Response to ongoing discussion

[John D.]

A few thoughts based on the Google Group discussion.

I don't think we or the BCC need to be wedded to any of the rationales
or tools suggested in either report. My sense is that the 2 reports
are available to provide foundational information about the issue of
agriculture and development in the county. It is certainly useful to
complement that information with personal experience, feedback from
others, and other sources of information.

Food security is a nebulous term. I'm not that hung up on it and I
tend not to use it. From my perspective the bottom line is that good
agricultural soils are a finite resource. Good policy would be to
ensure the conservation of a maximum amount of this resource in order
preserve options for farming into the future. No soils, no farming is
a pretty simple concept that should resonate with the public and
decision-makers.

Good policy would also ensure that a diversity of tools are available
to ensure conservation of this resource. This includes zoning,
subdivision regulations, incentives, mitigation, and probably lots
more things I (we) don't know about...

It is no secret where good ag soils are. If you own some you likely
know it -- especially if you are a farmer. It seems to me that
another attribute of good policy is that it is transparent. In that
regard, I don't see a problem day-lighting those places in the county
that are rich in the ag soils resource. These are the areas that need
to become the focus of good policy to ensure maximum conservation of
this resource.

We have done this with other resources -- the DNRC just mapped state &
private forest resources across the state, FWP is mapping crucial
habitats and connectivity for the state (both of which include private
lands), some counties have mapped riparian resources (on private
lands), Missoula County mapped many resources through the PLACE
project (again, some on private lands)... The county has also mapped
"zones of human habitat" (which is a fine term) -- one big one is
called Missoula, smaller ones are called Lolo, Seeley Lake, etc.

So, my sense of the mission is to recommend to the BCC whether OLC
thinks ag soils are an important resource worth conserving for
whatever reasons we think (well outlined in the 2 reports, as we know)
and some approaches that we (and all of OLC) think might make sense to
achieve this goal.

John

[hjcu...@aol.com]

"The bottom line is that good agricultural soils are a finite
resource." Absolutely the way to focus during our examination of
possible tools! Well stated, John, as is the argument that "No soils,

no farming is a pretty simple concept that should resonate with the

public and decision-makers." The beauty of the finite resource
statement, is the clarity with which it identifies a resource of
utmost importance to all, not just those who happen to live on the
land.

And does OLC "think ag soils are an important resource worth
conserving"? Perhaps before we go too much further in studying
appropriate conservation tools, we need to obtain OLC's response to
this question at our meeting next week. If the answer is in the
affirmative, we can continue full steam ahead.

I agree with John that that we should consider any tools out there
which could be used for the preservation of agricultural lands. As a
starting point, however, it may be well to first examine the tools
suggested in each report and expand the list as needed. This will take
some careful study and time to avoid hasty recommendations. In doing
this does it make more sense to bring to OLC the tools we have
investigated thus far or wait until we have completed the whole
package? If we decide on the former course of action, we could
possibly bring the Cornerstone concept up for OLC discussion next
week.

[Alicia Vanderheiden]

I like John's argument. My brain starts further back that land itself
is a finite resource...and there are certain activities that severely
restrict the viability of the land to serve alternative purposes in
future. Ag is not one of those...Ag helps keep options open. Zeroing
in...good ag soils within our landscape are limited in scope and
size. I don't have a problem with the term food security...but I
lived in East Africa for a number of years where its a common
conversation. I think the term only serves to stir the pot here and
agree to focus on values of ag that are more readily shared...ag soils
are part of the working landscape...et al.

I do think we need to discuss/be prepared to discuss Carolyn's earlier
points about quantity...how much ag is enough....and about Heather's
concerns

[Carolyn]

I am guessing the full OLC will wish to recommend conserving Ag land.
Where it will get sticky for me is in the scope of this
recommendation. Ag soils are a finite resource but so are native
grasslands. A cumulative effects analysis would likely show that
native grasslands are a heavily impacted system in Missoula County, if
not the most impacted. Not surprisingly the map of remaining
agricultural soils overlaps with remaining native grasslands. As yet,
nobody has produced a map of the remaining native grasslands for
conservation in Missoula County. I would feel a lot more comfortable
with this request if we are just recommending conserving existing Ag
land. If we are both conserving native grasslands and Ag land where
they occur, then we are on solid ground for defending this approach.
If you are recommending conservation of existing and potential Ag
land, then you are also recommending probable ecological impacts -
that doesn't make sense to me and doesn't seem like a responsible
approach for the County. Conserving the remaining native grasslands
will also provide the option to convert to Ag in the future should the
need arise.

[Jim]

Although they are the most readily definable, it would indeed be a
disservice to the agricultural operations in Missoula County to have
identifiable productive soils as our only area of conservation
concern. And, as Carolyn suggests, grasslands are a finite resource as
well.

When you suggest, Carolyn, that our focus be on the conservation of
"existing" agricultural and grasslands, do you mean those lands which
are currently being used for that purpose at this time or would you
include the historic use of that property as well although it now may
seem to be simply unused open space? I lobby for inclusion of the
historic use to prevent developers from purchasing productive
agricultural property, not use it for that purpose, and thus avoid
conservation policies and standards designed to protect these finite
resources.

And once we have arrived at consensus concerning the lands to be
focused upon, perhaps we can turn our attention to the use of specific
tools for consideration by OLC to forward to BCC to achieve our
general goal.

And how much agricultural land is enough? Enough for what? Enough to
serve the needs just of Missoula County? Or, as a finite resource in
short supply on a global basis should we take this into consideration
as well? The ever expanding human population suggests the latter
concern.

Hey! Now we are having a real discussion! This approach just might
work!