1. Call to Order The Ravalli County Open Lands Board meeting was called to order by Chairman Alan Maki at 7:08 PM.

Transcription

1 Ravalli County Open Lands Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, :00 P.M. Commissioner s Meeting Room 215 S. 4 th Street, Hamilton, MT Public Meeting #80 This is a summary of the meeting, not a verbatim transcript. A CD of the meeting may be purchased from the Planning Office for $ Call to Order The Ravalli County Open Lands Board meeting was called to order by Chairman Alan Maki at 7:08 PM. 2. Roll call A. Members Present: Alan Maki Kent Myers Sharon Schroeder Kate Stone Paul Moore Ron Worth Bob Cron Rob Johnson Penney Howe-Canton via phone Tonia Bloom (EO) B. Members Absent: Drew Blankenbaker Patrick Mangan (EO) Katrina Mendrey Commissioner Chris Hoffman C. Staff present: Chris Taggart, minutes Also present: Terry Nelson, Planning Director, Kyle Barber BRLT, Grant Carlson BRLT and Gavin BRLT. 3. Approval of Minutes: November 16, 2017 Kent moved to approve the minutes as read. Seconded by Sharon. Public comment on motion: none. Discussion: none. All voted aye (9-0). 4. Amendments to Agenda: Change items 8D and 8E (switch them). 5. Public Comment Items Not on Agenda: Page 1 of 8

2 Kyle spoke briefly about upcoming OLB projects this year (potentially 5). He then stated that the Federal Farm Bill ends in 2018 (BRLT has 3 potential projects which will be applying to that program). Grant briefly spoke about a recent land acquisition which closed last week. IT is a 70 acre parcel along the river, just south of Hamilton and adjacent to River Park. The intention is to include transitioning this land to the City of Hamilton loosely within the two years. The application for this land acquisition project will come before this board this year. 6. Communications from Staff: Updates and Reports Terry stated that the County may have a new planner within the next month or so. 7. Unfinished Business: None. 8. New Business: A. New Members/Renewed Members preference on receiving meeting materials Ron Wirth introduced himself. Consensus of OLB members: continue to receive meeting materials via and keep website contact information private and filter all inquiries through the Planning Office. B. Election of 2018 OLB Chairman Sharon moved to re-elect Alan as the 2018 OLB Chairman. Seconded by Rob. All voted aye (8-0), Alan abstained. C. Election of 2018 OLB Vice-Chairman Bob move to re-elect Sharon as the 2018 OLB Vice-Chair. Seconded by Rob. All voted aye (9-0). E. Wildlife Resources representative presentation Kate reviewed her findings, specifically animals and species of concern from her hand out. MNHP most recent list is dated Discussion and questions ensued. D. Conservation Sub Committee proposed definition changes for Guide (met on 1/11/18) Page 2 of 8

3 Kent explained the subcommittee s proposed and recommended changes to provide greater clarity and definitions within the project scoring worksheet (listed below). Cover page for PROJECT SCORING WORKSHEET Original text There are six major categories in the Project Scoring Worksheet that reflect the goals of the Ravalli County Open Lands Program: General Attributes, Agriculture Resources, Natural Attributes, Additional Community Benefits, Proposed Funding, and Special Attributes. In all but the Special Attributes category there are 2 to 8 questions each with a value of 3 to 4. A minimum score of 50 points is needed for a project to be considered by the OLB past Phase 1. Projects scoring below 50 points will be forwarded to the BCC with a recommendation to deny funding. Suggested changes There are six major categories in the Project Scoring Worksheet that reflect the goals of the Ravalli County Open Lands Program: General Attributes, Agriculture Resources, Natural Attributes, Additional Community Benefits, Proposed Funding, and Special Attributes. In all but the Special Attributes category, there are 2 to 8 questions each with a value of 3 to 4. Criteria for assigning scores for each attribute are given in the Project Scoring Worksheet. Intermediate scores may be justified in some cases, and the applicant should refer to the detailed attribute descriptions on the following pages for additional guidance in assessing the project s merit in each category. A minimum score of 50 points is needed for a project to be considered by the OLB past Phase 1. Projects scoring below 50 points will be forwarded to the BCC with a recommendation to deny funding. Justification for changes Clarifies that intermediate scores may be assigned Additional comments Corrected typo in paragraph 1 on this page: there may be circumstances where the scoring NA2 Wildlife Habitat Scoring criteria: Page 3 of 8

4 Original attribute description: NA2: Does the property contain important wildlife habitat? A property with a diversity of important habitats will score higher than a property that is all one type of habitat with little value to wildlife. For example, a property adjacent to the National Forest on elk winter range with a mix of rolling forested and sagebrush foothills, a healthy stream and riparian area, a healthy wetland, and connected to another large block of undeveloped and protected habitat would have high value as wild- life habitat. Conversely, a property surrounded by development with an open pasture of non-native vegetation or weeds would have low value as wildlife habitat. Properties that contain habitats of rare plant associations or communities will also score high (Montana Ranking of S1, S2 or S3). Please see elk and mule deer winter range maps on file with the Ravalli County Planning Department and refer to for plant community types. Suggested attribute description changes: NA2: Does the property contain important wildlife habitat? A property with a diversity of important habitats will score higher than a property that is all one type of habitat with little value to wildlife. Attributes that are desirable for wildlife habitat include the presence of multiple native plant communities, healthy wetland or riparian communities, habitat for Montana Species of Concern, habitat that is limited in the Bitterroot Valley (e.g., sagebrush), or areas that provide linkage between important habitats. For example, a property adjacent to the National Forest on elk winter range with a mix of rolling forested and sagebrush foothills, a healthy stream and riparian area, a healthy wetland, and connected to another large block of undeveloped and protected habitat would have high value as wild- life habitat. Properties that contain habitats of rare plant associations or communities (Montana Ranking of S1, S2 or S3) are also beneficial for wildlife and should be given a high score. Conversely, a property surrounded by development with an open pasture of non-native vegetation or weeds would have low less value as wildlife habitat and therefore would score lower in this category. Properties that contain habitats of rare plant associations or communities will also score high (Montana Ranking of S1, S2 or S3). Please see For information about elk and mule deer winter range, see maps on file with the Ravalli County Planning Department; for descriptions of plant community types, and refer to for information about Montana Species of Concern, see Page 4 of 8

5 Justification for attribute description changes: Provide greater clarity and definition regarding desirable attributes of wildlife habitat Include references to source documents that may be consulted in assessing the habitat attributes of a property Additional comments: Corrected one typo: replace wild- life with wildlife NA3 Wildlife Scoring criteria: Original attribute description: NA3: Is the property occupied seasonally or year-round by a diversity of wildlife, especially elk and mule deer, threatened or endangered species, any Montana Animal Species of Concern (S1, S2 or S3 rating), or rare/unique species. For example, a property that provides winter range for several hundred elk and mule deer plus a diversity of other wildlife, especially species of concern, would score higher than a property with potential habitat but occupied by relatively few animals. For more information about Montana Animal Species of Concern and their ratings see Suggested attribute description changes: NA3: Is the property occupied seasonally or year-round by a diversity of wildlife, including species of high social value (e.g., elk, mule deer), or animal species of concern. Animal species of concern may include federally Threatened or Endangered Species, especially elk and mule deer, threatened or endangered species, any Montana Animal Species of Concern (S1, S2 or S3 rating), a species with limited local or regional distribution, or a native non-game species dependent on a single plant community. or rare/unique species. For example, a property that provides winter range for several hundred elk and mule deer plus a diversity of other wildlife, especially species of concern, would score higher than a property with potential habitat but occupied by relatively few animals. For more information about Montana Animal Species of Concern and their ratings see Page 5 of 8

6 Justification for attribute description changes: Clarity and definition of the term animal species of concern in the scoring criteria Removes the vague term rare/unique species from the attribute description Allows for consideration of non-game species Additional comments: Kate Stone will prepare paper copies of Montana Animal Species of Concern definitions and listings and provide some context for species likely to occur in the Bitterroot Valley. NA7: Proximity to important wildlife or fisheries habitat, natural areas, or Important Bird Areas Scoring criteria: Original attribute description: NA7: Is the property close to other important wildlife/natural areas, and, if so, how close (in miles)? Examples include Important Bird Areas (recognized by the Audubon Society), elk or mule deer winter range (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP)), Wildlife Management Areas (MFWP), important fisheries (MFWP, or other data), or other important habitat areas. Suggested attribute description changes: NA7: Is the property close to other important wildlife/natural areas, and, if so, how close (in miles)? A natural area is defined as an area protected with the intent to conserve and enhance native plant communities and/or native ecosystem processes. Examples include Important Bird Areas (recognized by the Audubon Society), elk or mule deer winter range (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP)), predicted habitat of Montana Animal Species of Concern (S1, S2 or S3 rating), Wildlife Management Areas (MFWP), important fisheries (MFWP, or other data), or other important habitat areas. Justification for attribute description changes: Adds clarity and definition to the term natural area in the attribute description Page 6 of 8

7 Clarifies that habitat for Montana Animal Species of Concern may be considered in scoring Additional comments: Predictive models for wildlife are based on best-available data, but are generally coarse in nature and not always accurate when applied at small scales. If a property falls within mapped elk/mule deer winter range or the predicted habitat of a Montana Species of Concern, OLB will rely on the applicant to demonstrate wildlife occupation or the presence of appropriate habitat features. NA8: Proximity to other natural areas protected by conservation easements or public lands Scoring criteria: Original attribute description: NA8: Is the proposed conservation easement close to other significant natural or wildlife areas that are protected by conservation easements or to public lands? Suggested attribute description changes: NA8: Is the proposed conservation easement close to other significant natural or wildlife areas that are protected by conservation easements or to public lands? public lands managed for natural resources (e.g., National Forest Service, National Wildlife Refuge, State Trust Lands, some County/City Parks), other protected wildlife areas, or private lands that have a conservation easement that lists wildlife habitat as a conservation value. Justification for attribute description changes: Provides clarity on the variety of ownership and management practices that qualify for points based on this attribute Additional comments: OLB recognizes that some agricultural properties with conservation easements may also provide wildlife habitat. Such properties could gain points under this attribute. OLB will rely on the applicant to provide evidence of a nearby private property having wildlife habitat attributes. Page 7 of 8

8 Kent moved to adopt the sub committee s recommended changes as amended here today, for the scoring criteria with addition of updating the OLB website links. Seconded by Bob. Public comment on motion: Kyle. Discussion: Bob, Kate, Alan, Kent, Tonia. All voted aye (9-0). 9. Communications from Board and proposed agenda item: Alan spoke about the possibility of changing the OLB meeting hour during winter months (November through February). Kate moved to schedule the February 15, 2018 meeting from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Seconded by Rob. Public comment on motion: Kyle. Discussion: Alan, Penney, Kent, Sharon, Bob, Kate, Tonia, Terry and Rob. Alan, Kent, Sharon, Kate, Rob and Ron voted aye ; Penney, Bob and Paul voted nay, motion passed (6-4). 10. Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting: February 15, 2018 at 3:00 PM 11. Adjournment: Penney moved to adjourn meeting at 8:25 PM. Seconded by Sharon. All voted aye (9-0). Page 8 of 8