processers (MOR-22)
• The mountains and weather in Western Montana act as constraints on
agricultural productivity and profitability (MOR-20)
• The scenic values of the Missoula Valley attract people driving land
values to levels that no longer reflect their agricultural potential
(MOR-20)
• If Missoula County were to depend entirely upon the available local
resources, with our present mixed diet, there is not enough
agricultural land available to furnish our present and future needs,
(MOR-15, 16)
• Although there are enough natural resources in the county to meet
Missoula’s current and future food needs, depending on the diet, local
food self-sufficiency is a goal we should pursue only if it is forced
upon us. (MOR-VI)
• Our county’s three Farmers Markets selling locally grown meat,
fruit, and vegetables provide local producers with a rapidly expanding
market. (CFAC-20)
• Farm to Institution programs offer increasing markets to local
producers. UM’s Farm to College program now spends 20% of their $3.7
million annual budget on Montana produced foods. (CFAC-20)
• Grocery stores and restaurants are increasing and buying local
foods. CFAC-20)
• Missoula County farmers shifting to producing higher quality foods
and selling to local markets have experienced a 199% increase in
direct sales in a recent ten year period. (CFAC-19)
• Survey results show that 71% of producers would like to sell more
products locally and a majority of consumers would like to buy them.
(CFAC-21)
• The rationale for strengthening our local food system is to provide
additional markets for local producers, not to divorce ourselves from
the global food system upon which we should not become entirely
dependent. (CFAC-15)
• Summary: The MOR/MBIA report focuses on the national and global
farming and processing trends which have placed our local producers at
a financial competitive disadvantage in their production of
traditional farm and ranch products. Scenic values have accelerated
population growth resulting in elevated land values. The CFAC report
documents several factors resulting in expanding local markets for
local producers. Farmers and ranchers willing to exploit this trend
have modified their production practices to take advantage of the
increased demand for non-traditional farm and ranch products. The MOR
report acknowledges that enough agricultural resources exist, if
necessary, to furnish food security for Missoula County. The CFAC
report states that although this goal may be attainable, it doesn’t
suggest that we should divorce ourselves from the global economy but
neither should we become entirely dependent upon it.
5. Rational and Recommendations for Preservation of Agricultural Land
a. A Place to Grow: Zoning versus Subdivision Review ( MOR/MBIA)
• Unlike zoning, subdivision regulation generally refers to controls
implemented during the subdivision process (42)
• As approved in 1973 and modified in 1975 and 1993, the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act (MSPA) mandated that local governments
review subdivisions for their impact on several criteria including
agriculture.(44,46)
• The “impact on agriculture” criterion was designed to protect
surrounding agricultural land rather than to inhibit the development
of the farm land within the proposed development. (42)
• Subdivisions do not destroy the ability of a community to grow all
the food needed. (50)
• Nothing in legislative history suggests that the “impact” criterion
contemplates the cumulative impact of a subdivision on the county’s
ability to sustain its food growing capacity (50)
• The use of the “impact on agriculture” criterion is a subterfuge to
accomplish open space objectives (47)
• Zoning, not subdivision review, is the appropriate tool for
preserving agricultural land and preventing its conversion to non-
agricultural uses. (50)
b. Losing Ground: Recommendations for Our Food Future (CFAC)
• Human populations and their demand for food continue to rise (38)
• Agricultural soils are a finite resource that is being permanently
lost (39)
• Due to increasing energy costs, transporting food long distances may
become cost prohibitive (39)
• The demand and markets for local foods are increasing (39)
• Although purchased conservation easements funded largely by the
Missoula County Open Space Bond have protected many acres of
agricultural land from development, this effort needs to be
supplemented through the use of additional tools and policies. (34)
These include:
o The identification of Agricultural Cornerstone Areas through an
amendment to the Growth Policy to focus on the most highly productive
regions threatened by development (42)
o Mitigate the loss of important agricultural lands by enacting Ag
Resource Standards for inclusion in the county zoning ordinances and
subdivision regulations (42,43)
o Identify and implement additional landowner incentives which allow
landowners to continue to use their land for agricultural purposes
(43)
o Assisting beginning farmers and ranchers in securing land and in
establishing viable operations (43,44)
o Provide assistance to local markets and processing plants in
expanding their ability to purchase local food (44)
Summary: Whereas the MOR/MBIA report concludes that zoning is the only
acceptable tool for the preservation of land for agricultural
purposes, CFAC recommends the study and implementation of several
different tools which would work together to achieve the desired goal.
hjcu...@aol.com
Apr 5, 2011, 3:19:50 PM4/5/11
to OLC Missoula County Coordination Subcommittee
Carolyn:
Again, I apologize for not realizing that your posting was on the
Google site as I wasn't sure from our face to face meeting that we
were still using the "discussion" system so I was awaiting your
email.
As you can see, my assessment is simply an outline of the main points
raised by each of the two reports in each of several areas followed by
a brief summary noting similarities and differences. Perhaps this
might be useful as a summary for both OLC and BCC before we get to the
second part of our "assignment", making recommendations, which your
approach seems to be doing.
Here is my response to your posting concerning the CFAC
recommendations:
Food Security: It is not my sense that the purpose of the report was
to identify the number of acres required in Missoula County to provide
100% food security for our present or future populations but rather to
emphasize that productive agricultural land is a resource in such
short supply that all requests to convert it to non-agricultural uses
should be carefully reviewed with clear mitigation policies put in
place which would lend predictability to the review process while
preserving some productive farm and ranch land. Please refer to page
15 of the CFAC report which states "The rationale for strengthening
clarification of CFAC's position concerning the matter of food
security.
You are correct in stating that this position will always be
challenged by those who do not look upon this resource as a finite
entity and assume that we simply don't need to contest the loss of it
because "there is still more of it available" within a 100 mile radius
of Missoula.
The Cornerstone concept: I think your assessment of this proposal is
valid. With the soil mapping presented in both reports which confirm
the findings of the Place Project, the areas with important jump out
at you and may not require drawing circles around them to confirm
their importance, especially considering the probable fallout which
would invariably accompany this designation. Aside from this, the
other tools suggested in the CFAC report are those not presently in
use by the county and may merit our consideration.
> On Mar 20, 3:47 pm, ...
>
> read more »
Again, I apologize for not realizing that your posting was on the
Google site as I wasn't sure from our face to face meeting that we
were still using the "discussion" system so I was awaiting your
email.
As you can see, my assessment is simply an outline of the main points
raised by each of the two reports in each of several areas followed by
a brief summary noting similarities and differences. Perhaps this
might be useful as a summary for both OLC and BCC before we get to the
second part of our "assignment", making recommendations, which your
approach seems to be doing.
Here is my response to your posting concerning the CFAC
recommendations:
Food Security: It is not my sense that the purpose of the report was
to identify the number of acres required in Missoula County to provide
100% food security for our present or future populations but rather to
emphasize that productive agricultural land is a resource in such
short supply that all requests to convert it to non-agricultural uses
should be carefully reviewed with clear mitigation policies put in
place which would lend predictability to the review process while
preserving some productive farm and ranch land. Please refer to page
15 of the CFAC report which states "The rationale for strengthening
our local food system is to provide additional markets for local
producers, not to divorce ourselves from the global food system upon
which we should not become entirely dependent", and seems to be a
producers, not to divorce ourselves from the global food system upon
clarification of CFAC's position concerning the matter of food
security.
You are correct in stating that this position will always be
challenged by those who do not look upon this resource as a finite
entity and assume that we simply don't need to contest the loss of it
because "there is still more of it available" within a 100 mile radius
of Missoula.
The Cornerstone concept: I think your assessment of this proposal is
valid. With the soil mapping presented in both reports which confirm
the findings of the Place Project, the areas with important jump out
at you and may not require drawing circles around them to confirm
their importance, especially considering the probable fallout which
would invariably accompany this designation. Aside from this, the
other tools suggested in the CFAC report are those not presently in
use by the county and may merit our consideration.
>
> read more »
Alicia Vanderheiden
Apr 6, 2011, 11:51:50 AM4/6/11
to OLC Missoula County Coordination Subcommittee
Hello Team!
I also need to apologize for I responded by email to Jims summary and
did not see Carolyn's initial work. Carolyn, are you still planning to
send thoughts on place to grow report as noted above? I think since
our task is an Evaluation and Feedback on the 2 reports...we can
include concerns identified.
> ...
>
> read more »
I also need to apologize for I responded by email to Jims summary and
did not see Carolyn's initial work. Carolyn, are you still planning to
send thoughts on place to grow report as noted above? I think since
our task is an Evaluation and Feedback on the 2 reports...we can
include concerns identified.
>
> read more »
Carolyn
Apr 13, 2011, 8:50:20 AM4/13/11
to OLC Missoula County Coordination Subcommittee
No, I think the work Jim did should stand on its own for part 1 of the
BCC's request. We can have more discussion along the lines of my
initial comment during the discussion phase.
I am trying to wrap my mind around the BCC's statement - "recommended
approaches and strategies". To me this is a bigger problem than just
the agriculture question. The county really needs a holistic and
consistent strategy for evaluating impacts and identifying priorities
on many levels. I would like to see OLC propose a strategy that could
be used for agriculture as well as other potential resource impacts.
I have a hard time thinking in terms of singular issues and setting
priorities that may (or may not) have potential impacts to other
resources. I think this is why I am dragging my feet on this
discussion - the scope feels too narrow to me. To be clear, I whole-
heartedly agree that agricultural soils need to be conserved but that
should happen in a way that is both ecologically and socially
sensitive.
Carolyn
P.S. John DiBarri is going to be joining the group and helping with
our discussions.
> ...
>
> read more »
BCC's request. We can have more discussion along the lines of my
initial comment during the discussion phase.
I am trying to wrap my mind around the BCC's statement - "recommended
approaches and strategies". To me this is a bigger problem than just
the agriculture question. The county really needs a holistic and
consistent strategy for evaluating impacts and identifying priorities
on many levels. I would like to see OLC propose a strategy that could
be used for agriculture as well as other potential resource impacts.
I have a hard time thinking in terms of singular issues and setting
priorities that may (or may not) have potential impacts to other
resources. I think this is why I am dragging my feet on this
discussion - the scope feels too narrow to me. To be clear, I whole-
heartedly agree that agricultural soils need to be conserved but that
should happen in a way that is both ecologically and socially
sensitive.
Carolyn
P.S. John DiBarri is going to be joining the group and helping with
our discussions.
>
> read more »
hjcu...@aol.com
Apr 13, 2011, 11:40:38 PM4/13/11
to OLC Missoula County Coordination Subcommittee
OK, it appears that we are in consensus concerning our report on Part
1 of the BCC request.
In Part 2 BCC is requesting "guidance (from OLC) regarding what
direction(s) the County should pursue in further providing protection
to agricultural lands and activities, as well as providing
opportunities for agricultural operators in the County". This request
seems to be a follow up of Part 1 instructing us, after providing a
review of the two reports, to weigh in on the recommendations made in
each. Your comments, Carolyn, seem to aptly address Step 3. As you
suggest, this involves looking at the "big picture". For the present,
perhaps we should immediately address Part 2 by looking closely at the
recommendations put forward in the two reports and perhaps bring them
forward at our upcoming meeting for at least a cursory review and
preliminary discussion. Very likely OLC may want us to flesh out some
of the possible tools in greater detail before final action is taken
in regards to recommending them to BCC.
To get us started, these seem to be the tools recommended in the two
reports:
1. Identify agricultural cornerstone areas (CFAC-42)
2. Insert Agricultural Resource Standards in the counties zoning
ordinances and subdivision regulations containing specific policies to
be followed to mitigate the loss of agricultural land. (CFAC-44,43)
3. Use zoning (exclusively) as the appropriate tool (other than
conservation easements) for preserving agricultural lands and
preventing their conversion to non-agricultural uses. (MOR-50)
4. Identify and activate incentives (other than conservation
easements) to encourage and reward the conservation of agricultural
land. (CFAC-43)
5. Assist beginning farmers and ranchers in securing land and
establishing viable operations. (CFAC-43,44)
6. Expand the capacity of Missoula's markets to source locally
produced foods and work with farmers and ranchers to assist them in
strategically accessing those markets. (CFAC-44)
If we agree that these are the tools suggested in the two reports,
perhaps we could present these to OLC at our upcoming meeting for the
purpose of initial discussion. Some, such as the cornerstone concept
and the exclusive use of zoning may be items immediately ready for OLC
endorsement or rejection. The others almost certainly need more
fleshing out before OLC may feel confident in discussing them fully
and we'll probably get them back to provide greater detail. And the
input and expertise John DiBarri can furnish will be invaluable here.
And will he be joining us immediately?
What do you think?
> ...
>
> read more »
1 of the BCC request.
In Part 2 BCC is requesting "guidance (from OLC) regarding what
direction(s) the County should pursue in further providing protection
to agricultural lands and activities, as well as providing
opportunities for agricultural operators in the County". This request
seems to be a follow up of Part 1 instructing us, after providing a
review of the two reports, to weigh in on the recommendations made in
each. Your comments, Carolyn, seem to aptly address Step 3. As you
suggest, this involves looking at the "big picture". For the present,
perhaps we should immediately address Part 2 by looking closely at the
recommendations put forward in the two reports and perhaps bring them
forward at our upcoming meeting for at least a cursory review and
preliminary discussion. Very likely OLC may want us to flesh out some
of the possible tools in greater detail before final action is taken
in regards to recommending them to BCC.
To get us started, these seem to be the tools recommended in the two
reports:
1. Identify agricultural cornerstone areas (CFAC-42)
2. Insert Agricultural Resource Standards in the counties zoning
ordinances and subdivision regulations containing specific policies to
be followed to mitigate the loss of agricultural land. (CFAC-44,43)
3. Use zoning (exclusively) as the appropriate tool (other than
conservation easements) for preserving agricultural lands and
preventing their conversion to non-agricultural uses. (MOR-50)
4. Identify and activate incentives (other than conservation
easements) to encourage and reward the conservation of agricultural
land. (CFAC-43)
5. Assist beginning farmers and ranchers in securing land and
establishing viable operations. (CFAC-43,44)
6. Expand the capacity of Missoula's markets to source locally
produced foods and work with farmers and ranchers to assist them in
strategically accessing those markets. (CFAC-44)
If we agree that these are the tools suggested in the two reports,
perhaps we could present these to OLC at our upcoming meeting for the
purpose of initial discussion. Some, such as the cornerstone concept
and the exclusive use of zoning may be items immediately ready for OLC
endorsement or rejection. The others almost certainly need more
fleshing out before OLC may feel confident in discussing them fully
and we'll probably get them back to provide greater detail. And the
input and expertise John DiBarri can furnish will be invaluable here.
And will he be joining us immediately?
What do you think?
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages