The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM041811 District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Snllivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: Philip Morley Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of April 18,2011 Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Phil Johnson. PUBliC COMMENT PERIOD: The following co=ents were made by citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: . The Prosecuting Attorney stated that there was a security scare in the Courthouse last week and he is concerned about Courthouse security; . Kitsap Mental Health had to release 61 mental health patients last month and another 300 people are being turned away from mental health care because there is no funding. Someone needs to be a champion for mental health funding in the State so the legislature puts a priority on it and the needs of people are put first; . We need adequate security in this Courthouse and the building needs to be upgraded for earthquake; . Everyone was invited to the Grand reopening of the park and campground in Quilcene next weekend which will include many other events during the day; . A proclamation was submitted to the Board to recognize "Parental Alienation Awareness Day" on April 25 and it has not been on the agenda yet; . The Board needs to talk to the lady asking for the proclamation for recognition of parental alienation as a form of child abuse; . There are definite needs for more security and safety in the Courthouse and there needs to be security for this room; . There are issues with the franchise agreement with PSE that is on the agenda today. This agreement says that only Jefferson County can use these poles for free and everyone else will have a pay fee and that includes NoaNet. This is a non-exclusive franchise agreement and that means that PSE could come back and build a utility for just the most profitable customers while every other customer would have to pay higher prices to the PUD; . Sheriffs Deputies need to be document when people are removed from the Commissioners meetings. The Prosecuting Attorney knows that there are certain defined weapons in the RCW. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to delete Item 1 and to approve the balance of the items as presented. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. DELETED Resolution No. Re: Hearing Notice: 2011 1st Quarter SupplementaI Budget Extension - Appropriations; Various County Departments; Hearing Scheduled for May 2, 2011 at 10:15 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers 2. AGREEMENT NO. GI000404, Amendment No.2: Coordinated Prevention Grant - Education; Increase Amount by $3,473.00 fer a total of $53,465.00; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology Page 1 Commissioners Meetinll Minutes: Week of April 18, 2011 ~' .~..~,.. '" 3. AGREEMENT NO. G0800563, Amendment No.1: Grant Funding for the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA) Sewer Design Development Project; Reclaimed Water Grants Program; Revenue in the Amount of $197,797.00; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Ecology 4. AGREEMENT: Recycle Warehouse Roof Repair; lnthe Amount of $3,902.40; Jefferson County Public Works; Olympic Steel LLC 5. AGREEMENT: Target Zero Task Force Project; Revenue in the Amount of$42,985.00; Jefferson County Sheriff; Washington Traffic Safety Administration 6. Payment ofJefferson County VoueherslWarrants Dated April 11, 2011 totaling $677,900.02 and Dated April 12, 2011 totaling $1,671.50 COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates on the following items: Commissioner Sullivan reported that he spent time in Olympia as budget issues were discussed and attended the WSAC Legislative Steering Committee. Licensing was discussed with regard to legalizing medical marijuana and the unfunded mandate it would create for counties. He also attended a PRTPO meeting in Shelton. Many communities in the region are finding that there are liability issues when Transit systems use private property for bus stops. He will be attending the Transit Finance Committee and the Transit Authority meetings this week. The RC&D will no longer be funded with federal dollars and the Executive Director position will manage the outstanding grants. It is not known what will happen once those grants are concluded. Commissioner Johnson reported that he toured the Brinnon Motel and Community Center with the County Administrator and the Facilities Maintenance Foreman. This is an important community meeting hall but there are problems with the facility that are complicated and need to be addressed. He reported that the issue of medical marijuana came up at the LEOFF Board meeting and that Board agreed that this medical expense . not be allowed until the State makes the sale legal. Chairman Austin reported that the State Board of Health (BOH) will have a presentation on the radiation from Japan as it may effect Washington State. There is monitoring done in several places around the State. They do not recommend that people take potassium. In order to save funds the State BOH has stopped paying travel expenses for the Board members. There were members who tried to participate in the meeting by phone. but that didn't work well because the technology wasn't adequate. Philil' Morley noted that Team Jefferson will be working to transition from WSU to a stand alone entity. The first joint meeting of the Regional Parks and Recreation Committee is being arranged by staff. BID OPENING: Jefferson County Courthouse RoofStabillzation Project: This bid opening was cancelled. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPROVAL: Resolution Granting a Nonexclusive Franchise to Install and Operate Electric Power Facilities in Eastern Jefferson County; Puget Sound Energy: County Administrator Philip Morley reported that the record was kept open after the oral testimony was closed. Jim Pearson, Public Works Development Review Planning Projects Coordinator, advised that staff has reviewed the comments received and have summarized them. The Public Works Department recommends that the franchise be granted. Commissioner Sullivan said that the PUD submitted a letter. They have discussed the issues with their attorneys and they do not feel there is any issue with them moving forward with taking over the PSE electric utility and working with NoaNet. The PUD is a member of NoaNet. Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of April 18, 2011 ~"~' ~.~ ..., Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 14-11 authorizing the Puget Sound Energy, Inc. nonexclusive franchise to construct, maintain and operate electrical power transmission and distribution lines together with poles, wires, and other appurtenances upon, over, along and across a franchise area within unincorporated Jefferson County. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Philip Morley noted that a question brought up this moming about this franchise allowing PSE to come in as a competitor of the PUD after the PUD takes over the electrical utility. Jim Pearson clarified that the franchise provides that it can be transferred to another party. The PUD and PSE would apply to the County to transfer the franchise. The Board would take action on that request. There are sections of the franchise that would have to be revised if the PUD took it over. PSE is regulated by the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTe) and the franchise reflects that regulation. The PUD would not be regulated by the UTC. The franchise includes standard language on the issue of County facilities on the poles, Philip Morley noted. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application; 2011 Public Service Grant and Close Out of the 2010 Public Service Grant; Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCAP): Tim Hockett, Executive Director of Olympic Community Action Programs (OlyCap), explained that this hearing is on the closeout of the 2010 Community Development Block grant and the application for 2011 Community Development Block grant. He thanked the County for being the host agency for this block grant which provides services in Clallam and Jefferson Counties. There are about 15,000 people in poverty and in one way or another OlyCap helps about 12,000 of those people. OlyCap helps people survive poverty by making sure that they receive basic needs (clothing, food, shelter, medical attention) and they try to help people get out of poverty. There are two funds that help OlyCap provide services: 1) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and 2) Community Service Block Grant (CSBG.) The application that is coming by the end of the week is for a 6 month period (July through December) for close to $70,000. He thanked Treasurer Judi Morris for her 16 years on the OlyCap Board with 12 years as the Chair of the Board. She just resigned from the Board and provided sterling leadership and professionalism during her tenure on the Board. He also thanked Karen Bednarski, Auditor's Accountant, for her assistance to OlyCap. The economy has put more people at risk and more people are falling into the poverty category. There are many people coming to OlyCap now who have never before had to ask for help. OlyCap works with people who are the hardest to employ. Another group that is left out of the workforce are teens because now there are older people coming out of retirement taking service sector jobs that used to be given to teens. The emergency service program is robust with the Peninsula Home Fund which is used to provide direct help to people in both Counties. Health Care access has been a big issue because health care costs continue to rise which is exacerbating poverty. The Dental Clinic in Port Angeles had to be closed even though it served 2,000 people in 2010. The Health Care Authority notified OlyCap that the funding contract was suspended midterm and then Medicaid changed the rules on coverage for adult dental services which meant that $30,000 per month was lost which forced OlyCap to close the clinic. OlyCap has been completely evaluating the agency's services with regard to funding contracts, and discretionary funding. Programs must fit the funding that is available. The weatherization program jumped from serving 25 homes to 45 in 2009 and 188 in 2010. In the next six months OlyCap plans to spend about $30,000 out of the $70,000 in emergency services, $15,000 into home care, $12,000 into Nutrition and a similar amount in energy Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of Apri118, 2011 ~"..~ ~ IN'~ services. OlyCap is working heavily in and around Port Townsend on shelter and affordable housing services. The Chair opened the public hearing. Hearing no co=ents for or against the closing of the 2010 CDBG Block Grant and the application for the 2011 CDBG Grant, the Chair closed the public hearing: Co=issioner Sullivan moved to approve RESOLUTION 15-11 the certification of compliance for CDBG Public Services Grant which designates the County Administrator as the Authorized Chief Administrative Official to act in official matters in connection with this application and Jefferson County's participation in the CDBG program. Co=issioner Johnson seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING: Draft East Jefferson County Forest Plan: Mike Cronin, Consulting Forester in Jefferson County and retired DNR Forester, explained that a year ago several people met with DNR about the proposed Pope Resource land exchange and as a result were asked to provide an alternative to the DNR 2008 Asset Management Strategy. The 2008 Strategy basically drew a line through east Jefferson County roughly west of the Center Valley Road and all of the lands on one side (indicated in brown on the Strategy map) are outside of what DNR considers long term forest management land. Many of those parcels are currently zoned as forestland (indicated in green on the map.) There are many 20,40 and 80 acre small private forestland owners who benefit from being adjacent to other co=ercially manaeed forestlands. The DNR Strategy was to block up and consolidate their forestlands to the west of Highway 101. This alternative considered the individual characteristics of each and every DNR parcel. The 40 to 45 parcels were evaluated carefully to determine their value as habitat, potential forest management revenue generation, and all specific characteristics, prior to a reco=endation being placed on the parcel. They reco=end that DNR continue to manaee and hold the vast majority of those parcels. Some of the parcels have specific ecological features that generate higher levels of protection and the reco=endation is to transfer them to protected status. The proposed Asset Management Strategy provides more than one alterative for most of these parcels. Very few are reco=ended for exchange to private parties. There is a great deal of pressure to convert forestlands as land values go up and these DNR managed parcels are no exception. The land values on the east end of Jefferson County are a little higher and they are close to the hills. To use that as a criteria to dispose of parcels leads you toward disposing of all parcels as growth occurs around them. They believe by holding them and maintaining them the conversion of forestlands can be reduced and private landowners who are adjacent to them will be assisted to manage their land and maintain the infrastructure for continuing work in the forest. Peter Bahls, Director, Northwest Watershed Institute, said this plan was put together looking at each individual parcel's habitat, timber values, and recreation and open space value to figure out the maximum public benefit option for that parcel. The advantages ofDNR having a dispersed ownership is having accessible open space near where people live and helping to prevent conversion of forestlands. If DNR moves out of an area of forestland, over time it makes it a higher risk of conversion from forestland base. This plan took over a year to develop through the work of foresters, habitat biologists and other interested local citizens. There has been strong letters of support sent to the Commissioners for this alternate strategy from the Port Gamble S'Kla11am Tribe, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Forest Tech (a forest consulting company), Hagen Consulting (a forestry company), Northwest Natural Resources Group (focus on preserving forestland and sustainable forestry), the Olympic Environmental Council, the Olympic Forest Coalition, North Olympic Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Jefferson Land Trust and the Olympic Environmental Council. p.age 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of April 18, 2011 ~ ~ Commissioner Sullivan asked about the affect on local taxing districts between the two different plans? Peter Bahls explained that DNR would make available for exchange all the parcels outside the areas they want to keep in long term forestry and over time there would be no Forest Board land left in those fire districts. If there is no Forest Board land there is no tax revenue for those fire districts. Once the land is exchanged there is no way to tag the parcel back to the original fire district. In terms of other revenue both proposals are about the same. If some of the parcels are put in Community Forest as proposed in the alternative proposal, it can only occur on school land and not on Forest Board land so there would be no net loss of the Forest Board land in the County. Commissioner Johnson asked what "Community Forest" is actually? The legislation creating a Community Forest Trust category was just passed, Peter Bahls explained. If there is a piece of school property it can be converted to the Community Forest Trust which buys out the difference between the timber value and the development value of the property. The County and the DNR would split the cost of buying out that additional development value. The parcel would be permanently protected as a piece of forestland and managed for forestry and there isn't the same obligation to produce the maximum revenue from it Commissioner Sullivan said mllnllging small pieces ofland for forestry is a different operation than managing a very large area. We have many small lot owners that need assistance from people who know what they're doing to mllnllge their small parcel. It seems like this would facilitate having those businesses available in the community because they would have enough work. Mike Cronin noted that without the. DNR anchor forest parcels, particularly in the east side of the County, there won't be many larger working forest tracts. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Jennifer Ports. Port Ludlow. stated that she was included in the group that worked on this alternate plan. She is the daughter of one of the initial consulting foresters of America and a concerned citizen. To her working forests are essential for many reasons. She said they were looking at a way for DNR to move forward in looking at what she considers their concurrent responsibilities of providing recreation for the public, being thoughtful of environmental concerns, and the need to promote working forests. They have a mandate for public land, not to promote private land or private interests. They wanted to give DNR a set of protocols where they can look authentically at each piece of property on its own merits not some red line that's drawn in the middle of the County. That kind of a cut and run situation is not beneficial for DNRs mandate. These are tools for DNR to use to evaluate each property and they looked at each of the 45 parcels of public land in east Jefferson County. This is kind of a watershed that is not only important for east Jefferson County, but all State lands in all the counties of Washington State and even farther. Washington State is often in the forefront of these industries. They looked at this, not as a way to hamstring DNR, but as a way to provide thern more tools with which to more authentically evaluate what their purview is which is public lands. Ed Wilkerson.. Fire Chief. Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue. stated that two letters (one from him and one from the Fire District Board of Commissioners) were submitted. Their position on the land swap hasn't changed from the letter dated April 14, 2009. They have taken a narrow focus on this complex issue. Their concern is that any loss of revenue to the Fire District is something they should be very concerned about. So far this year the District has received over $40,000 in Forestland Trust funds. This is an amount that has a huge Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of April 18, 2011 e". .:'^ .....-,. . impact on their budget. They do not want to see any land swap occur that would take Trust land out of Port Ludlow Fire and Rescue's jurisdiction. Connie Gallant. Ouilcene. representing the Olympic Forest Coalition, said that the Coalition's mission is to protect forest and aquatic resources. They have always tried to work with DNR, particularly for DNR to adhere to their management plan when it comes to protecting wildlife and habitat. She became involved in the land group because of her concern about the land swap and also the DNR retreat from the hills. A key issue is to have DNR remain in eastern Jefferson County. Our economic woes cannot be overemphasized and the Fire Districts and junior taxing districts cannot afford to lose the funding they currently have and for that reason they insist that DNR adhere to their management plan and do not yield to development with our public lands. The members of the Olympic Forest Coalition strongly support this plan and they hope that the County does also. Hilton Tremble. Biololrist with the Jamestown S'K1a11am Tribe. reported that their Chairman submitted a letter in support of the Asset Management Strategy dated April 6, 2011. The Jamestown Tribe supports this Strategy for the reasons listed in the support letter and due to their long term interest in keeping Trust lands in a public management strategy. They are also looking at the Foothills land exchange which is a large land swap between DNR and Green Crow Corporation. This land swap covers a small amount of land in east and west Jefferson County, as well as Iimds in Clallam, Grays Harbor, and Mason counties. Almost 7,000 acres of Trust land will be traded to Green Crow for 9,000 acres ofDNR property. There are 7 Tribes affected by and in support of this land exchange. This land exchange has almost the opposite effect of what was being proposed here. It's the private timber industry parcels that are located in lower areas and subject to development pressures and are being traded to DNR Owen FairbAnk President. Jefferson Land Trust Board of Directors. advised that they have submitted a letter in support of this plan and acknowledge DNR's willingness to give the group two years to come up with an alternate and he appreciates the way they manage timberland. They do it in a way that is more beneficial to the community than what is allowed under the Washington State Forest Practices Act. They want to see these lands saved. Diversified parcels benefit all of us in terms of open space and habitat and their support of other working forests. AI Scalf. Director. Jefferson County Department of Community Develonment. said that from the perspective of Growth Management, the Forestland Asset Management Strategy involves 23,457 acres. From the macro perspective of Jefferson County's comprehensive planning under the Growth Management Act, this exchange is part of an overall strategy of resource land mAnAgement. There are 4 components of resource land management in the Growth Management Act: 1) Forestry, 2) Agriculture, 3) Mining and 4) Aquaculture. Jefferson County has 326,044 acres of designated commercial forestland under GMA. Since 1998 there have been applications to covert forestlands. It is very difficult to convert through the Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle and all such recent applications have been denied. These lands are subject to allowable uses from the development regulations which may include forest practices, mining extraction, farming, aquaculture and for residential homes to be built on legal lots of record (whether they are 40 or 80 acres or blocks or larger in size.) The County development regulations (from GMA 060.1.A) are that "Each County shall assure that the use of the lands adjacent to agriculture, forest and mineral lands shall not interfere with the continued use of those resource lands for the production of food, timber and extraction. The Asset Management Plan is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels and Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of April 18, 2011 ~"'..' ;-, ~~ r ~u blocks are consistent with the Land Use Map and any change or rezone would require a Comp Plan amendment James Tracv. Land Use Counsel for Thorndvke Resources and Fred Hill Materials. testified that the DCD Director just testified to the absolute number of acres of private commercial forestland and public forestland in the County. There is no approaching Armageddon with regard to the conversion of these public forestlands to some other use. There are multiple uses allowed on them already. Previous testimony pointed out that the Constitution mRndAtes that the State Commissioner of Public Lands manage public lands for maximum economic production for the benefit of the Common School Fund. Currently we're involved in all kinds of budget manipulations and balancing. Has anyone asked the question that ifwe're not going to mAnAee public forestlands for their maximum economic production as timberlands but instead replace that mandate with manAging for other legitimate values (open space, fish and wildlife habitat) then what is a cost associated to the Common School Fund? That cost can be quantified or at least estimated. There is no such thing as an open space area that pays for itself. You would need to associate user fees that match the loss to the Common School Fund. The issue with the Asset Management Strategy is the loss of revenue to the Common School Fund. If you are going to adopt a different mAnAgement strategy for public lands, and you determine after economic analysis that you want to reduce timber production on DNR lands, the mRnAgement for other functions (open space and habitat, etc.) has a cost associated and that should have some kind offisca1 analysis. The fire issue on public lands is important.lfthey are not managed for timber production and you are going to mRnaee them for other uses, the implications of those other uses for forest fire need to be considered. Chairman Austin advised that the State Superintendent for Public Instruction sits on the State Board of Natural Resources. Gretchen Brewer stated that IIlAnaging the forest to maximize economic extraction is a problematic approach to IJ1AnAging the forest Things like ecosystem services, which is an emerging area, realizes that there is an economic value to maintA;nine the forest as it is. The concept of maximizing the revenue minimi7es the length of time forests are available for extraction of forest materials. DNR records show that there is only 8,000 tons of slash per year actually burned in the forest which means if you're going to extract forest material you will be extracting all of the trees. The 8,000 tons is only I to 2 percent of what the Port Townsend Paper biomass project would need to fuel their burner. In order to maximize the profits you can get from the forest you'd have to cut down the whole forest which would be a very short term use. Mike Cronin clarified that the proposal provides a recommendation for more than 75% of the DNR Trust lands to continue to be managed under the DNR Trust Management program as they have in the past. The Community Forest recommended parcels also would be mAnRged parcels. The difference is that these parcels would not be required to produce revenue for the Trust (Common School or Forest Board) but they would provide revenue to pay for 8dministrative costs. They would not be an increased risk of damage from hazards like forest fire. The Chair closed public comment. Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of April 18, 201 I ~"~~ ,..,..... ," Commissioner Johnson asked where the 8,000 tons of slash is burned each year? Gretchen Brewer answered that is countywide in Jefferson County as an average over the last four years. Commissioner Johnson then asked if the loss to the schools has been estimated? Chairman Austin stated that he sat in on almost all of these Committee meetings and they are trying to keep as much of the land in east Jefferson County under the management ofDNR and not have it converted to privately owned forest. This group is looking to maintain forestIands in the long term. Commissioner Sullivan asked what happens if the Board adopts this alternative plan? Chairman Austin answered that if the Board of Commissioners endorses the plan it will be presented to State Lands Commissioner Goldmark as an alternate for the State Forest Practices Board's consideration. Commissioner Johnson asked that if under this program DNR can m.lnllee open space in a way to recover their management fee, wouldn't that still be a loss to the School Trust? If the land was converted to Community Forest, but this recommendation does not have most of the land going into Community Forest, Chairman Austin answered. The suggested parcels for Community Forest are a placeholder. This alternate proposal does not turn working forests into parks or open space. We can't afford to do that. The main purpose of this is to continue to have working forests where there is harvest and revenue to the County and to the schools. Community Forests could occur in the future, but are not essential to this plan. Mike Cronin then explained that any Forest Board parcel that returns income to the local taxing districts would have to be transferred to an inter-grant exchange to be traded for school parcels prior to them being designated Community Forest. The local taxing district would be reimbursed and would continue to mllintllin their Forest Board land base which is the grant that provides the bulk of their income to the local fire districts. Commissioner Johnson moved to authorize a recommendation to encourage the DNR to consider this alternate Forest Asset Management Plan and to forward it to the State Commissioner of Public Lands. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: Status of Additional Information on FinfISh Aquaculture; Jefferson County Response to Department of Ecology on Changes to the Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program (LASMP) andAdditional Public Input (MLA08-475): Michelle McCounell, Associate Planner, noted that a bibliography of additional information has been prepared on finfish aquaculture. There are 61 items listed with most of them available on-line. A couple of the items in the bibliography are not currently posted because they are still trying to obtain a digital copy. There are also still a handful of items to process. The first 21 documents are key items from '80's and '90's including the finaI programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. At item 22 the items are listed in the bibliography alphabetically by author's name and are mostly scientific papers from peer review journals, but there are also items prepared by the County's Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, David Alvarez. There is quite a diversity of Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of April 18, 2011 ~' ~ \..:f; " .~ , topics and issues that are addressed. This is a lot ofinfonnation to review and consider. DCD staffhas not finished reviewing all of these documents. Commissioner Johnson asked if the County could ask DOE to approve the SMP minus this issue so that the Board can have more time to review all of the documents? Michelle McConnell advised that they have not posed this question to DOE. DOE has already given a response on the County's LASMP that included a prohibition on finfish and net pen aquaculture. She does not believe they would be amenable to a complete omission of that issue from the program. Commissioner Johnson clarified it wouldn't be an omission, but a moratorium. Michelle McConnell advised that a moratorium would be a separate action from the text of the program. Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, explained that the Code allows the County to update the Shoreline Master Program at any time. There would be the challenge of completing it and then going through a whole update process on the SMP within the maximum time line of a moratorium which is 6 months plus 2 extensions or a year and a half total. The discussion continued regarding what would have to be done if a moratorium is considered. AI Scalf added that DOE could approve the LASMP any day and if they approved it with a conditional use for salmon net pens this Board, under their legislative authority, could place a moratorium on the net pens with a statement of public interest and a work plan for the 6 months of the moratorium. Commissioner Sullivan noted that there is an advantage to many people for having the LASMP approved fairly soon on everything but the net pen issue. Stacie Hoskins added that non-conforming lots are having a challenge at the moment and are waiting for adoption of the new SMP. Commissioner Johnson added that he would love to see the adoption of the SMP (without addressing net pens) moved forward. Chainnan Austin asked what the process is for an article to be included in the bibliography? Michelle McConnell explained that at this point anything that staff has come across has been added to the list. Philip Morley said that currently DCD staff can exercise review of any document as to whether it is pertinent to the subject or not, but once the public hearing is held anyone can submit anything for the record. Commissioner Sullivan said that he is still interested in the conditional use criteria, if the County goes that route, or the possibilities for a ban. He has concerns because the SMA says aquaculture is a preferred use as long as it is non-polluting. When you look at all the criteria for different permits and all the exemptions from State and federal law it is pretty clear that it is polluting to a degree. The discussion turned to some of the questions that need to be addressed: what are the criteria for conditional use permits? how do you monitor cumulative effects? how many net pens would be too many? how much of a burden should be put on the first net pen application because it will set the groundwork for future applications? and how do we get a baseline for what we have and then measure any impact from that baseline to determine how many is too many? Commissioner Johnson stated he is not comfortable making a determination at this time. Commissioner Sullivan asked if the 1986 guidance document and the RIS have been brought up to date? Michelle Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of April 18, 2011 ~ ~ McConnell reported that they have not found more current versions of those documents. There are some scientific and permit documents that are more current. The discussion turned to what is done in other counties, states and countries regarding net pens. Philip Morley advised that the Board has stated many issues for staff to work on and next week staff is proposing to bring a letter to send to DOE seeking an extension of the end of April deadline that the County thought it could meet, since this review is not complete. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the business scheduled for the morning. All three Commissioners were present when the meeting reconvened at 1 :36 p.m. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. . Briefing re: Draft Memorandum of Understanding for the Management of the Upper Hoh Road . Calendar Coordination . Legislative Update . Miscellaneous Items . Future Agenda Items NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Connnissioner Johnson moved to adjourn at 4:25 p.m. until the next regularly scheduled meeting or properly noticed special meeting. Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ptn~o Il~ Davi~~ember Page 10 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Babls and Mike Cronin, members, Public Lands Group DATE: April 18,2011 RE: Public Comment and Potential Revision and Adoption of a Draft "Forests for the Future: An Asset Management Strategy for State Forest Lands in East Jefferson County" STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On April 4, 2011, the Board of County Commissioners will conduct a Public Hearing to hear public comment and consider finalizing and adopting a Draft Forestsfor the Future: An Asset Management Strategy for State Forest Lands in East Jefferson County, for submittal to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Draft Strategy, once finalized and adopted by the County Conunissioners, would be submitted to DNR for consideration as an alternative to DNR's 2008 Asset Management Plan for East Jefferson County. ANALYSIS: The Public Lands Group is requesting BoCC support for a long term plan to conserve the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the draft report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County. State forestlands are dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and are important in providing timber revenue to the various taxing districts, for protecting fish and wildlife habitats, and for accessible recreation and open space. State forest lands are also pillars that help hold up the forestry zoning and timber land base in areas at risk of conversion for development. Instead of trading away many of these public lands and consolidating in more remote areas as the 2008 DNR asset management strategy would allow to occur, the report lays out a plan for DNR to help protect and strengthen the existing forest land base and timber economy throughout East Jefferson County. The plan, developed by the Public Lands Group (pLG), including citizens of Jefferson County with expertise in forestry, habitat and conservation, addresses DNR's concern with continuing to manage smaller parcels in areas with increasing development pressure. The plan evaluates the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identiJY the best strategies for long term management. The plan calls for most lands to continue to be managed by DNR as "working forests". Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed as Community Forests (ifDNR decides not to manage them as working forests). Some smaller parcels with high ecological values and low potential for timber revenue are proposed for permanent conservation through the Trust Land Transfer program. Only four small parcels, with moderate to low habitat values and already largely surrounded by development, are proposed as suitable for exchange. The plan also recommends that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds in east Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. FISCAL IMPACf: DNR's 2008 Asset Management Plan, if implemented, would shift DNR's holdings, including Trust Lands, out of the eastern part of East Jefferson County thereby reducing DNR Trust Land revenue to junior taxing districts (such as Fire Districts) where they are now located. Because DNR proposes to find new locations within Jefferson County, it is possible revenues to the county itself might not be harmed. The newly proposed "Forests for the Future" Asset Management Strategy would retain most Trust Lands in their current locations, retain management by DNR, and thereby would protect existing revenues to junior taxing districts where the properties are now located. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board hear public testimony at the Public Hearing, consider the record, and direct any refinements to the Draft Strategy. If after closing the record and dehlJerating, the Board does not wish to make any revisions, on April 18 the Board could: . Pass a Motion to adopt a Final Forests for the Future: An Asset Management Strategy for State Forest Lands in East Jefferson County, and . Pass a Motion to sign a letter transmitting the Strategy to Peter Goldmark, Commission of Public Lands. If the Board wishes to make revisions to the Draft Strategy, on April 18 the Board could pass a Motion requesting the Public Lands Group and staff to make the changes, and bring back a Final Strategy for adoption by the Board of County Commissioner at its next meeting, April 25. ~4- tj;;~ Date 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dm4 Y. SII11lvua, DWd.lt 1I Jolm AIIlI1:ID, DJatMt 3 . June 1,2009 Honorable Peter Goldmark Wn"hin&ton State Commi~,.;oner of Public Lands 1111 Wn"ltil'lgton Street Olympia, WA 98504-7001 Pear Peter: Thank you for your letter dated May 11, 2009 whkh further explained the pIO~ East Jefferson Land Exchange between Pope Resources and the State DeJ"'ltw.:nt of Natural Resources (DNR). As offered in your letter, Jefferson ~ SUpports a delay of tile exchange or sale ofDNR parcels 6 . 8nd 8, as well as portions ofDNR parcels 5 and 7. To that effect. we have initiated outreach to poteatial parIners who may wish to participate in the future preservation of that land. . We i:l,NtleWte your efi'orIs in working witltPope Resources regarding the prcltectionofpttblic health and water ~ and look em w....d to working together to secure land needed for a commUDi~ septic system for the Paradise Bay area. Thauk you again for your Wl11l1lgJ"MS to hear ourconcems. We app......iate your consideration of the County's interest in your decisions and look forward to worldng cooperatively with DNR. and Pope ~U1..es in the comlng mnnth$. 2tu-. Member ~ Phou (360)38&-9100 J'aa (360)388-9382 "'f8ln~ @lloJeffes.-.-'- ..... < ~<. .... bol;1._QL, . ~ PW.~ Peter Goldmark Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands May 11,2009 -"- ",>- y;rIT~ . ,,'<~ 'J"" . . :._~"~ The Honorable David Sullivan The Honorable Phil Jobnson The Honorable]ohn Austin Jefferson County Board of CommiAAioners 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 MY tJ.;;l. ?P"'" JE;:.r~- -':~ ';'1 "'c, '- "j'll")\"""~1 " ;. .. '~J Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the recent letter,. dated May 1,2009 from Mr. Philip Morley, Jefferson County AdministnltOr,regarding the proposed East Jefferson Land Exchange. I also appreciate Chairman Austin taking the time to meet with me recently in Olympia to discuss your concerns. As I explained to Chairman. Austin. DNR dOes Cpnsider the county's interest when making decillions regarding any state trust land, especially State FOte$t Lands (previously known, lIll Forest Board Lands). The State Forest Lands, however, are a state trust and m~nllged according to specific statutory requirements. The counties are beneficiaries of the income but do not have a proprietary interest Itis the State's duty to protect and enhance the trust as a whole, not just within the borders of indivi<h1al Cpunties. We believe the proposed exchange accomplishes this objeCtive by creatblg forest blocks that provide more sustainable habitat, recreation and revenue fQr the oounty and other beneficiaries. Regarding your specific requests, a 50-year restrictiOIl is not consistentwith trust mm111gement principles as it adversely affectSptoperty val1.leS. Pope Resources could not reasonably be expected to take lands at full price with such a condition in place, and the State in turn could not trade the lands at such a deeply discounted value. However, leaving the existing State Forest Lands in place will likely result in reduced or no future income to the county, which again is not consistent with prudent trust manll&ement. We believe that Pope Resources has worked hard to address the concentS you have raised: . Pope Resources has agreed to enter into an agreement with the Port Ludlow Village Council (pL VC) and the South Bay Community Association (SBCA) committing to no mining in DNR exchange parcel #6 and no rezones of these lands prior to 2025. We believe this is a reasonable approach, especially given that controlling land use, including OepartmenrofNatumI REl$OtJrces 1111 Wa$hlngtori ST BE MS 47001 Olympia, Washii1gtOn 98504-7001 (360)902-1000 ~ -<it. . EaSt JefferSon Land Exchange May 11, 2009 page2of3 conversions, is much more appropriately addressed by the county and other local govetnmentS under the Growth Management Act, Shoreline Management Act and other authorities rath~ than by the Department of Natural Resources. . Pope must comply with the Forest Practices Act requirements in the same manner as DNR or any other fo~. The Forest Practices Act is designed to address the concerns you have identified and, other than ensuring compliance with the act, DNR does not have the legal aUthority to require Pope to engage hi forest practices that exceed those required under the Forest Practices Act. As an additional measure of protection, Pope has acquired certification fortheit fQrest pI'll.Ctices front the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. This is the same certification program that DNR is operating under on the Olympio Peninsula and therefore a similar level of protection would be provided under Pope's ownership as underDNR's. . Pope has been very responsive to your concern regarding the protection of pUblic health and water quality in regards to the Paradise Bay CommunitY's need for a large, on-site septic system. Pope agreed in writing to allow Paradise Bay to acquire the land it needs for its septic System project, and they have agreed to work within the timeline necessary fur the community to meet its gJ:llIlt application. This goal is far easier for Pope to accomplish than fot the state, whieh most likely would not be able to sell trust land for this purpose and certainly could not meet the same 1itneline. . Pope Resources allows non-motorized recreation on theit l~yeat-round and hunting is allowed where it does not pose a threat to residential areas. Given the proximity of some DNR parcels to coml"unities such as Port Ludlow (DNR 6), Tala Point (DNR 8) and Beaver Valley (DNR 9), it is likely Pope will impose some shooting restrictions on those properties to protect citizens. However, by acquiring Pope lands and consolidating trust lands in less developed areas, DNR will actually make more state lands available f()1' sustainable recreation. I believe ONR a.nd Pope ba'IIeactedJn very good. faith to address these issues wherever legally and reasoI18bly possible. I also understand and share your concerns about COntl:Olling land conversions, which is in part why we are taking the Dabob Bay and thorndYke trust land f:t'ansfer proposals to the Board ofNatIttal Resources for approval in June. These proposals will transfer own~p Qr lease 250 acn:s of ttu$t lands within this area to the county. I have also diteoted my staff to approach Pope regarding the possibilities of a smaller exchange, specifiCally without DNR 6, 8 and potentially where feasible those portions ofDNR 5 and 7 not teqUited as part of the Paradise Bay transaction. I am agreeable to withholding these parcels from the eJ(chaJ):ge or sale, but only for two years. During this time, I expect that you will also actively explore and exercise your options as the duly elected andauthorlzed representatives of < ~ ;>1'_' . ~. '.'- -.'L <" .hs' ')',/'. ',.'\, , . .~ ~.; " .'-~1; ," . I~wiJf\tlllmPJ)I fiotd~ Jaitds;;"''fl'l''I~~$fiIr__J!l.Y~le&~!ll!J1dtiiieJ~~ . ''''.........~~~~.,11Wt.:t....'T.Ai., U"'.._......_IA.....i.~~itad_rg. :Om~"*iH~~ r ~~VA;~v.;..=~... .J:1Il~~~f,I~' A4Jt5i..,&...~.,. _ oI-~~..."f!.if, . .~Mc:mJ$lU('Mli.JU7~_~)J;1liese4tlds:foJ10i1a~Si~lim. rtI~;jj..~.f1lVbile..:D,\~,jj.'Btbt;llt~a~~~J:l)~~l;t t.~lout... .~WiIl~~te'WOtk.Uj;mltbi$~~~~ ;<cj ",j,: '. ",; ',,,, ~.~..,."",."~- -""-'" 'n. -. , . ~()fMlcr.- ...:t' :;J. , " AI "j ';,". _ ~ac1; ~~~~;;:~~~~q,,' .', ..... ",S.~~~~MHt\..rnMtci.u1d~Di:vi$i()JtMan.,.. lotin'~QlympiQ~~ ,'. '. ' n-Jdii;'. . ~,i,:::.,..cnQ :p-~....;.....' ~."..,UlJCII!';~.ll!'I'~~.....,. ~l"".. _. File 0f.m57 . ... . FUo~ 'i,~l ~>> " ,",.' ..'~ . "',~ ,.".1 ;f" :;,,' , ',- " ",~" . ,'j, - -"., 1$" ", '~., "", '>e..' ..../ . Philip Morley 1820 Jefferson street PO Box 1220 Port TO'WDsend, WA 98368 . May 1,2009 HlItIora1l1e Peter Goldmark Washington SlBte Commissioner of Public Lands III 1 WashingtOn. Street Olympia, WA 98504-1001 D3vid Nunes, President & CEO Pope Resources 19245 Tenth Ave. NE Poulsbo. WA98311)..1456 . BE: Jeft'ellSOnCoUDtyPosition on Proposed DNRlPope TImber Land Swap Dear Commi~oner GoldmJlrk ami Mr. Nunes, On Aptl124, 2009,The 1efferson County Commi""ioners received a letter ftom Pope Resources proposing certain mitigations of the proposed East.1elferson LandExcbange No. 86-083323. Previously, the County Cou>ltIi~ioners had writ.ten a letter to Commissioner GoldmJlrk dated March 23, 2009, outlining the County's concerns about impacts from the proposed swap, and stating J.efferson County's opposition to the swap in absence of certain protections for the public and environment At their meeting April27, 2009, the Jefferson County Commi",,;oners reviewed Pope Resl>urses' proposed mitigation, and lings that it is non-responsive to out concerns. The Board directed that I clarify their position for your attention. To wit: . Jefferson County values DNRas a good steward of its lands and the surrounding environment We.also value Pope Resources as an important land holder and corporate member of our cOD1Jll.unity. ( l DNa Parcels 2, 5, 6, 8, n, 13 & 14 (see enclosed map) are CountyTrustLands held and IIllJ1I8ged by DNl on.1elferstln County's behalf. As sUch, we hope that DNR will give substantial weight to the COunty's input on any proposed swap involving these properties. The County remains deeply concerned that timber lands currently held by DNRand proposed to be swapped to Pope Resources will be converted to non-timber uses such as mining or residential development, negatively impacting the envinnunent and established communities, and that even as timber lands, unless they are managed in a mmmcr consistent with DNR's practices, significant avoidable impacts to environment and witter quality are possible. PhQl:le (360)385-9100 Fax (360)385-9382 pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us -. . Letter re: Jefferson County Position on Proposed DNRlPope Timber Land Swap May 1,2009 Page: 2 . . To protect water quality and shellfish in Tarboo Bay, Puget Sound and Hood CanaI, and to protect existing communities and the continued viability of Port Ludlow, Jefferson County is opposed to any swap ofDNR Parcels 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, &. 14 (see enclosed map), unlesS an enforceable agreement is put in place that prohibits an application for conversion to a non-timber IISe (such as mining or reSidelltlal development) for a period of 50 yean. . To further protect public health and water quality, Jefferson County also opposes the swap of DNR Parcels 5 &. 7, unless an adequate well-head protection zone, and adequate land is provided for a !age On-site Septic SysWm (tOSSlfor the Paradise Bay ColIllI1unity aspartofthe swap. . Jettersoll County is Opell to leSs stringent conversion restrictions on DNR Parcels 2, 3, ]0, ] 1 &. ]3 pnmded a enfun:eab]e agreement is put in place for all \iwuml DNR Patcels in.the swap (parcels 2, 3, 5, 6,7,8,9, ]0, 11, 12, ]3, & ]4) to guanttrteethatPope Resources will: o Engage in the same forest practices fonowed by DNR (e.g. pnlSCIVing cerUliI1ll!1'ge trees from harvest, Rftendirlg to habitat preservation, andexercislng similar timber harvest rotation lengths); and o GIIllI1IIrtee citizen access and hunting at least equal to that current1yenjoyed onDNR forest lands. If the Department of Natural Resources and Pope ~esources can provide the assurances outlined above, JetrtllSOa CountywoJJld support tile JlIoposed 1and swap. If these assurances are not provided by the state and Pope for any of the parcels nanted above, lef:Terson County must oppose the proposed swap in order to protect our delicate environment as well as the character and future of our community. We hope yon will give weight to our concerns and requests for assurances of the continued stewardship of tiles<: important resource lands within our County, especially in view that seven of the parcels in question are County Trust Parcels. Administrator Encl: Vicinity Map Cc: lOll Rose. Olymple Property Group; JOM Viada, DNR Olympic Region Manager; IJJ1ie Armbruster, DNR Transactions Project Manager (--:) , ,""'- '"',. .. LeiterI'll: Jeftenmil CounlyPlJSition on PropcJsed DNRlPope TImber Land Swap MllY 1.2009 hae:3 . ) P.~!J.l uISast~_~.t..ndEXCh6d9._ ---..---- ---- --..--",--- ~~---- it,~ ORR.~Lanl.1I. t"';;;/':US'F~\S:eftIoQ- :;:'&i}':-"OIMli'AtCf.,.. ';7:'-;~; -0Ibet.. . . (j '. -III .~'N""''''w",', -~-~ _ "--..-.c_ 1820 Jeft'erson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port To.asend, WA 98368 Dav14 W. 8oJlhu, DImict II .roJm Aaatb1, DIlotIM 3 March 23, 2009 Honorable Peter Goldmlll'k W911hlltgtOn State Commissioner ofPublie Lands 1111 Washington Street . Olympia, WA 98504-7001 Dear Peter. We thank you for your continued interest in lefferson County. Please be aware that a friendly welcome waits you whenever you make a visit to Port Townsend. Commi'"9ioner Austin visited you last month to express concerns about the propu,oed PopelDNR Iud swap. As you know, a number ofoUl' constituents have expressed opposition to the swap and have communicated that opposition to us and to you. We have considered the DNa to be a good neighbor to the CountY ud have 8J1preciated the availability of 10hn Viada and AI Vaughn. We hope that the DNR asset mtmllgement plan would allow a continued presence ofDNR lands in eastern Jefferson County. We ai-e sensitive to the voice of our constituents who have expressed such strong opposition to the swap, and we are awan: that a private company has a different mission than theDNR. This letWl'is to let you know of our concern. Would it be possible for the DNR to include a legally binding document from Pope that: 1. Would guarantee 110 conversion to residential or mining for 50 years; 2. GlJlullU~ that Pope will engage in the same forest practices followed by DNR, e.g. preserving large trees after a harvest, attentling to habitat preservation. a protracted timber harvest; 3. Guarantee citizen access and hunting equal to that etin'errt1y enjoyed on DNR forest lands; 4.. Guarantee well-head protection and adequate land for a large on-site septicsysteJn for the Pll1'lIdi"" Bay Community. Without such guarantee$, we would be opposed to the transfer ofDNR lands to a private colJ!PllI1Y. We appn:.:iate yom willingness to hear our eonc:erns. Sincerely, f1-pb-~_ - @ri~ David Sullivan, Chair Phi11:~~ember ~~ PIlou (360J385-9100 .... (360)388 9382 j..~~,jeJr___ . . . C C. (A y 11-/ I /I Hood Canal Coalition P.O. Box 65279 Port Ludlow, W A 98365 HEARING RECORD Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 AprJ! 5 2011 RECEIVFr Arf( 04 ""I "'- Dear Commissioners JEf~ERSOl\! COUNTV COMMISS~ONERS We strongly support the Jefferson County proposed plan for long term maintenance and operation of East Jefferson County forest lands. The report "Forests for the Future - An Asset MAnagement Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County" describes a holistic approach to maintaining working forest lands that protect wildlife habitat, fish and water quality. We believe that the Deparbnent of Natural Resources (DNR) is a better, more thoughtful, mAnager of forest lands than private sector for,est owners. The DNR approach is better balanced and more careful, while protecting the public interest andlong term benefits of timber revenue and conservation. We believe that the push for residential expansion and zoning upgrades will increase substantially in the coming decades. DNR ownership of East Jefferson County forest lands, when combined with "Community Forests," would be highly effective in limiting sprawl within the Hood Canal watershed. This is most critical in the Port Ludlow - Shine region where development pressures are the strongest. We urge you to work diligently to maintain DNR as our best practice, local foresters while also seeking funds for Community Forest using the Trust Land Transfer program. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Jefferson County. cJA~t:;;;:J Hood C~ Coalition (C'. lA q {L11 \ \ ~ENTERPRISE CASCADIA ~ HEARING RECORD . . . -------------------------------~---------------------------------------------.- Astorl<, OR 'Portland, OR tlWl1Co,WA PonAnga~WA ReCEiveD April 7, 2011 . Honorable Board of County Commi!l!lioners Jefferson County P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 APR 04 2011 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dear Honorable Bow of County Commissioners, _ EnteIJlPse CaS!l"t1ia suppo~JhelQng:tl:rm plan to~IlS(!l"Ve the ~. fgrest !!mds !If t:aSt_ ._ Jefferson County as described in the report Forests for the Future..:. An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands in East Jefferson County. . State forestlands are dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and are important in providing timber revenue to various taxing districts, for protecting fish and wildlife habitats, and for accessibll; recreation and open space. State forest lands are also pillars that help hold up the forestry zoning and timber land base in areas at risk of conversion for development. Instead of trading away many of these public lands and consolidating in more remote areas, we urge the Department ofNatmaI Resources (DNR) to engage in helping Jefferson County strengthen the forest land based and timber economy here. The plan calls for most lands to continue to be managed by DNR as "working forests". Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed for Co=unity Forests (rrDNR decides not to manage them as working forests). Some smaller parcels with high ecological values and low potential for timber revenue are proposed for permanent conservation through the Trust Land Transfer program. Only four small parcels., with moderate to low habitat values and already largely surrounded by development, are proposed for suitable exchange. 'Enterpiise Cascadia strongly suppottif tlie PLU's~ieCoIrJ:JileIidliti()n thafDNJ{'invesfl'roperty-- . - Replacement Account funds in east Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. Sincerely, ~o.B~ . Mark D. Bowman Vice President and Senior Loan Officer Enterprise Cg.......t1ia 203 Howenon Way, if. Tel360-642-4265 . P.O. /lox 826 Fox 360-455-4879 5e/VidoS en Ingles y EspoiloJ l/waco, WA 98624 W'tWI.sbpac.com ~~ ~'" ~ C-C'..', t:> oce C-A- Page 1 of! jeffbocc From: Ann Sargent [asargent@jamestowntribe.org] Sent: Tuesday,ApriI05,201110:09AM HEARING R'rCORD To: jeffbocc 1:1 Cc: Scott Chitwood; W Ron. Allen Subject: An Asset Management strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County Attachments: Jefferson County DNR forest land.pdf Honorable Board of County Commissioners Attached fmd the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe's letter in support for the long term plan to conserve existing state forest lands of East Jefferson County as descnoed in the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County. If you have any questions please contact W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman/CEO at 360-681-4621 or e-mail the Chairman at ra1len@jamestowntribe.org. Thank you, Ann AI1N\IStM'"~ Executive AssIstant to Tribal Chair/CEO W. Ron Allen Jamestown S'K1allam Tribe 1033 Old Blyn Hwy Sequlm, Wa 98382 ph: 360-681-4661 fax: 360-681-4643 e-mail: asarqentcw.iamestowntribe.ol'Q 4/5/2011 } ---.. JAMESTOWN S'KLALLAM TRIBE 1033 Old Blyn HJglnvay, 5eqr,xim, WA 911J82 3&0/63)-1109 FAX 360J681-4643 April 6, 2011 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 (e-mail toieffbocclQ1co.iefferson.wa.us) HEARING RECORD RE: An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County Dear Honorable Board of County Commissioners, The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe supports the long term pIao to conserve existing state forest Iaods of East Jefferson County as described in the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County. The Tn'be feels that should DNR trade its forest Iaods located near population centers to private interests the potential of these furest Iaods to be quickly harvested and developed fur some other use is sigoificaot Because eastern Jefferson County contains the natural resources reserved by the Tn'be through its treaty with the United States, the State of Washington is our co-manager in the protection and conservation of these resources. The level of protection for habitat that supports our fish and wildlife resources is much higher on state DNR land than it is on private forestIaod. The Tn'be wishes to continue protecting the cultural resource value that presently exists on DNR Iaods. We have a working relationship with DNR fur the protection of culturaIIy significaot trees fur example. State forestlands are currently dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and provide tax revenue to the County, schools, and local fire districts. Local tax revenue will be lost ifDNR Iaod is consolidated to other portions of the county. Existing DNR Iaod provides high quality, productive, fish and wildlife habitat that our tribal citizens depend on for hunting opportunities. State forest lands anchor forestry in areas at risk of conversion for development The Public Lands Group (pLG) created a high quality evaluation of the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identify the best strategies for long term management Their group includes citizens from Jefferson County with expertise in forestry, habitat and conservation. The group volunteered hundreds of hours to develop this pIao. Instead transferring DNR Iaod, the Asset Management Strategy recommends to place the Iaod into a Connnunity Forest category, where forest thinning is the primary management tooL We would also like to work with the DNR on these properties to ensure that deer and elk habitat, where appropriate, are enhanced. This strategy also supports the DNR mandate to preserve furest Iaod in urbanizing areas. iLt .,,-()/~ W.Ron~/CEO . ". .'- .-~' ;')If;"!,>,'\ 'i;" -'I8l~:li',~';i,(j':',':: ' . 7, &t16~~, ~','.,... ". .;,~ :h~k;:\~~ - '~.. .~ : . , ...' .;.,":..,:;,(:.~:~tr~:,..:" ':'. ~'~/;>.:,'" ":"'" '."~:. :':<"'\~'-""'~ <f ......An~~~i_~~..l..r__**~'..., E Jeff FoNIt,Plan.. ~. ..; .' i. . . :"" ",-' "'",:''' ':'-;;'.'~ ;~', ;':. :c., ~. t~'- "c .. --"'. . ~: ~,';;'7t~ ~, ,: .~ ~. 1.....~.'h~,;,;4'~.;~~~... . ..~. ., \ " {'" " '1...,......' <-- ". '-.',-" ",." ..:' ;>'~~;5' />~'. -, .";" ~~'" ,.T~t ~ , ' , . - -~" r De_PraJ'tt4l'l' ;' ~-.e~., ~west"~.. ..,.,.. . www.nn....Ofl ,. ; J'. , ^~,~ " Pap-loft ) ",', ",:~j~".: h~b' "j ;...... ~"I "'""~-- '~ '" ,~ - ,j ~. ]' ,.i:< ,to, ,;'; 4~ .~ . ~! ',: ''l ,.. . April 7th, 2011 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 ieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us HEARING RECORD Dear Honorable Board of County Commissioners, Northwest Natural Respurce Group (NNRG) wishes to express our support for the long term plan to conserve State forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County developed by the Public Lands Group. State owned forestlands are widely dispersed throughout East Jefferson County and provide an important anchor for the timber economy in the region, as well as providing vital wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, recreation, and tourism/aesthetic value. We are very concerned that trading these lands to consolidate more remote holdings will lead to significantly increased development in the area and significantly decrease economic opportunities relating to timber mAnAgement in the region. NNRG has been working for several years in the area to encourage sustainable forest JUAnllgement and to develop new markets and incentives for small forest landowners. DNR lands provide a key timber supply anchor for smaller landowners and for mills and manufacturers. Without continued active mAnAgement ofDNR lands the timber supplied by the many other distributed small landowners may not be enough to support the mills and infrastructure we have worked so hard to preserve and stimulate. As former trust lands become developed it become increasingly difficult for neighbors of the developments to continue to harvest as well as noise concerns, issues with logging trucks, etc increase and remove any remmning "social" license for private landowners to harvest. NNRG applauds recent efforts by DNR and local community groups to embrace Forest Stewardship Council certification as a means of ensuring sustainability of forest lands and we sincerely hope this sort of proposed land trade will not jeopardize those environmental and economic gains. The Forests for the Future plan, developed by the Public Lands Group (pLG), including citizens of Jefferson County with expertise in forestry, habitat and conservation, addresses DNR's concern with continuing to mAnllge smaller parcels in areas with increasing development Northwest Natural Resource Group' P.O. Box 1067 . Port Townsend, WA98368 TeI.360.379.9421 . Email.info@nnrg.org . Web. www.nnrg.org -1- . .- . pressure. The plan evaluates the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identify the best strategies for long term management. We support this plan as a viable alternative to preserve our timber infrastructure and economy in a long term sustainable manner. We also support the PLG's recommendation that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds in east Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. Please contact us if you would like to discuss this issue or any of our own work in the area further. Sincerely, 8.-. n 9 ~ Denise Pranger Executive Director Northwest Natural Resource Group . P.O. Box 1067 . Port Townsend, W A 98368 Tel.360.379.9421 . EmaiL info@nnrg.OIg . Web. www.nnIg.oIg -2- :.1-- ''CC " (A ~o--i.)~?--. -;,~ / 1.-1/11 )10 jeffbocc From: John & Nancy Woolley [woolley@tfon.com] Sent: Saturday, April 09, 20111 :14 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: cg@conniegallantcom Attachments: Forest-ProposaLPLG_040811.pdf 4/11/2011 ~ Page 1 oft .J&---"'" ~ " ~~~j."" ...! '. ..~ Iymplc Forest Coalition =..------- ._-'-,-~_._----~----- -~-_._' --- ProteCting andrestOringour6lympic~furest and aquatic ecosystems April 8, 2011 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Port Townsend, Washington Dear Commissioners: Olympic Forest Coalition, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of the Olympic National Forest and aquatic ecosystems, strongly supports the long term plan to conserve the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for state Forestlands of East Jefferson County . State forest lands are dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and are important in providing timber revenue to the various taxing districts, for protecting fish and wildlife habitats, and for accessible recreation and open space. State forest lands are also pillars that help hold up the forestry zoning and timber land base in areas at risk of conversion for development. Instead of trading away many of these public lands and consolidating in more remote areas, we urge DNR to engage in helping Jefferson County strengthen the forest land base and timber economy here. The plan, developed by the Public Lands Group, including citizens of Jefferson County with expertise in forestry, habitat and conservation, addresses DNR's concem with continuing to manage smaller parcels in areas with increasing development pressure. The plan evaluates the unique timber, habitat. and recreational values of each parcel to identify the best strategies for long term management. The plan calls for most lands to continue to be managed by DNR as "working forests'. Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed as Community Forests if DNR does not want to continue to manage them as working forests. Some smaller parcels with high ecological values and low potential for timber revenue are proposed for permanent conservation through the Trust Land Transfer program. Only four small parcels, with moderate to low habitat values and already largely surrounded by development, are proposed as suitable for exchange. We also strongly support the PLG's recommendation that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds in East Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. Sincerely, _dl,#0~ John Woolley, President 0Iymph: Forest CoaIIIlon PO Box 461 . QUiIcene, WA 98376 www.olympicforestorg.lnfo@olympicforestorg ce. CA 4/11/ID . ~ From: Sent: To: Subject: Paul McCollum [paulm@pgst.nsn.us] Monday, April 11, 2011 7:14AM jeffbocc East Jefferson County Forest Plan PGST support Jeff cnty Forest Plan. pdt; paulm.vcf H~ jeffbocc Attachments: -m [iii PGST support Jeff paulm.vel' (438 B) cnty Forest ... Please note our attached comments in support of the East Jefferson Forest for the Future plan. County, Thanks Paul Paul McCollum Natural Resources Director Port Gamble S'Klallarn Tribe phone: 360 297-6237 Cell: 360 731-7435 Fax: 360 297-4791 E-rnail:paulrn@pgst.nsn.us 1 ~, ~~fi b,,' -', 0.)' ! .,~. PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 31912 Little Boston Rd. NE - Kingston, W A 98346 Honorable Board of County Comm;AA;oners Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 (e-mailedtojeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us) April 11, 2011 Dear Honorable Board of County Commissioners, The Port Gamble S'K1allam Tribe strongly supports the long tenn plan to conserve the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Stmtegy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County . State forestlands are dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and are important in providing timber revenue to the various taxing districts, for protecting fish and wildlife habitats, and for accessible recreation and open space. State forest lands are also pillars that help hold up the forestry zoning and timber land base in areas at risk of conversion for development. Instead of trading away many of these public lands and consolidating in more remote areas, we urge the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to engage in helping Jefferson County strengthen the forest land base and timber economy here. The plan, developed by the Public Lands Group (PLO), including citizens of Jefferson County with expertise in forestry,habitat and conservation, addresses DNR's concern with continuing to manage smaller parcels in areas with increasing development pressure. The plan evaluates the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identifY the best strategies for long term mRnRgp.ment. The plan ca1ls for most lands to continue to be managed by DNR as "working forests". Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed as Community Forests (ifDNR decides not to manage them as working forests). Some smaller parcels with high ecological values and low potential for timber revenue are proposed for permanent conservation through the Trust Land Transfer program. Only four small parcels, with moderate to low habitat values and already largely surrounded by development, are proposed as suitable for exchange. We also strongly support the PLO's recommendation that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds in east Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. 1 ~..v' Director, Natural Resources Department -- Phone: (360) 297-4792 Fax: (360) 297-4791 ~ . ,jeffbocc Full Name: Last Name: First Name: Job TItle: Department: Company: Other Address: Business: Mobile: Business Fax: E-mail: E-mail Display As: Paul McCollum McCollum Paul Natural Resources Director Natural Resources Department Port Gamble S'K1allam Tribe 31912 Little Boston Rd Kingston, Washington 98346 360 297-6237 360737-7435 3602974791 paulm@pgstnsn.us paulm@pgslnsn.us 1 '" .._~.._. . HEARING RECORD Page 1 of! ~ ~ jeffbocc From: John & Nancy Woolley [woolley@tfon.com] Sent: Monday, April 11, 20112:58 PM To: jeffbocc Attachments: Forest-ProposaLPLG_040811 (4) (2).pdf Please attach to the previous email. 4/1112011 " ~- ,...- . . ~ Iymplc Forest Coalition Protdng and rest~rlng- ollrbl~pj~ft;~tand aquatic ecosystems April 8, 2011 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Port Townsend, Washington Dear Commissioners: Olympic Forest Coalition, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of the Olympic National Forest and aquatic ecosystems, strongly supports the long term plan to conserve the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management strategy for state Forestlands of East Jefferson County . State forest lands are dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and are Important in providing timber revenue to the various taxing districts, for protecting fish and wildlife habitats, and for accessible recreation and open space. State forest lands are also pillars that help hold up the forestry zoning and timber land base in areas at risk of conversion for development. Instead of trading away many of these pUblic lands and consolidating in more remote areas, we urge DNR to engage in helping Jefferson County strengthen the forest land base and timber economy here. The plan, developed by the Public Lands Group, including citizens of Jefferson County with expertise In forestry, habitat and conservation, addresses DNR's concern with continuing to manage smaller parcels In areas with Increasing development pressure. The plan evaluates the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identify the best strategies for long term management. The plan calls for most lands to continue to be managed by DNR as "working forests". Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed as Community Forests if DNR does not want to continue to manage them as working forests. Some smaller parcels with high ecOlogical values and low potential for timbar revenue are proposed for permanent conservation through the Trust Land Transfer program. Only four small parcels, with moderate to low habitat values and already largely surrounded by development, are proposed as $uitable for exchange. We also strongly support the PLG's recommendation that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds in East Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. Sincerely, ~1--- OlympIc Forest CoaIIlIon PO Box 461 . Qullcene. WA 98376 www.olympicforestorg.info@olympicforestorg - ~;.~~_::- ~ ~ From: John & Nancy Woolley [woolley@tfon.com] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:26 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: cg@conniegallantcom Attachments: Forest-Proposal_PLG_040811 (4).pdf jeffbocc OFCO letter on land exchange. 4/11/2011 Page 1 of! ... ,:.:..:--"",-~-- . ~ Iymplc Forest Coalition '-'-"~'""'''''--~-'--'-~''''''-''~'''''-''''''---- Protecting and restoring our OlympICf6resl andaql.lanc eccsystems April 8, 2011 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Port Townsend, Washington Dear Commissioners: Olympic Forest Coalition, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of the Olympic National Forest and aquatic ecosystems, strongly supports the long term plan to conselVe the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for state Forestlands of East Jefferson County . State forest lands are dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and are important in providing timber revenue to the various taxlng districts, for protecting fish and wildlife habitats, and for accessible recreation and open space. State forest lands are also pillars that help hold up the forestry zoning and timber land base In areas at risk of conversion for development Instead of trading away many of these public lands and consolidating in more remote areas, we urge DNR to engage In helping Jefferson County strengthen the forest land base and timber economy here. The plan, developed by the Public Lands Group, including citizens of Jefferson County with expertise in forestry, habitat and conselVation, addresses DNR's concern with continuing to manage smaller parcels in areas with Increasing development pressure. The plan evaluates the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identify the best strategies for long term management The plan calls for most lands to continue to be managed by DNR as "working forests". Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed as Community Forests if DNR does not want to continue to manage them as worklng forests. Some smaller parcels with high ecological values and low potential for timber revenue are proposed for permanent conselVation through the Trust Land Transfer program. Only four small parcels, with moderate to low habitat values and . already largely surrounded by development, are proposed as suitable for exchange. We also strongly support the PLG's recommendation that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds in East Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. Sincerely, ~-#- Olymplc Forest CoaIltIan ---...... PO Box 461 . Quilcene, WA 98376 www.olymplcfcrestorg . Infc@olymplcfcrestorg 1033 Old Blyn Highway, Sequlm, WA 98382 April 6, 2011 ~6i!eE~VEU643 Honorable Board of County Commissioners . . APR 1 3 2011 ~rr;:nl~~ HEARING RECORnEfFI/:RSON PortTownsend,WA98368 'd . !;;; COUNTY (e-mail toieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us) COMMISSIONERS BE: An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County '-""C- / '~H'JIwDibie13NitdofCOunlYComnl1ss1onm;----"cS='"-"-""-~--~""~"~ The Jamestown S'KlaIlam Tribe supports the long term plan to conserve existing state forest lands of East Jefferson County as descn'bed in the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County, The Tribe feels that should DNR trade its forest lands located near population centers to private interests the potential of these forest lands to be quickly harvested and developed for some other use is significant. BecaUse eastern Jefferson County contajus the natura1 resources reserved by the Tn'be through its treaty with the-United States, the State of Washington is our co-manager in the protection and conservation of these resources,. The level of protection for habitat that supports our fish an<i wilcilifecresources is much higher on state DNR land than it is on privateforeatland, The Tribe wishes to continue.jrrotecting the cultural resource value that presently exists on DNR lands, We have a working relationship with DNR for the protection of culturally significant trees for example, State forestIands are currently dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and provide tax revenue to the County, schools, and local fire districts. Local tax revenue will be lost ifDNR land is consolidated to other portions of the county, Existing DNR land provides high quality, productive, fish and wildlife habitat that our Tribal citizens depend on for hunting opportunities, State forest lands anchor forestry in areas at risk. of conversion for development. ~--~ c 'flw.~~Il-Land;Gi'OUfl{P~GTealed~igh qUlliltyev4ltlailOiRlftIre--uiJiijuelihiM,Iiiili_fWtl" rOOreational values of each pm:celto identify the best strategies for long term management. Their group . includes citizens from Jefferson County with expertise in forestry, habitat and conservation, The gJ'9Up volunteered hundreds of hours to develop this plan, . . Instead of transferring DNR land, the Asset Management Strategy recommends to place the land into a Community Forest categOlY, where forest thinning is the primary management tool. We would also like to work with the DNR on these plOpelties to ensure that deer and elk habitat, where appropriate, are enhanced. This strategy also supports the DNR mandate to preserve forest land in urbanizing areas, Please feel free to contact me by phone at 360-681-462Ior bye-mail me at rallen@iamestowntribe.org:, Sincerely; . .. - -. . . ~.~()Ia . '~!: , : W, Ron Allen, Tn'bal Chair/CEO ., jeffbocc Page 1 of1 From: Bob [w1ndenergy@olypen.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 20113:55 PM To: jeflbocc Subject: Transfer of DNR lands Attachments: Jefferson County letter supporting ratention of DNR lands.pdf HEA/(/N(; R~ Re: DNR land transfers. Please see attached. (FYI, the Sierra Club has more than 430 members in Jefferson County, and we have a sincere interest in this issue.) Bob Lynette, Co-Chair North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club email: windenergy@olypen.com Mobile: (360) 461-0761 4/14/2011 ~' - ~-, HEARING RECORD SIERRA CLUB North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club P. O. Box 714 Carlsborg, W A 98324 UlUNDED1892 RECEIVED Sent via email April 13, 2011 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: Transfer ofDNR lands APR 14 2011 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS On behalf of the North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club, we support the long term plan to conserve the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the report, "Forests for the Future - An Asset M~ement Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County". We recognize the efforts by the Public Lands Group, which includes citizens of Jefferson County. We note the involvement of people with expertise in forestry, habitat and conservation. The plan calls for most lands in East Jefferson County to continue to be managed by DNR, and we support this concept. We appreciate the fact that the plan addresses DNR's concern with continuing to rmmage smaller parcels in areas with increasing development pressure by evaluating the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identifY the best strategies for long term management. Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed as Co=lurlty Forests ifDNR does not want to continue to manage them as working forests. We support this approach. However, land conversion is a major concern of ours. As East Jefferson's population grows, there is increasing pressure for conversion, particularly in areas already surrounded by development. The management plan identifies approximately 251 acres that could be exchanged with private properties. We would support these exchanges. We urge the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioner to endorse the proposed asset management strategy plan submitted by the Public Lands Group. Respectfully, Bob Lynette and John Woolley Co-Chairs, North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club HEARING RECORD George B. Yount i 717 -25th Street Port Townsend WA 98368 RECE!VED April 14, 2011 APR 14 2011 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Gentlemen, On behalf of the Olympic Environmental Council Board, we support the long term plan to conserve the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the report, "Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County". State forestlands are dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and are Important in providing timber revenue to the various taxing districts, for protecting fish and wildlife habitats, and for accessible recreation and open space. State forest lands are also pillars that help hold up the forestry zoning and timber land base in areas at risk of conversion for development. Instead of trading away many of these public lands and consolidating in more remote areas, we urge the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to engage in helping Jefferson County strengthen the forest land base and timber economy here. The plan, developed by the Public Lands Group (PLG), including citizens of Jefferson County with expertise in forestry, habitat and conservation, addresses DNR's concern with continuing to manage smaller parcels in areas with increasing development pressure. The plan evaluates the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identify the best strategies for long term management. The plan calls for most lands to continue to be managed by DNR as "working forests". Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed as Community Forests (if DNR decides not to manage them as working forests). Some smaller parcels with high ecological values and low potential for timber revenue are proposed for permanent conservation through the Trust Land Transfer program. Only four small parcels, with moderate to low habitat values and already largely surrounded by development, are proposed as suitable for exchange. We also strongly support the PLG's recommendation that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds in east Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. Sincerely, ~ & 1I04Uet Olympic Environmental Council Board i . !31ank Page 1 ofl Leslie Locke From: John Austin Sent: Thursday, April 14, 20113:29 PM To: Leslie Locke Subject: FW: DNR Asset Management Plan Attachments: OEC DNR Forest Assessment Plan Testimony 04122011.pdf HEARING RECORD From: George Yount[SMTP:GYOUNT@OLYPEN.COM] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 20113:27:41 PM To: John Austin Subject: DNR Asset Management Plan Auto forwarded by a Rule Commissioner Austin, Attached is the Olympic Environmental Council Board's testimony regarding the DNR Asset Management Plan. Please incorporate our letter into the testimonial record. Thank you. George B. Yount 4/15/2011 .... Ji. ~~~_~~~s~~~~t HEARING RECORD Port Townsend WA 98368 April 14, 2011 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Gentlemen, On behalf of the Olympic Environmental Council Board, we support the long term plan to conserve the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described in the report, "Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of East Jefferson County". State forestlands are dispersed widely throughout East Jefferson County and are important in providing timber revenue to the various taxing districts, for protecting fish and wildlife habitats, and for accessible recreation and open space. State forest lands are also pillars that help hold up the forestry zoning and timber land base in areas at risk of conversion for development. Instead of trading away many of these public lands and consolidating in more remote areas, we urge the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to engage in helping Jefferson County strengthen the forest land base and timber economy here. The plan, developed by the Public Lands Group (PLG), including citizens of Jefferson County with expertise in forestry, habitat and conservation, addresses DNR's concern with continuing to manage smaller parcels in areas with increasing development pressure. The plan evaluates the unique timber, habitat, and recreational values of each parcel to identify the best strategies for long term management. The plan calls for most lands to continue to be managed by DNR as "working forests", Some parcels in areas of the county with higher development pressure are proposed as Community Forests (if DNR decides not to manage them as working forests). Some smaller parcels with high ecological values and low potential for timber revenue are proposed for permanent conservation through the Trust Land Transfer program. Only four small parcels, with moderate to low habitat values and already largely surrounded by development, are proposed as suitable for exchange. We also strongly support the PLG's recommendation that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds in east Jefferson County to consolidate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. Sincerely, ~~~ OlympIc EnvIronmental CouncIl Board JEFFERSON LAND TRUST Cekbrating our 20th year Helping the community preseroe open space, working lands and habitat for~er April 15, 2011 HEARING RECORD 1033 Lawren<eS_PortTownsend. WA 98368 ~~~E~ED Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Commissioners, APR 15 2011 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The mission of Jefferson Land Trust Is Helping the community preserve open space, working lands and habitat forever, and concern about the reduction of working forest In east Jefferson County is central to our mission. Working forests provide jobs and other economic benefits to the residents of Jefferson County, as well as providing wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. They contribute to clean water and to the scenic splendor that brings visitors. In addition, a study from Western Washington University identifies conversion of forest land to other uses as one of the mi\.lor sources of greenhouse gasses on the OlympiC Peninsula. DNR forest management practices provide a balance of habitat preservation and timber production that is not required under the Forest Practices Act. These are some of the reasons we strongly support the long term plan to conserve the state forest lands of East Jefferson County as described In the report Forests for the Future - An Asset Management Strategy for State Forestlands of EastJefferson County. This plan has carefully evaluated each parcel and recommended one or more realIstic management options based on that parcel's individual characteristics, while also considering the effect on revenue to the various taxing districts that are involved. Instead of trading away many of these public lands and consolIdating in more remote areas, we urge the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to engage in helping Jefferson County strengthen the forest land base and timber economy here. We also strongly support the PLG's recommendation that DNR invest Property Replacement Account funds In east Jefferson County to consolIdate DNR's existing holdings and further strengthen the forest land base. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Sincerely, c.e-uo/l'~ .oe~ ~I D~,^- ~~--ha",~ president, and the Jefferson Land Trust Board of Directors Je/ffm;()nlend Trostt>B 501 (c)(3)fIIJ11-prUIlf, ___<0_ _on recyded paper Port Ludlow FIre "Rescue 7650 Oak Bay Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 EARING RECOR06QI437-2236531 (BGGI 367-2291 Fax Ed Wilkerson, Fire Chief Aprll14, 2009 RfECE~VEfQJ Honorable Peter Goldmark Washington State CommissIoner of Public Lands 1111 WashIngton Street OlympIa, WA 98504-7001 APR 18 2011 JEfFERSON COUNTY COMMiSSIONERS Dear CommissIoner Goldmark, The purpose of this letter Is to provIde written testimony regardIng the proposed DNR/pope Land Exchange for those parcels that lie wIthin the boundaries of Jefferson County FIre District 1# 3 (Port Ludlow FIre & Rescue). It Is my understanding that DNR parcels 2, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are County Trust Lands that are proposed to be converted to private ownership under the terms of the swap. I am very concemed that shou[d thls occur, our fire district wlll forever lose Important revenues that are generated with the sale of tImber from these parcels. Now more than ever, gIven the economic struggles that exist In our county as well as the entire country, we must ensure that every revenue stream Is protected and properly managed. Please let the record show that I am opposed to the transfer of County Trust Lands within the boundarIes of Jefferson County FIre District 1# 3 to private ownershIp. Your assistance and consideratIon of this matter Is appreciated. Respectfully, ~JJ,.LI Ed Wilkerson, Fire Chief cc: PLFR Board of Fire Commissioners Jefferson County Commissioners Port Lucllow Fire & Rescue 7650 Oak Bay Road Port Lucllow, WA 98365 Robert Pontius, Board Chairmen April 14, 2009 59f~CE~VE[] Honorable Peter Goldmark Washington State COmmissioner of Public Lands _ 1111 Washington Street OlympIa, WA 98504-7001 Dear Commlssloner Goldrnark, APR 18 2011 JEFfERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS As the elected Board of Rre CommissIoners for Jefferson County FIre District 1# 3, we are writIng to express our opposition to the proposed DNR/Pope Land Exchange for those parcels that lie within the boundaries of Jefferson County Fire District 113 (Port Ludlow Fire & Rescue). Our opposition stems from our understanding that most of the parcels that are withIn the boundaries of the Rre District that we are elected to represent are trust lands that provide Important revenue to both Jefferson COUnty and specifically our Rre DIstrIct. We beHeve that every dollar that the trust land tImber sales provIde are Important to our being able to effectivelv provide fire and emergency medIcal services to the communities that we serve. Please let the record show that undersigned elected Board of FIre COmmissioners of Jefferson County Rre District 1# 3 are opposed to the proposed land swap beJ;wel3n QNR and. Pope Resources. Thank you for your consideration In this Important matter. SIncerely, Bill Hansen, CommIssioner: Gene Carmody, CommIssIoner: G-tt)~ Mike Porter, Commissioner:- ~~- ec: Jefferson County COmmIssIoners f .. jeffbocc Page 1 oft From: Rosemary Sikes [rosemarysikes@oIympus.net] Sent: Sunday, April 17,20116:49 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Endorsement of the Forest for the Future Attachments: 4-15-11 BOC, Forest of the Future.doc 4/18/2011 HEARING RECORD , ",' .., . HEARING RECORD ,..-- - _ . .s- REceiVED Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 APR 18 2011 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dear Board of County Commissioners, We are writing to support the Public Lands Group plan for future forest to retain W A Dept. of Natural Resource forest lands in eastern Jefferson County. We understand these plans would keep some lands in DNR management, while designating some to the new Community Forest classification and others as Tmst Land Transfers to protect exceptional ecological values. As you know having permanent forested areas in our communities are important to Jefferson County residents for the diversity of landscapes, esthetics, and wildlife habitat. Also they help maintain our air and water quality. These "community" forests can continue to provide forest products in a manner that does not significantly degrade their other values. We are confident you will find wide support for these plans for our forest management. Sincerely, Rosemary Sikes, President Admiralty Audubon Society Jefferson County,WA