Carolyn's point about native grasslands

[John D.]

Good point about native grasslands...

I don't think anyone is advocating or would advocate for the
destruction of native grasslands in the effort to protect agricultural
land.

My inclination would be to focus any policy recommendations on
conservation of ag soils. If this is the focus, then there is no
conflict with conservation of native grasslands where they currently
exist -- and it may even provide restoration opportunities.

The movement associated with protection of ag land isn't about sod-
busting or encouraging degredation of ecological systems (beyond what
has already been degraded).

I would suggest that it is rather about conserving an important
resource (soils), maintianing working landscapes and the economy that
goes along with them, providing some amount of locally grown foods
(and associated economy), and directing development to appropriate
locations (i.e., not on good ag soils or native grasslands).

Again, if the focus is on conservation of ag soils, then the items in
the preceeding sentence seem to flow logically as benefits of
recommending and adopting a good ag land policy.

John

[Carolyn]

I agree John, I don't think anyone is advocating for ag lands over
native grasslands. However, ag soils as they have been mapped for the
CFAC effort and the recommended Ag Conservation Areas, do contain ag
soils that are currently native grasslands. I'm sure this is
unintentional but unfortunately there is currently not a good map of
existing native grasslands to overlay with ag soils and remove the
conflict. This would not be a problem if we do as you suggest and
simply recommend that all remaining existing or previously cultivated
ag soils be conserved. I would also suggest that we recommend that
all remaining native grasslands on designated agricultural soils be
preserved as well. So while I would never advocate for future sod-
busting on native grasslands, I can see where it might offer some
comfort to those concerned with food security.

Also, I agree that any and all tools that can help conserve both ag
lands and remaining native grasslands should be recommended.

John, where we don't agree is on the need for a discussion of how much
is enough. Even though we can recommend conservation of remaining ag
soils, it's simply not realistic to expect that the County will be
able to protect 100% of what's left through the subdivision review
process. If the County and its residents were to identify well-
thought out, publicly discussed, defensible goals for ag land
conservation, then the County would be in a much stronger position to
advocate for those goals. Developers always complain, and rightly so
in my view, that conservation is always a moving target and
inconsistently applied. Clearly identified, defensible goals for
conservation removes that argument. To be clear though, setting a
goal does not have to mean identifying a piece of ground to conserve.
The criteria to achieve the goal can be identified and applied to a
property during the subdivision review process, removing the concern
for property value impacts that drawing circles on a map presents in
the mind of a landowner. This type of process is probably more than
we can address through this topic but it is something I hope OLC can
discuss in the future. While zoning would provide more teeth to
conservation, I'm just not sure OLC will have that discussion.
Setting some goals for conservation in the County would be the next
best thing in my view.