HomeMy WebLinkAbout062711_ra02
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
615 Sheridan Street. Port Townsend . VVas~llngtOIl .. 98368
www.jeffersoncountypublichealth. 0 r9
lune 20, 2011
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Phillip Morley, County Administrator
FROM:
Stuart Whitford, Environmental Health Director
Tami Pokorny, Environmental Health Specialist
DATE:
SUBlECT: Agenda Request: Conservation Futures Citizen
Oversight Committee Presentation of Funding
Recommendations for 2011
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On June 27, 2011 Fred Weinmann, Chair of the Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight
Committee (CF Committee), will provide the Committee's funding recommendations to
the BOCC.
Water Quality staff and the projects' sponsor will also be on hand to heip answer any
questions. A public hearing will immediateiy follow.
ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS:
Two applications for funding were received in 2011 and a total of $69,250 requested
to support open space projects in Jefferson County. The two applications are:
1. Carleson Chimacum Creek Acquisition project, $25,800 towards the fee
simple acquisition of 5 acres of vacant land on Creek View Lane off of
Prospect Avenue and $750 towards operation and maintenance costs.
Proposed match would be up to $146,200 in Salmon Recovery Funding Board
grant funds through the WA Recreation and Conservation Office and $750 in
cash from Jefferson Land Trust. Jefferson Land Trust is the sponsor. Project
iocation: See. 34 SW 1/4, T. 30N, R. 1W.
CUMfV1UNITY Ht:A.L~f-H
DE\/EL-OPMENT/\L DSf\f~~il
ViA N: 36Q.38C}.-94CQ
;.-A,X.360-385-9401
PUBLIC HEALTH
HEALTHIER COMMUNITY
F-"'J'/ ;~(-)f' L.-1ENTAL HEp,LTH
!Jt1.TER OU;\LIT'/
t\/',t\if\j 360385-9444
3GC;-37~:l_d487
2. Winona Basin - Bioedel project, $42,100 towards the fee simple
acquisition of 7 lots (approximately 1 acre) of vacant land in the City of Port
Townsend's Quimper Wildlife Corridor and $600 towards operation and
maintenance costs. Proposed match would be $42,100 in donated land value
from a nearby property acquired by the City in 2009 and $16,000 in cash
from Jefferson Land Trust. The City is the project applicant. Jefferson Land
Trust is the sponsor. Project location: See. 33, T. 31N, R. 1W.
This briefing packet contains:
. June 20, 2011 memo from CF Committee Chair Fred Weinmann
. CF Committee's April 11 meeting minutes and May 2 draft meeting minutes
. Conservation Futures 2011 Program Manual
. Conservation Futures 2011 rating sheet
FISCAL IMPACT:
The costs for this presentation are negligible.
RECOMMENDATION:
JCPH Management recommends that the BOCC hear the presentation by Chair Fred
Weinmann.
REVIEWED BY:
C6-.2--/?/
Date
COMMUNi rr HEA.L TH
DEVELOPMENTfl,L DISABiLiTiES
MAl N 360~385-9400
FAX . 36Cl-38 5-940 '\
PUBLIC HEALTH
HEALTHIER COMMUNITY
^::N\j i:tUNi~'1'=NTAL HEALTH
N/-\TUR/\L c;:C:SCURCES
>/!l\! ~~ :360-385-9444
FJ\X. .3f.5C-385.940'1
J C P H
EFFERSONOUNTYUBLICEALTH
615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend Washington 98368
www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org
To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
From:
Fred Weinmann, Chair
Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee
Date:
June 20, 2011
Subject:
Conservation Futures 2011 Funding Round Recommendations
Since 2003, fifteen acquisition projects to protect open spaces have been awarded funding
through the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program.
These projects protect open spaces in the form of wildlife habitat, agricultural areas, timberlands
and cultural resources. They address the overarching criteria for the conservation futures program
on an on-going basis by:
conserving sensitive lands with truly unique characteristics,
protecting a variety of habitat for flora and fauna,
supporting threatened or endangered species, and
providing significant regional or community benefits.
Projects involve key riparian corridors, historic farms and dairies, working forest lands, visual
buffers, and sacred cultural sites. Many of the projects are enjoyed for their educational and
recreational benefits as well. Specifically, past projects include riparian and estuarine habitat
along Chimacum Creek, productive farms such as Sunfield, Glendale, Finnriver, and Chimacum
(Brown) Dairy, the forest buffer at the entrance to the City of Port Townsend, forests and
wetlands near Tamanowas Rock, and salmon habitat and forests in the Tarboo Valley as well as
vital wildlife habitat within the City of Port Townsend and the Quimper Wildlife Corridor.
This year, the CF Committee received two applications for conservation futures funding by the
March 1 deadline. One project would protect a 5-acre property spanning Chimacum Creek.
Chimacum Creek provides habitat for endangered salmon species, and this project would provide
a key link for protection of the Chimacum Creek riparian corridor.
The other would protect 7 lots, about one acre, in the Winona Basin of the Quimper Wildlife
Corridor. This project will contribute to the long term effort by the City of Port Townsend and the
Jefferson Land Trust to preserve the Quimper Wildlife Corridor which stretches across the
Quimper Peninsula. Both wetlands and high quality habitat natural forest areas are included in the
project.
COMMUNITY HEALTH
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
WATER QUALITY
MAIN: 360-385-9400MAIN: 360-385-9444
FAX: 360-385-9401 FAX: 360-379-4487
The projects proposed are as follows:
1.Carleson Chimacum Creek Acquisition project, $25,800 towards the fee simple acquisition of 5
acres of vacant land on Creek View Lane off of Prospect Avenue and $750 towards operation and
maintenance costs. Proposed match would be up to $146,200 in Salmon Recovery Funding Board
grant funds through the WA Recreation and Conservation Office and $750 in cash from Jefferson
Land Trust. Jefferson Land Trust is the sponsor. Project location: Sec. 34 SW 1/4, T. 30N, R. 1W.
2.Winona Basin – Bloedel project, $42,100 towards the fee simple acquisition of 7 lots
(approximately 1 acre) of vacant land in the City of Port Townsend’s Quimper Wildlife Corridor
and $600 towards operation and maintenance costs. Proposed match would be $42,100 in donated
land value from a nearby property acquired by the City in 2009 and $16,000 in cash from
Jefferson Land Trust. The City is the project applicant. Jefferson Land Trust is the sponsor.
Project location: Sec. 33, T. 31N, R. 1W.
The committee members attended project presentations and attended site visits in April. Members
weighed the merits of each project individually and submitted scores to staff who entered them
into a spreadsheet for open discussion at the May 2 meeting. Each committee member was free to
adjust their own scores for each rating question during the discussions. A final score for each
project was developed from the grand total of scores for all of the questions divided by the
number of scorers.
Project Score
Carleson Chimacum Creek Project 238
Winona Basin – Bloedel Project 224
The CF Committee voted unanimously that both the Carleson Chimacum Creek Project and
Winona Basin – Bloedel Project deserved funding. In the unlikely event that it is not possible to
fully fund both, the Committee ranked Carleson Chimacum Creek over Winona Bloedel. They
voted unanimously to recommend funding for both projects at the level requested in each
application.
Both of the general project areas of Chimacum Creek and the Quimper Wildlife Corridor are
familiar to many members of the CF Committee. The subject properties would be valuable
additions to their respective wildlife corridors, provide meaningful open space and habitat, and
complement the existing education and passive recreation opportunities.
At the June 27 hearing, project sponsors, Committee members and staff would be happy to
answer any questions you may have. I look forward to seeing you then.
2
COMMUNITY HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES NATURAL RESOURCES
MAIN: 360-385-9400 MAIN: 360-385-9444
FAX: 360-385-9401 FAX: 360-385-9401
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program Manual
2011 Funding Cycle
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
1
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program Manual
2011 Funding Cycle
Mission of the Conservation Futures Program
The mission of the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program is to provide a
system of public open spaces, those open spaces being necessary for the health,
welfare, benefit and safety of the residents of Jefferson County and the maintenance
of Jefferson County as a desirable place to live, visit and locate businesses.
Conservation Futures Citizen’s Oversight Committee Membership
(as of December 6,
2010)
Phil Andrus
Herb Beck
Lige Christian
Jerry Gorsline
Janet Kearsley
Phyllis Schultz
Sarah Spaeth
Fred Weinmann
John Augustus Wood
Table of Contents
Overview…………………………………………………………………………………......3
Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee (CF Committee)………………...4
Project Selection………………………….………………………………………………....4
Information Sources…………………………………………………………………….…..4
Reimbursement ………………………………………………………………………….….5
Compliance with All Laws………………………………………………………………......6
Record Retention……………………………………………………………………….…...6
Acquisition Projects………………………………………………………………………....6
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Projects………………………………………….….9
Required Meeting and Site Visit……………………………………………………….…11
Grant Notification and Agreement………………………………………….……….……11
Annual Reports……………………………………………………………………………..11
Program Suggestions…………………..………………………………………………….12
Forms and Templates…………………………..……………………………APPENDIX A
Funding Request and Reimbursement Form
Project Agreement Template
Annual Report Form Template
Please note: The 2011 CF Application and Ratings Worksheets are available
separately from program staff.
Map of Approved Projects…………….……………………………………..APPENDIX B
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
2
Overview
Jefferson County welcomes your application to the Conservation Futures Program
(CF Program). Please do not hesitate to contact Jefferson County Environmental
Health Department with questions at Ph: 360/385-9444, Fax: 360/379-4487 or
tpokorny@co.jefferson.wa.us.
In July 2002, the county commissioners approved Conservation Futures Ordinance
No. 06-07080-02, now codified at Jefferson County Code Section 3.08.030(7), in
accordance with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 84.34. The
ordinance establishes goals for the county’s Conservation Futures Program and an
allocation process for the conservation futures tax levy.
The purpose of the CF Program is to acquire open space lands, including green
spaces, greenbelts, fish and wildlife habitat and trail rights-of-ways proposed for
preservation for public use by municipalities, special purpose districts, and private
non-profit corporations within the county. "Open space land" also includes farm,
agricultural land and timber land [as those terms are defined in Ch. 84.34 RCW].
Each spring, the Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee provides
funding recommendations to the county commissioners who then decide which
projects to fund. Projects may include fee-simple or any lesser interest or
development right with respect to real property as well as operation and maintenance
(O & M) activities. O & M projects must be linked to CF-funded acquisitions.
A 50% match is required for all project types. Match must be cash, land trades,
the value of land to be traded, or other open spaces linked to the property under
application. Open space, wildlife habitat, agricultural and timber lands are all
eligible.
Section 3 Paragraph 10 of the ordinance requires that ownership of properties or
easements will be held by public entities or others as defined in RCW 84.34.210,
or government entities may choose to share title of a property with a non-profit
nature conservancy corporation or association.
Applicants for projects may include the county, municipalities, park districts, state
or federal agencies, private non-profit corporations or associations, and private
individuals.
Project applicants must be represented by a local sponsoring organization based in
Jefferson County. Potential sponsors include local governments, special purpose
districts and non-profit corporations. A list of potential sponsors is available by
contacting program staff. Project sponsors are responsible for the content and
submission of the application, the presentation of project proposals to the CF
Committee, organizing and hosting videotaped site visits, the stewardship plan and
its implementation, and all contracting, reporting, and reimbursement obligations with
Jefferson County.
Available funding is announced early in the calendar year and
applications are made available through the Water Quality Division of
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
3
Jefferson County Environmental Health Department. Conservation
Futures Funds monies can be the collateral, revenue stream or security
for long-term financing (typically bonds) in a manner consistent with law.
Public workshop(s) may be held prior to the start of the funding round. Staff is always
available to answer questions from sponsors, applicants, and interested parties.
Applications are typically due the first Monday in March and sponsors present
projects to the CF Committee and host site visits later that month. In April, the CF
Committee meets to rank projects, determine recommended funding levels, and
compose its overall recommendations to the BoCC. In June the BoCC makes its
funding determinations. Funding for reimbursement is generally not available until
August. At least every other year, the BoCC reviews the priorities expressed in the
Conservation Futures Ordinance and the related scoring system. All meetings of the
Conservation Futures Committee are open to the public. Citizens are encouraged to
attend.
Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee (CF Committee)
The CF Committee membership is intended to reflect a broad spectrum of interests
and expertise. It includes at least two individuals from each commissioner district and
at least nine citizens total. Anyone interested in applying for a seat on the committee
is encouraged to contact the Board of County Commissioners Office
(jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us) and/or program staff.
Project Selection
The CF Committee ranks projects according to criteria designed to reflect the
priorities expressed in the Conservation Futures Ordinance #06-0708-02. Please see
the current application for specifics.
After the project presentations and site visits, each CF Committee member
independently ranks each project on a preliminary basis. At the next meeting of the
CF Committee, these scores are discussed and adjusted as needed to reflect the
consensus that is reached. The committee then determines a rank order for the
projects and develops a recommendation for allocating the available funding
between projects and between capital expenses and O & M. Both the rank order and
the funding recommendations are presented to the county commissioners at a
regularly scheduled meeting, usually in June, and a public hearing is held.
Designation of grant awards may be made at this time or at a later date, at the
discretion of the commissioners. Beginning in 2010, project sponsors were asked to
sign a grant agreement with the county. Funds may be available as early as August.
Please contact program staff for more information about the timing of funds
availability.
Information Sources
The Conservation Futures Program is administered by the Commissioners Office
with assistance from the Environmental Health Department Water Quality Division.
Please note that the information contained in this manual is not intended as a
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
4
substitute for the statutes and ordinance governing the Jefferson County
Conservation Futures Fund and Program, but rather should be read in conjunction
with them.
Relevant sections of law are found in Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 84.34
(RCW 84.34) and the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Ordinance 06-0708-
02.
To access RCW 84.34 online, visit www.leg.wa.gov/Help/helpwithsearch.htm and
click on “Laws and Agency Rules”.
The CF Ordinance and additional information are available online via the
Conservation Futures website:
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp.
Contact program staff at Ph: 360/379-4498, Fax: 360/379-4487 or send an email to
tpokorny@co.jefferson.wa.us.
Reimbursement
All grants are funded through the Jefferson County Conservation Futures tax levy
and are local dollars for the purposes of match. Except in the case of escrow
payments, sponsors must expend their own funds on eligible and allowable
expenditures prior to requesting reimbursement. With sufficient lead time, an
approved settlement statement, and a preliminary title report, CF funds may be made
available to the title company shortly before closing for the direct costs of property
acquisition and closing. Please discuss dates for closings and loan periods with
program staff to help ensure that grant funds are ready and available when needed.
The project sponsor will commit to providing a matching contribution of no less than
the amount of conservation futures funds awarded to the project before conservation
futures tax funds are reimbursed to that sponsor. This contribution may consist of:
cash
land trades if the valuation of the land to be traded is established by a
valuation arising from an appraisal generated by a Washington State
Certified Licensed Appraiser (Member of the Appraisal Institute MAI);
the cash value of the land to be traded, excluding Jefferson County
conservation futures contributions; or
other open spaces acquired within the previous two years that is situated
either directly adjacent to or could, in the sole discretion of the county, be
directly linked to the property under application.
cost of appraisal, title insurance, closing costs, and other miscellaneous
fees (See Section 3.7 of the Conservation Futures Ordinance)
Proof of match, stewardship plan(s), title reports, and proper documentation must be
submitted before any funds are dispersed. Billings consist of two elements:
expenditures and the non-reimbursable match of 50%. Expenditures are paid
invoices submitted by the project sponsor to Water Quality Division accompanied by
a completed Funding Request and Reimbursement Form (See Appendix A). All
projects approved for CF funding are eligible for O & M funding. Non-reimbursable
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
5
match is the sponsor’s documented contribution to the project. The billing package
must be original and complete.
Match, provided in the form of open spaces acquired, in excess of the 1:1
requirement of the CF program may be available to future projects for a period of two
years if, at the sole discretion of the county, the match properties may be linked to
the new project application.
Billings may be received at any time during the project period. It is important to
implement projects in as timely a manner as possible and also to bill in a timely
manner.
If matching funds are not secured within three years, the project may be required to
re-apply.
Jefferson County must pre-approve easement language and will add restrictive
language to statutory warrantee deeds, or require the use of other legal instruments,
to ensure conservation of project and match properties in perpetuity.
Compliance with All Laws
Project sponsors shall comply fully with the project agreement, grant program
policies, County policies and all applicable federal, state and local laws, orders,
regulations and permits.
Record Retention/Public Records Act
The project sponsor shall retain all books, records, documents, data and other
materials relevant to the agreement for a minimum of six (6) years after the
completion of the project. Documents related to the expenditure of CF funds, by way
of example only, purchase and sale contracts, settlement documents, invoices, e-
mails, expert reports and/or appraisals, are Public Records subject to disclosure in
accordance with the Public Records Act, Ch. 42.56 RCW, if requested by a citizen or
entity. All meetings and activities of the CF Committee are subject to the Open Public
Meetings Act, Ch. 42.30 RCW. The public is always invited and encouraged to
attend. Two observer comment periods are included in each agenda.
Acquisition Projects
Project applications for the acquisition of property must meet the following threshold
criteria in order to be considered for funding. Each application will receive an initial
screening to make sure that it is in compliance. Applicants are encouraged to submit
pertinent materials and documents, as appropriate, in addition to those items
required.
Project Eligibility
__ Proposed acquisitions must have a willing seller.
__ The property, or property right, must be eligible for purchase as defined
by state law, RCW 84,34.210 (i.e. “…protect, preserve, maintain,
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
6
improve, restore, limit the future use of, or otherwise conserve, selected
open space land, farm and agricultural land, and timber land…”).
cannot
__ Conservation Futures funds be used to acquire property, or a
property right, that will be used for active recreation purposes (including
but not limited to sports fields, playgrounds, recreation centers, swimming
beaches or pools, motorized boat launches).
cannot
__ Conservation Futures funds be used for passive development of
a site. For the purposes of this application, passive improvements
include, but are not limited to, trails, interpretive centers, viewpoints,
picnic areas, access, restrooms, landscaping and parking.
Applicant Eligibility
Eligible applicants include the County, municipalities, Park Districts, State or
federal agencies, private non-profit corporations or associations, and private
individuals.
Sponsor Eligibility
All applicants must have a local sponsor. Eligible sponsors include the County,
municipalities, Park Districts, or private non-profit corporations based in Jefferson
County. A current, but not necessarily comprehensive, list of eligible local
sponsors may be requested from program staff.
Eligible Capital Project Expenditures: See also Section 3.7 of the Conservation
Futures Ordinance
Capital project expenditures or match may include:
__Costs of acquiring real property, including interests in real property
__Cost of related relocation of eligible occupants
(includes administration)
__Cost of appraisal
__Cost of appraisal review
__Cost of title insurance
__Closing costs
__Pro rata real estate taxes
__Recording fees
__Compensating tax
__Hazardous waste substances reports
__Directly related staff and administrative costs
(These are limited to 5% of the total cost
of the project.)
__Related legal costs excluding the cost of preparing application for conservation
futures funds.
__Baseline documentation
__Boundary survey
__Cultural resources review
(survey, excavation, on-site monitoring and data recovery)
Conservation futures tax levy funds may not be used to acquire any real property
or interest in real property therein through the exercise of the power of eminent
domain.
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
7
Eligible Operations & Maintenance Expenditures –
Please note: Total O & M awards are
limited to 15% of the conservation futures funding available in any year – contact staff for details
Operations & Maintenance expenditures or match may include, but are not
limited to:
__Cultural resources review
(survey, excavation, on-site monitoring and data recovery)
__Demolition
__Fencing
(if needed for public safety or resource protection)
__Noxious weed control
(initial control, up to $75 per acre)
__Signage
__Special site-specific reports
(e.g. stewardship reports)
__Wetland identification and/or delineation
Stewardship Plan
Prior to reimbursement, sponsors must provide a stewardship plan that describes
how the property, or property right, will be maintained over time. Costs for
stewardship plans are eligible for operations and maintenance reimbursement
only under “Special Reports” (not as a capital acquisition expense).
Title Report and Title Insurance
Please make county staff aware of issues that could affect the title report and
provide updates as they are generated. A title report and title insurance are to be
issued in conjunction with the property transaction.
Appraisals
Successful applicants must provide an independent appraisal (standard,
narrative or M.A.I.) from a Washington State Certified Licensed Appraiser if the
estimate of value exceeds the assessed value at the time that reimbursement is
requested. In no case shall conservation futures funds dispersed exceed the
grant amount awarded by the BoCC. No appraisal is required for properties
assessed at $20,000 or less.
The appraisal must:
__ be no more than 1 year old. A Supplemental Update by the original
appraiser may be required, at the discretion of the county, if the
appraisal is more than six months old.
__ include a current Title Report provided at the time of the most current
appraisal or update.
__ if timber, mineral or aquatic resources are to be included as value to
the appraisal, then the appraisal shall include a separate timber,
mineral or aquatic resources evaluation of value,
or
__ an opinion of value from a qualified representative of the real estate
industry or recent valuation from the Jefferson County Assessor’s
Office may be used when the total assessed value does not exceed
$20,000.
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
8
Review Appraisals
No appraisal review is required of the sponsor by the CF program. However, the
CF Committee and/or the County may choose to select an appraisal for
independent review for any reason.
Project Implementation
At the time of purchase or the signing of a “purchase and sale agreement”,
the appraisal must be no more than a year old unless an extended
period is requested and approved by the county, up to a total of 18
months.
Application and Attachment Requirements for Acquisition Projects
All requested materials must accompany the application upon submission:
__ Proof of Willing Seller: A “Willing Seller” letter confirming that the
current owner of the property proposed for acquisition is willing to sell.
__ Estimate of Value: A county assessment, certified appraisal of value,
and/or an estimate of value from the project sponsor.
__ Site Location Map: On a Jefferson County base map, or on a map of
the sponsoring agency’s jurisdictional boundaries, clearly identify the
location of the proposed acquisition.
__ Project Boundary Map: On a quarter-section map or other map of
sufficiently large scale, identify the boundaries of the proposed
project.
__ Color Images: Provide six (6) digital images of the property proposed
for acquisition. The images should show flora, terrain, waterfront,
man-made features, access roads, wetlands, unique characteristics,
etc. Please include captions and an aerial view, if available.
__ Development Plan or Narrative: Provide a schematic or master plan
map of the project site showing proposed uses and improvements, if
applicable.
__ In addition, if the application sponsor is a private non-profit
organization, attachments must also include:
__ Proof of 501(c)(3) Status
__Current Budget
__Board Roster
__Organization Chart or Staff Roster
__Most Recent Financial Statements (audited if possible)
__ Copy of minutes or resolution documenting official action to submit
application for proposed acquisition. If more than one project is
submitted from the same sponsor, the minutes or resolution should
indicate the project priority and how it was determined.
Operation and Maintenance Funding
Availability of Funds for O & M
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
9
Only projects that are acquired using conservation futures funds are eligible for O
& M funding.Requests for O & M funding should not exceed the available limit
(consult with program staff). Approved disbursements for operation and
maintenance of interests in real property purchased with conservation futures tax
levy monies shall not in any particular year be greater than fifteen percent (15%)
of the conservation futures tax levy monies raised in the preceding year.
Project Eligibility
Operation and maintenance funding may be used for any property acquired with
Conservation Futures funds. Conservation futures tax levy funds appropriated for
O & M or interests in real property shall not supplant or replace any existing
funding for maintenance and operation of parks and recreational lands.
Applicant Eligibility
Eligible applicants include the County, municipalities, Park Districts, State or
federal agencies, private non-profit corporations or associations, and private
individuals.
Sponsor Eligibility
All applicants must have a local sponsor. Eligible sponsors include the County,
municipalities, Park Districts, or private non-profit corporations based in Jefferson
County.
Application and Attachment Requirements for O & M Projects
All requested materials must accompany the application upon submission. If an
item is irrelevant to the project at hand, please explain why this is so.
__ Proof of Willing Seller: A “Willing Seller” letter confirming that the
current owner of the property proposed for acquisition is willing to sell.
__ Estimate of Value: A County assessment, certified appraisal of value,
and/or an estimate of value from the project sponsor.
__ Site Location Map: On a Jefferson County base map, or on a map of
the sponsoring agency’s jurisdictional boundaries, clearly identify the
location of the proposed acquisition.
__ Project Boundary Map: On a Quarter-section map or other map of
sufficiently large scale, identify the boundaries of the proposed
project.
__ Color Images: Provide six (6) digital images of the property proposed
for acquisition. The images should show flora, terrain, waterfront,
man-made features, access roads, wetlands, unique characteristics,
etc. Please include captions and an aerial view, if available.
__ Development Plan or Narrative: Provide a schematic or master plan
map of the project site showing proposed uses and improvements, if
applicable.
__ In addition, if the application sponsor is a private non-profit
organization, attachments must also include:
__ Proof of 501(c)(3) Status
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
10
__Current Budget
__Board Roster
__Organization Chart or Staff Roster
__Most Recent Financial Statements (audited if possible)
__Copy of minutes or resolution documenting official action to submit
application for proposed acquisition. If more than one project is
submitted from the same sponsor, the minutes or resolution
should indicate the project priority and how it was determined.
Budget and Timeline
Attached to the first Annual Reporting Form must be a budget and timeline for
expenditure of O&M funding for the succeeding ten (10) years measured from
the date of approval by the BoCC.
Documentation of Match
A match of 50% must be documented with each invoice. Match guidelines are
identical for acquisition and O & M proposals (see especially Section 3;
paragraph 5 of the CF ordinance). In-kind labor cannot be used as match.
Reporting
Any project sponsor receiving O & M funds is required to submit a report each
October until those funds are expended. An expenditure summary that provides
the following information must accompany billing:
1) Date the payment was made.
2) The vendor and/or employee to whom the payment was made.
3) A description of what was purchased or what work and/or services were
performed; provide a description of what service or work was performed
for the payroll costs or by the sub-contractor.
Application and Attachment Requirements for O&M Projects
To apply for O & M funding for a project previously purchased using CF Funds,
use the standard application form. In question #1, refer to the original project title
and year that the project was approved followed by “O & M Request Only”. If you
feel that a question is irrelevant to the project at hand, please explain why.
Required Meeting and Site Visit
Project sponsors are required to make a presentation to the CF Committee and host
a visit to the project site. The visits are videotaped by county staff. These are usually
scheduled in mid- to late March.
Grant Notification and Agreement
Sponsors will be notified by staff of grant awards as soon as possible after the BoCC
makes their decision, usually in June. Sponsors will then be asked to sign a project
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
11
agreement with Jefferson County. An informational template is provided with this
manual.
Annual reports
Sponsors are required to submit a brief progress report by October 30 every year for
three years after the acquisition funds are disbursed to the applicant, whichever is
later. The progress report must address any changes in the project focus or purpose,
progress in obtaining matching funding, and stewardship and maintenance.
Sponsors receiving O&M funds will also submit an annual report for each year that
O&M funds are expended. The Committee will use the information to develop a
project “report card” that will be submitted annually to the Board of County
Commissioners. A report format template is included with this manual and will be
provided to the project sponsor electronically.
Program Suggestions
Suggestions for program improvements are always welcome and may be provided to
the Conservation Futures Committee by letter or email via staff at the contact
information on page 3. Every CF Committee meeting also includes two public
comment periods. Meeting times are provided in newspapers and on the program
website.
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
12
Appendix A
Conservation Futures Funding Request and Reimbursement Form
Jefferson County
Conservation Futures
Project Name: Date:
Program
c/o Jefferson County
Project Sponsor:
Water Quality Division
615 Sheridan Street
Billing Period:
Port Townsend, WA
98368
Is this the final billing? Yes [ ] No [ ] Invoice Number [ ]
Sponsor’s Certificate: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and total listed
and attached herein are proper charges for materials, merchandise or services furnished
and/or services rendered have been provided without discrimination because of age, sex,
marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, handicap, religion or Vietnam or disabled
veterans status.
BY________________________________________________________
Title Date
To Be Completed By Sponsor
Categories
(attach
Previous Expenditures To Date Costs For This Billing
detailed
Project
lists and
Agreement
Non-Non-
receipts)
Expenditures ReimbursableTotal Expenditures ReimbursableTotal
MatchMatch
Land
Totals
O & M
Totals
Funding and Expenditure Formula (For CF Program Staff Use ONLY)
Agreement Information Previous CF Reimbursements
Match Source DateNotes Total Billed
CF Share Billed
CF Share
Approved
Match Owed
Balance
CF Share
Retained
CF Share Paid
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
13
JEFFERSON COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES PROGRAM
PROJECT AGREEMENT TEMPLATE
Project Sponsor:
Project Title:
Project Number:
Approval:
Resolution ________ on __________
A.Parties to the Agreement
This Project Grant Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between County of Jefferson
(County), PO Box 1220, Port Townsend, Washington 98368 and _____________________,
and shall be binding upon the agents and all persons acting by or through the parties.
B.Purpose of the Agreement
This Agreement sets out the terms and conditions by which a grant is made through the
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund. The grant is administered by Jefferson County
Environmental Health for the Sponsor for the project named above.
C.Description of Project
The subject Project is described in the attached 2011 Conservation Project Application for the
___________ project
. Conservation Futures Fund (“CFF”) from Jefferson County in an
amount not to exceed $_______ will be used towards the goal and objectives listed in the last
paragraph under question #__ found on page __ of the ___________ application for the CFF
monies.
D.Term of Agreement
The Project Sponsor’s on-going obligation for the above project funded by this Agreement is
to provide maintenance of the site or facility to serve the purpose for which it was intended in
perpetuity unless otherwise identified in this Agreement.
E.Period of Performance
The Project reimbursement period for acquisition expenses shall begin on ____________.
The Project reimbursement period for acquisition expenses will end on _________ unless
proof of match is provided prior to this date. No expenditure made before ________ is
eligible for reimbursement unless incorporated by written amendment into this Agreement.
F.Project Funding
The total grant award provided by the Jefferson County CFF for the Project shall not exceed
$_________and Jefferson County CFF shall not pay any amount beyond that approved herein
for funding of the Project. In no event will the CFF funds expended for this purchase exceed
_______ percent (___%) of the overall costs ($_____) listed in the 2011 Conservation Project
Application for the _________ project. This Project is eligible for reimbursement of
________ expenditures as described in the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program
Manual for 2011 Funding Cycle.
The contribution by the Sponsor toward work on the Project at a minimum shall be as
indicated below. The contribution by the County toward work on the Project is described
immediately above in “C”.
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
14
Acquisition
Percentage Dollar Amount
Conservation Futures – ___________ _____% $_______
(not less than
Project Sponsor $_______
50) %
Total Project Contribution Cost 100% $________
Operations and Maintenance
Percentage Dollar Amount
Conservation Futures – ___________ _____% $_______
(not less than
Project Sponsor $_______
50) %
Total Operations and Maintenance Cost 100% $_______
G.Unexpended Project Allocations
Should unexpected Project allocations, including, but not limited to project completion at less
than the estimated cost or, alternatively, the abandonment of the Project occur, then the
Sponsor shall notify the County.
H.Transfer or Conveyance of Title or Ownership
Projects carried out in whole or part with Conservation Futures Funds shall not be transferred
or conveyed to third parties unless the document or instrument reflecting the transfer of title
or ownership reflects a written provision or clause providing that the land or interest in land
shall be continued to be used for the purposes of Jefferson County Code Chapter 3.08 and in
strict conformance with the uses authorized under RCW 84.34.230.
That same written provision or clause shall also contain language that the land or interest in
land shall not be converted to a different use unless and only if other equivalent lands within
the geographic jurisdiction of the governmental agency are received by the conveying party
(the Grantor) in exchange for the lands or interest in lands being conveyed.
I.Rights and Obligations
All rights and obligations of the parties to this Agreement are subject to this Agreement and
its attachments, including the Sponsor’s Application and Jefferson County Conservation
Futures Program Manual for the 2011 Funding Cycle, all of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
Except as provided herein, no alteration of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement
will be effective unless provided in writing. All such alterations, except those concerning the
period of performance, must be signed by both parties. Period of performance extensions
need only be signed by Jefferson Board of County Commissioners.
J.Indemnification
Sponsor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents
and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, or any portion
thereof, including attorneys fees and costs, arising from injury or death to persons,
including injuries, sickness, disease or death to Sponsor's own employees, or damage
to property occasioned by a negligent act, omission or failure of the Sponsor.
K.Insurance
The Sponsor shall secure and maintain in force throughout the duration of this
contract:
1.Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by
the State of Washington.
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
15
2.Comprehensive general liability insurance with a minimum coverage of
$1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate in connection with
the Sponsor’s performance of this Agreement.
3.Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance providing bodily injury and
property damage liability converge for all owned and non owned
vehicles assigned to or used in the performance of the work for a
combined single limit of not less than $500,000 each occurrence.
4.
Sponsor shall provide all required proofs of insurance to the County in
care of, Contracts Manager at Jefferson County Public Health,
615Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 prior to commencing
employment.
L.Ownership and Use of Documents
All documents, drawings, specifications and other materials produced by the Sponsor
in connection with the services rendered under this agreement shall be the property of
the County whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. The
Sponsor shall be permitted to retain copies, including reproducible copies, of
drawings and specifications for information, reference and use in connection with
Sponsor’s endeavors.
M.Compliance with Applicable Statutes, Rules, and Jefferson County Policies
This Agreement is governed by, and the Sponsor shall comply with, all applicable state and
federal laws and regulations, including RCW 84.34.210, and published agency policies,
which are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
N.Sponsor’s Accounting Books and Records
The Sponsor shall maintain complete financial records relating to this contract and
the services rendered including all books, records, documents, receipts, invoices, and
all other evidence of accounting procedures and practices which sufficiently and
properly reflect all direct and indirect cost of any nature expended in the performance
of this contract. The Sponsor’s records and accounts pertaining to this agreement are
to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the County and state for a
period of six (6) years after the date of the final payment to Sponsor. Copies shall be
made available upon request.
O.Licensing, Accreditation and Registration
The Sponsor shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal licensing,
accreditation, permitting and registration requirement/standards necessary for the
performance of this contract.
P.Disputes
Except as otherwise provided in this contract, when a bona fide dispute arises
between Jefferson County and the Sponsor and it cannot be resolved, either party
may request a dispute hearing with a mediator assigned by or associated with
Jefferson County District Court. Either party’s request for a dispute hearing must be
in writing and clearly state:
1.the disputed issue(s),
2.the relative positions of the parties, and
3.the Sponsor’s name, address and Agency contact number
These requests must be mailed to the Project Manager, Jefferson County
Environmental Health Department, 615 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368,
within fifteen (15) days after either party received notice of the disputed issue(s). The
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
16
parties agree that this dispute process shall precede any action in a judicial or quasi-
judicial tribunal. The parties will split evenly the cost of mediation or whatever form
of dispute resolution is used.
Q.Termination for funding
Jefferson County may unilaterally terminate this contract in the event funding from
state, federal, or other sources are withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the
effective date of this contract.
R.Termination for Convenience
The County reserves the right to terminate this agreement at any time by giving ten
(10) days written notice to the Sponsor.
S.Assignment
The Sponsor shall not sublet or assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not
transfer any interest in this agreement without the express written consent of the
County.
T.Subcontracting
The Sponsor shall not enter into subcontracts in connection with this project for any
of the work contemplated under this contract without obtaining prior written approval
from the County. Prior written consent by the County shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
UNon-Waiver.
.
Waiver by the County of any provision of this agreement or any time limitation
provided for in this agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
V.County Does Not Assume Additional Duties
The County does not assume any obligation or duty, except as required by federal or
state law, to determine if Sponsor is complying with all applicable statutes, rules,
codes ordinances or permits.
W.Project Grant Agreement Representative
All written communications sent to the Sponsor under this Agreement will be addressed and
delivered to:
Project Contact Conservation Futures Program
_________________ Jefferson County Environmental
_________________ Health – Conservation Futures
_________________ 615 Sheridan Street
_________________ Port Townsend, WA 98368
These addresses shall be effective until receipt by one party from the other of a written notice
of any change.
X.Entire Agreement/Severability
This agreement, along with all attachments, constitutes the entire agreement of the parties. No
other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding this Agreement shall exist or bind any of
the parties. If any part of this Agreement is ruled or adjudicated to be unlawful or void, all
other sections of this Agreement shall continue to have full force and effect.
Y.Effective Date
This agreement, for the ________project shall be effective upon signing by all parties.
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
17
Z.Venue:
Venue for any litigation arising from this Project Agreement shall be only in the Superior
Court In and For Jefferson County.
DATED this _______________ day of _____________________ 2011.
By __________________________________
David Sullivan, Chair
Jefferson Board of County Commissioners
By __________________________________
Sponsor
Attested ____________________________
Clerk of the Board
Approved as to form:
____________________________________
David Alvarez, Chief Civil DPA
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
18
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program
Annual Project Reporting Form Template
1. Project Sponsor:
2. Project Title:
3. Project Number:
4. Status:
5. Approval Date:
6. Project goals and objectives:
7. Parcel number(s):
8. Total acreage:
9. Easement:
Title:
Seller:
10. Fee Simple
Seller:
11. Month and year that CF funding was awarded:
12. a). Purchase price: b). Total project cost:
13. Amount of CF award:
14. Month and year of acquisition:
15. Entity holding title:
16. Entity responsible for stewardship:
17. Plans or agreements pertaining to this acquisition:
18. O& M funds received since acquisition (list by year):
19. Existing and on-going activities and projects (for each O & M activity that
has occurred since October 1 of the previous year, please provide
supporting documentation):
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
19
20. New events, activities, projects (for each O & M activity that has occurred
since October 1 of the previous year, please provide supporting
documentation):
21. Needs and challenges:
22. General progress towards project’s objectives:
Completed by:
Title:
Organization:
________________________________________________________________
Signature Date
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
20
Appendix B
2011 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
21
Ø××ØËÊÎÏ úÎÈÏÉÄ úÎÏÊØËÇÜÉÔÎÏ ÷ÈÉÈËØÊ
ó
úÎÐÐÔÉÉØØ
Monday, April 11, 2011
6:00 – 8:00 PM
Jefferson County Library, Humphrey Room
Port Hadlock, WA
FINAL MINUTES
* Decisions and action items are indicated in bold font.
Members Present: Phil Andrus, District 2; Lige Christian, District 3; Richard Jahnke, Interest – Coastal
Areas; Jerry Gorsline, District 2; Janet Kearsley, District 1; Phyllis Schultz, Interest - Working Lands; Sarah
Spaeth, Interest - Jefferson Land Trust; Fred Weinmann, Interest - Ecology; John Augustus Wood, District
1
Members Absent: Crystie Kisler, Interest - Farming;
County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Water Quality Division and Recorder
Guests:J.D. Gallant
:
I. Call to Order
Chair Fred Weinmann called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM
II. Review of Agenda:
The agenda was approved, as written.
III. Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of March 28, 2011 meeting were approved as written.
IV. Observer comments:
None
V. Old Business:
None
VI. New Business
Linking Rating Worksheet and Application Questions
Janet Kearsley introduced a tool she uses to help rank project applications. It’s a table that links
the answers to rating worksheet questions to the corresponding questions in the project
application (See Appendix A).
1
Copies of the completed applications for the Winona Basin – Bloedel Project and Carleson
Chimacum Creek Acquisition Project were distributed to members who needed them.
The plan for the April 13 site visits and carpool arrangements were discussed. Members will meet
at 2PM on April 13 at the intersection of Arizona and Cook Avenues. Those wishing to carpool from
Port Townsend should meet in the Environmental Health Department parking lot at 1:45.
Winona Basin – Bloedel Project Presentation
Sarah Spaeth, Executive Director of the Jefferson Land Trust (JLT), made the project presentations
summarized below.
The Winona Basin – Bloedel Project is located within the Quimper Wildlife Corridor. The City of Port
Townsend will hold title to the proposed acquisition consistent with its Quimper Wildlife Corrridor
ordinance. The City and JLT have worked together to acquire properties in this area since the mid-
1990s. The Corridor is a greenbelt that stretches from McCurdy Point to Fort Worden connecting a
series of wetlands in the City’s least developed area. Corridor landmarks include a DNR Trustland
Transfer property leased to Jefferson County, the Winona Wetland, Chinese Gardens, the Levinski
[Quaking Aspen] Wetland and Tibbals Lake. Ms. Spaeth discussed the location of the 100-year
floodplain and various properties on the maps contained in the project application.
Ownership in the Quimper Wildlife Corridor is gradually being consolidated under the City. In
recent years, the focus has been on the Winona Basin which has some of the best habitat quality
in the Corridor according to Dr. Fred Sharpe who identified over 200 bird species in the area. The
proposed acquisition consists of seven lots in the Tier 2 category of the Corridor that are adjacent
to the 2009 acquisition funded with Conservation Futures. Other sources of funds have been
sought to purchase corridor properties, especially the State’s Urban Wildlife Habitat Category funds
but the Corridor typically doesn’t rank well due to the City’s relatively small population. Urban
population figures are one criteria of the grant program.
JLT has been in conversations with the landowner of the project lots, as well as additional nearby
properties, for more than 14 years. She recently expressed a desire to sell, and these seven lots
are the current, affordable, priority.
The City located the sewer serving Seaview Estates along the line of lowest elevation including the
Winona Wetland area. In 1986, the Army Corps of Engineers recognized that the wetland had been
encroached upon. This led to the acquisition of Winona Wetland proper, in part, as mitigation.
Winona Wetland held water last in 1997-98. There was concern that maybe the City’s sewer line
was causing the wetland to drain somehow, but now that the water is back this appears now not
to be the case.
The Conservation Futures Ordinance allows the matching contribution to come from lands
connected to the project area that were acquired within the previous two years. The donated lands
linked to the 2009 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project are adjacent to the lots currently under
consideration. Their appraised value came in higher than expected. Consequently, JLT has
requested that this “excess” value be accepted as match for the Winona Basin – Bloedel Project.
Much of the project area falls within critical area buffers. However, there is a use exemption which
would allow for at least some development.
Numerous species of wildlife use the area including pileated woodpecker, amphibians, bobcat,
cougar, and elk. The wetland has mature trees and lots of snags. Ms. Spaeth briefly discussed the
spread of barred owls into Western Washington. There are no spotted owl areas in the Corridor.
She stressed that the Winona Wetland contains rich habitat for wildlife. Some nearby tree cover
2
has been lost to development near Arizona Street and a development for 74 new homes on 35
acres is being proposed on the opposite side of Cook Avenue.
The Corridor partners have spent a lot of time trying to piece the properties together despite the
large number of landowners in the area. The adoption of the Quimper Wildlife Management Plan
has allowed JLT to work in closer partnership with the City. JLT monitors agency-owned properties
within the Corridor acquired with CF Funds as well as the lands that JLT owns. There are frequent
volunteer activities, clean ups, and noxious weed removal. Tons of trash has been removed. In
’98-99 a lot of drug paraphernalia was found. Gates have since been installed to prevent vehicle
access, and this has made a huge difference.
There is a lot of community support for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor. The Native Plant Society has
done inventory work for JLT and is very supportive; the Audubon Society has hosted educational
trips into the Corridor. JLT has trained over 40 Corridor docents who lead monthly trips on the first
Saturday of every month. The Corridor was JLT’s first proactive project and it’s still ongoing. The
land trust work only with willing sellers and pays fair market value although some people have
donated property to the project.
Phil Andrus asked about the banked land match. Sarah Spaeth responded that land can be used as
match for a proposal if that land has been acquired within two years. In 2009, the City acquired
some land that ended up being worth much more than anticipated. Only about half of the value
was spoken for as match to the 2009 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project. Lige Christian mentioned
that appraised land has been used as match multiple times and this situation isn’t all that different.
Jerry Gorsline concluded that what is being donated as match is the increased value of the
properties over the anticipated value. That increase value took place back in 2009. Staff Tami
Pokorny mentioned that the match was asserted when JLT wrote a letter to her in August of 2009
requesting that the increased value be “banked” for future projects. JLT did not want to loose
access to the match when they found they couldn’t use all of it for the 2009 project. Staff will
speak to the county attorney about the eligibility of the land value as match. She requested that
Ms. Spaeth read the relevant section of the CF Ordinance (Section 3 (5.)):
Lige Christian expressed that he had no objection to inquiring with the attorney, but he sees the
cash value of the land as something that should be used. Janet Kearsley asked whether the letter
was seen by the commissioners. Ms. Pokorny responded that the request was documented in the
invoice for the 2009 Quimper Wildlife Project. Ms. Kearsley suggested that the JLT letter be
included in the commissioners’ packet when they are asked to decide funding. Members agreed it
was a good that JLT had thought to write a letter at the time.
3
The total project budget has to include the land that is being acquired plus the value of the match.
The land that is being used as match is shown in the application on page 15 in the corner – the
light colored parcels. Ms. Spaeth suggested that the application be improved to make the details
on match and O & M more clear. In Question #11, total estimated acquisition cost, it’s not clear
whether that figure should include O & M or not. Janet Kearsley requested that the match
properties be made more visible on black and white map copies.
Sarah Spaeth clarified that no CF funds were used to acquire the match property, the Block 18 lots.
These were gifted to the City of Port Townsend in 2009 and exceeded the anticipated value of the
land by $49,000 at the time of the gift. About half of the value was applied as match to the 2009
Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project. Only the excess value is being applied to the current application.
Phyllis Schultz confirmed that the lots were in the vicinity of the new application. Ms. Spaeth said
that since the proposed match is only good for two years, any “unspent” banked match remaining
after the current project would not be utilized. This was another factor in JLTs decision to apply
this year for this property.
Chair Weinmann reminded the Committee that there will be another chance to ask questions in the
field during the site visits. Lige Christian mentioned that no new information should be brought up
at the ranking meeting but that there would be a full discussion of the projects otherwise.
Carleson Chimacum Creek Acquisition Project Presentation
Ms. Spaeth then began the Carleson Chimacum Creek Project presentation. The owner of this
project area contacted JLT to ask about selling the 5-acre property fee simple or a conservation
easement. The property is located on the lower main stem of Chimacum Creek which includes
critical summer chum spawning habitat. The property would be held by JLT with a deed of right to
the State or by Jefferson County.
The summer chum runs declined in 1980s due to a number of factors including habitat degradation
and culvert failures and the species was completely extirpated. Because the runs were Endangered
Species Act (ESA) listed, grant funds became available to acquire and restore habitat. On
Chimacum Creek, a washout had caused a tremendous amount of fine sediment to be deposited in
the creek bed and it essentially cement over the spawning gravels. The North Olympic Salmon
ed
Coalition (NOSC), the Jefferson Conservation District and others worked to break up the deposited
sediment and free up the spawning areas. Property began to be acquired and a partnership
developed involving WDFW, Tribes, WSU, NOSC, JLT which became the “Chumsortium.” The group
shared project ideas and developed a strategy to recover the stream.
The project area is a key piece of the “S-Curve” area near Irondale with Chimacum Creek running
through the middle. It is one of the last properties of the lower mainstem that isn’t already
protected. In addition to summer chum salmon, it contains habitat for fall chum, coho, steelhead,
and cutthroat. The property slopes down to the floodplain of the creek on both sides and contains
mature forest canopy. The landowner has developed a covered picnic platform and theres also a
’
utility shed. A developed ATV trail leads down to the creek and provides access for recreation and
noxious weed removal. The owner has removed a large area of Himalayan blackberries.
The property is beautiful one with signs of pileated woodpecker, snags, and a variety of instream
habitat including pools. It is assessed at $70,000 and the appraised value is estimated to be
$150,000. JLT is applying to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) for the majority of the
funding. If approved, conservation futures funds would supply the required 15% match. JLT would
also contribute some cash towards stewardship costs.
The Chumsortium has a management plan for the Lower Chimacum area. Ms. Spaeth said that JLT
would work with Chumsortium partners on restoration and in lining up volunteer assistance. There
4
are remaining invasive species issues to address and in the past there were also signs of
inappropriate uses by local kids. A Friends of Chimacum Beach group formed recently when the
county didnt have funds to maintain it. This group would also likely be available to help with
’
upstream areas. The Chumsortium partners have been able to take a good step forward with some
of the issues that seem particularly magnified in this part of Irondale. There was a brief discussion
on the topic of illegal dumping.
Chair Weinmann mentioned that the CF program allows sponsors three years to identify matching
funds. Phyllis Schultz said that CF funds are often the first dollars towards completion of a project.
Lige Christian felt that the leveraging of County dollars in the CF program made this a good use of
local tax revenue.
VII. Other/ Administrative
Steps to Next Meeting – Ms. Pokorny discussed options for submitting ratings sheets ahead of the
May 2 meeting. Completed sheets should ideally be sent to staff electronically or in hard copy (to
Environmental Health) by April 28 or 29.
Committee Membership – Ms. Pokorny regretted that she did not inform Crystie Kisler or Phil
Andrus of their term expiration dates in a timely manner. J.D. Gallant will be interviewed by Chair
Weinmann and staff on April 15, and could be appointed to the Committee in time to rank projects.
Fund Balance – The Fund balance as of March 31, 2011 was $403,200.10.
VIII. Observer Comments
None
IX. Adjournment
Chair Weinmann adjourned the meeting at 7:46 PM.
5
APPENDIX A
Ranking Questions/Application Answers
Ranking Questions Application Answer
1 12 b
2 13
3 14/15
4 16
5 17
6 19
7 20
8 22
9 25
10 26
11 27
12 28
6
2011 Jefferson County
Conservation Futures Program
Ratings Sheets
ADJUSTED
CRITERIASCOREXWEIGHTSCORE
=
1To what degree does the project leverage contributions
.
for acquisition from groups, agencies or individuals?
______ X 5 = _______
(Points awarded based on the following level of contribution)
a.leverages significantly = 3 points
b.leverages moderately = 2 points
c.meets requirement = 1 point
2.To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide
long-term stewardship for the proposed project?
______ X 10 = _______
a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points
b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points
c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point
3. To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective
long-term stewardship of a similar project?
______ X 1 = _______
a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points
b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points
c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point
d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points
4.To what degree is the acquisition feasible?
______ X 8 = _______
a. Highly feasible = 5 points
b. Moderately feasible = 3 points
c. Slightly feasible = 1 point
5.To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource
preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort?
______ X 7 = _______
a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points
b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3 points
c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation efforts
= 1 point
6. To what degree does the project conserve
opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened?
______ X 6 = _______
a. Significantly threatened = 5 points
b. Moderately threatened = 3 points
c. Slightly threatened = 1 point
d. Not threatened = 0 points
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
7. To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna?
(Points awarded in part based on level of documentation.)
a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive
species = 0–3 points ______ X 4 = _______
b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points ______ X 4 = _______
c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points______ X 4 = _______
8. To what degree does the project preserve farmland
for agricultural use?
a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points ______ X 4 = _______
b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points ______ X 4 = _______
c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points ______ X 4 = _______
9.To what degree does the project serve a significant
benefit area?
______ X 4 = _______
a. Broad county benefit = 5 points
b. Localized benefit = 3 points
10.To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive
opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource?
_______ X 4 = _______
a. Public access, with planned or educational/interpretive displays and materials, events or activities
= 5 points
b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points
c. Remote location = 1 point
d. No opportunity = 0 points
1
11. To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources?
_______ X 3 = _______
a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3
points
b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points
c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point
12. To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use?
a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points
_______ X 3 = _______
b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable silviculture
Certified = 3 point
Uncertified = 0 points _______ X 1 = _______
1
Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious ceremonial and
social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of resources under chapters 27.44
and 27.53 RCW.
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp
3
Ø××ØËÊÎÏ úÎÈÏÉÄ úÎÏÊØËÇÜÉÔÎÏ ÷ÈÉÈËØÊ
ó
úÎÐÐÔÉÉØØ
Monday, May 2, 2011
3:00 – 6:00 PM
Jefferson County Library,
620 Cedar Avenue, Port Hadlock, WA
DRAFT Minutes
* Decisions and action items are indicated in bold font.
Members Present: Phil Andrus, District 2; Lige Christian, District 3; JD Gallant, District 3; Jerry
Gorsline, District 2; Rick Jahnke, Coastal Areas; Janet Kearsley, District 1; Phyllis Schultz, Working Lands;
Sarah Spaeth, Jefferson Land Trust (left meeting 3:30 PM); Fred Weinmann, Ecology; John Wood,
District 1
Members Absent: None
County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Water Quality Division
I. Call to Order:
Chair Fred Weinmann called the meeting to order at 3:08 PM on May 2, 2011.
II. Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of the April 11, 2011 meeting were approved as written.
:
III. Review of Agenda
Chair Weinmann invited changes to the agenda. There were none except staff was asked to give
the administrative update now because Sarah Spaeth would likely leave the meeting after the
ethics questions.
IV. Other/Administrative:
Membership
Tami Pokorny reported that JD Gallant is a confirmed new member. Crystie Kisler has reluctantly
resigned from the Committee due to scheduling conflicts. The new vacancy, for a citizen to
represent any relevant interest, will be advertised as soon as possible. All of the commissioner
districts remain represented.
Fund Balance
No update to the CFF balance was available since the April meeting. The end of March balance
was $403,200.10.
Calendar
Committee recommendations will be presented to the BoCC before the end of June. For all
recommended projects, staff will be requesting confirmation from the City and/or County
development departments that sufficient capacity would remain to accommodate projected
growth. She will coordinate with the Chair and Committee members to schedule the BoCC
presentation as well as a “wrap up” meeting for this funding cycle.
None
V. Observer comments:
VI. Old Business: None.
VII. New Business:
A. Deposition of Committee Members with ethics questions based on Chief Deputy Civil
Prosecuting Attorney’s July 9, 2002 memo.
Tami Pokorny read the following statement, with regard to CARLESON CHIMACUM CREEK
ACQUISITION project:
No one voiced any objection.
She asked if there were any objections with respect to the WINONA BASIN – BLOEDEL project.
No one voiced any objection.
Tami Pokorny then stated that she would read four questions pertaining to the CARLESON
CHIMACUM CREEK ACQUISITION project for each member to answer in turn.
Jerry Gorsline: I do not.
Janet Kearsley: I do not.
Fred Weinmann: I don’t.
Phil Andrus: I do not.
John Wood: I do not.
JD Gallant: I do not.
Rick Jahnke: No
Lige Christian: I do not.
Sarah Spaeth: I do not.
Phyllis Schultz: I do not.
Jerry Gorsline: I am.
Janet Kearsley: I am.
Fred Weinmann: I can.
Phil Andrus: I am.
John Wood: I am.
JD Gallant: I am.
Rick Jahnke: I am.
Lige Christian: I am.
Sarah Spaeth: As the project sponsor, Jefferson Land Trust, I have proposed that these projects
be funded and I am recusing myself from the ranking.
Phyllis Schultz: I am.
Staff noted that a yes
answer is not an automatic disqualification if the nature of the communication is disclosed and
others have the opportunity to question/approve its inconsequentiality to this process.
Jerry Gorsline: No
Janet Kearsley: No
Fred Weinmann: No
Phil Andrus: No
John Wood: No
JD Gallant: No
Rick Jahnke: No
Lige Christian: No
Sarah Spaeth: I have spoken with a number of project partners and proponents, whether it was
the City of Port Townsend discussing ownership or land owners, and our Chumsortium partners
about the proposal for Chimacum Creek.
Phyllis Schultz: No
Jerry Gorsline: I have.
Janet Kearsley: I have participated in all of what has been required.
Fred Weinmann: I have as well.
Phil Andrus: So have I.
John Wood: So have I.
JD Gallant: So have I.
Rick Jahnke: So have I.
Lige Christian: So have I.
Sarah Spaeth: I have also.
Phyllis Schultz: I have viewed the video.
With regard to the WINONA BASIN – BLOEDEL Project, staff posed the same set of questions
and members gave their responses.
Jerry Gorsline: No.
Janet Kearsley: No.
Fred Weinmann: No.
Phil Andrus: No.
John Wood: No.
JD Gallant: No.
Rick Jahnke: No.
Lige Christian: No.
Sarah Spaeth: No.
Phyllis Schultz: No.
Jerry Gorsline: Yes.
Janet Kearsley: Yes.
Fred Weinmann: Yes.
Phil Andrus: Yes.
John Wood: Yes.
JD Gallant: Yes.
Rick Jahnke: Yes.
Lige Christian: Yes.
Sarah Spaeth: Once again, as the project applicant and sponsor, I think the Land Trust is hopeful
that these projects will be funded and I’ll be recusing myself from ranking this project as well as
the Carleson project.
Phyllis Schultz: Yes.
Jerry Gorsline: No
Janet Kearsley: No
Fred Weinmann: No
Phil Andrus: No
John Wood: No
JD Gallant: No
Rick Jahnke: No
Lige Christian: No
Sarah Spaeth: Yes, I have spoken with the City of Port Townsend and with various neighbors
about the possibility of this becoming part of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor project. I have not
heard any negative responses to this.
Phyllis Schultz: No
Jerry Gorsline: Yes.
Janet Kearsley: Yes.
Fred Weinmann: Yes.
Phil Andrus: Yes.
John Wood: Yes.
JD Gallant: Yes.
Rick Jahnke: Yes.
Lige Christian: Yes.
Sarah Spaeth: Yes.
Phyllis Schultz: Yes.
Janet Kearsley commended the new Committee members (Rick Jahnke and JD Gallant) for
attending meetings and events even before their appointments.
Sarah Spaeth thanked the Committee and left the meeting.
Discussion and Rating of 2011 Conservation Futures project applications
Staff noted that all Committee members have submitted their rating sheets and the scores have
been compiled into two composite spreadsheets, one for each project.
In the past the Committee has discussed the individual ratings where there was not consensus.
Negotiations through the process result in a total score for each project to be divided by the
number of people ranking for a final score. Today, the number of scorers will be nine for both
projects. Ultimately, in order to make a recommendation to the BoCC, there will need to be a
motion as to whether or not each project is worthy of any funding and also motions to establish
the amount of funding being recommended for each project.
There was a brief discussion about whether Question 1 of the ratings sheet should receive two
answers or one. The question should be flagged for review prior to the next funding cycle.
Members consulted the Word version rating sheet for 2011.
1.Carleson Chimacum Creek Acquisition Rating Process
Chair Weinmann reminded Committee members that it is okay to adjust individual scores based
on the discussion surrounding each question.
Members took turns reading the rating questions. Each question was discussed, and scores
adjusted as desired, except in situations where all the scores were in agreement. Final scores are
reflected in the composite spreadsheet for each project in Appendix A.
Question 1
To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisition from groups, agencies or
individuals?
a.leverages significantly = 3 points
b.leverages moderately = 2 points
c.meets requirement = 1 point
Lige Christian mentioned that the project would leverage CF funding at a ratio of 85% Salmon
Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) dollars to 15% CFF. The answer to this question could possibly
reflect both the degree of leverage and also the variety of matching fund sources. It was noted
that the SRFB grant has not yet been applied for but that fact pertains more to the question on
the “certainty” of the project.
Question 2
To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the
proposed project?
a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points
b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points
c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point
Fred Weinmann thought it was difficult to determine who is going to get the monitoring done and
what monitoring they’re going to do. He sensed it would be difficult to monitor this 5-acre parcel,
with its setting and topography, compared with the Winona parcel. He noted that the Land Trust
is very capable, but it is difficult work.
Phil Andrus had the experience of working with Land Trust staff trying to locate markers on
uneven ground and was impressed with their diligence. Janet Kearsley thought that it could be
difficult to find funds for all the stewardship work that they would like to do. Lige Christian noted
that the Committee has a significant track record with JLT. Fred Weinmann commented that, as
the number of properties held by the Land Trust increases, the job of stewardship increases.
Stewardship funds can be the most difficult to obtain.
Question 3
To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a
similar project?
a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points
b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points
c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point
d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 4
To what degree is the acquisition feasible?
a. Highly feasible = 5 points
b. Moderately feasible = 3 points
c. Slightly feasible = 1 point
Fred Weinmann scored this question in relation to the fact that the matching funds are not yet in
hand. He felt it would be unreasonable to consider the project “highly feasible” if the grant had
not been applied for yet. John Wood felt that feasibility came down to whether the money is
available and whether the seller is willing and likely to carry through with the transaction. Lige
Christian said that the Committee has historically accepted where the sponsor will be getting the
funding. Sponsors have three years post-approval to obtain the grant. ‘Feasible’ doesn’t mean
‘certain.’ Janet noted that they have a willing land owner, an appraisal, and they’ve agreed to a
price given the resources. In the history of the CF program, no project has defaulted for not
obtaining funding within three years. The County’s money is often a catalyst for obtaining other
funds.
Question 5
To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource
preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort?
a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points
b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3
points
c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation
efforts = 1 point
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 6
To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened?
a. Significantly threatened = 5 points
b. Moderately threatened = 3 points
c. Slightly threatened = 1 point
d. Not threatened = 0 points
Phyllis Schultz remarked on whether JLT would be able to continue the trail work begun by the
land owner. JD Gallant understood that the property was desired first and foremost for the creek
and the area around the creek – an area that is definitely at risk of being lost or threatened. The
site is very desirable, accessible and developable.
Question 7
To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna?
a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or
Sensitive species = 0–3 points
b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points
c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points
Several members mentioned the importance of the presence of the ESA listed run of chum
salmon to their ratings. Janet Kearsley suggested that the application should include a request
for specific information about species or habitat listings. Fred Weinmann noted that there was a
lot of disturbance at the site and nothing unusual botanically. Lige Christian felt that the focus of
the question should be the creek and the variety of life associated with it. Jerry Gorsline pointed
out that the site also provides habitat for many bird species. Some members agreed that it would
have been nice to have more data on creek invertebrates. As a wildlife corridor or migration
route, JD Gallant felt that the creek rather than the surrounding land provides the greatest
opportunities for wildlife migration. Janet Kearsely, who at one time lived on the creek, had
observed cougar and bobcat travelling through. After further discussion, there was general
agreement that the protected areas did function as an upland and riparian corridor.
Question 8
To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use?
a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points
b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points
c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 9
To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area?
a. Broad county benefit = 5 points
b. Localized benefit = 3 points
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 10
To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities,
and/or serve as a general community resource?
a. Public access, with planned or educational/interpretive displays and materials, events or
activities = 5 points
b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points
c. Remote location = 1 point
d. No opportunity = 0 points
Phyllis Schultz felt that there was potential for public access for education especially considering
the presence of the existing picnic shelter. Others understood that the Land Trust would like to
bring interpretive trips there. Lige Christian said that in the past public access has been
associated with some kind of interpretive or educational opportunity rather than complete
openness for public access which could conflict with conservation goals. There was a general
sense that access does not need to be unrestricted. This project was developed in part to help
complete the migration corridor. Fred Weinmann felt there were other sites better suited to
education on salmon migration.
Question 11
1
To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources?
a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3
points
b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points
c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point
There was a very brief discussion and agreement that little or no historically or culturally
significant resources are involved.
Question 12
To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use?
a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points
b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable
silviculture Certified = 3 point Uncertified = 0 points
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Janet Kearsley moved to nominate the project for funding. The motion was seconded
by Phyllis Schultz.
A glitch in the spread sheet was discovered. There was no other discussion.
Fred Weinmann called for a vote. By show of hands, the motion was approved
unanimously.
During a break called by Fred Weinmann, the spreadsheet glitch was identified (wrong multiplier
in Question #3) and corrected for both project spreadsheets.
Fred Weinmann called the meeting back to order. The total score for CARLESON CHIMACUM
CREEK ACQUISITION project was 2141; the weighted average was 238 (2141 divided by nine
raters).
2.Winona Basin – Bloedel Rating Process
The Committee then began the same process for the Winona Basin – Bloedel project.
Question 1
To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisition from groups, agencies or
individuals?
d.leverages significantly = 3 points
e.leverages moderately = 2 points
f.meets requirement = 1 point
1
Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious
ceremonial and social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of
resources under chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW.
Members discussed that, although the project match was essentially in place, this question refers
only to the ratio of the CF contribution to the match.
Question 2
To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the
proposed project?
a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points
b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points
c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 3
To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a
similar project?
a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points
b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points
c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point
d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 4
To what degree is the acquisition feasible?
a. Highly feasible = 5 points
b. Moderately feasible = 3 points
c. Slightly feasible = 1 point
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 5
To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource
preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort?
a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points
b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3
points
c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation
efforts = 1 point
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 6
To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened?
a. Significantly threatened = 5 points
b. Moderately threatened = 3 points
c. Slightly threatened = 1 point
d. Not threatened = 0 points
As in the previous project, the Land Trust has worked with the landowner over many years for
the opportunity to acquire the property. Some members felt that this land was less desirable and
more difficult to develop than the Chimacum Creek property. It could become more desirable in
the future. Fred Weinmann said that the price per lot reflects the potential for development -
$7,500 per lot.
Question 7
To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna?
a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or
Sensitive species = 0–3 points
b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points
c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points
JD Gallant didn’t see anything exceptional about the land. Janet Kearsley explained that she rated
it a “1” for this question because some of the species are on the state list. The way the
application is currently written, though, this isn’t clear. The application gives a list of species but
not broken out by state, federal etc. Bald eagles are no longer listed federally but may still be
state listed. Peregrine falcons, pileated woodpeckers, band tailed pigeons, and merlin are still on
the state sensitive list. The olive-sided fly catcher also. The question does not only pertain to
federal ESA listings in other words. Fred Weinmann noted that many properties in Jefferson
County would have this same list of sensitive species. Several preliminary scores were adjusted.
There was conversation about whether to interpret the question for the Quimper Wildlife Corridor
as a whole or only for these particular lots. As a piece of a whole it has all kinds of important
species. Lige Christian gave it a lower rating initially because there aren’t ESA listed threatened
species present. It was acknowledges that the overarching concept of the project is to establish a
wildlife corridor.
Question 8
To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use?
a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points
b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points
c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points
All scores in agreement. No discussion necessary.
Question 9
To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area?
a. Broad county benefit = 5 points
b. Localized benefit = 3 points
The corridor begins in the City and ends in the County, but the current project area has a very
limited extent. Janet Kearsley pointed out that the Land Trust looks at the project as a local one.
Jerry Gorsline felt that the benefit was broader since the Quimper Wildlife Corridor has a regional
draw for bicyclists.
Question 10
To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities,
and/or serve as a general community resource?
a. Public access, with planned or educational/interpretive displays and materials, events or
activities = 5 points
b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points
c. Remote location = 1 point
d. No opportunity = 0 points
The parcel itself won’t have public access and there won’t be signage. The Corridor has
opportunities for walking and biking, but the project area only complements the existing
recreational opportunities. Jerry Gorsline mentioned the trained docents volunteering in the
Corridor and the tremendous educational value of that. JD Gallant felt that the question should
be weighed against the project area only. Lige Christian felt that this issue can’t be settled in
situations where the project is being proposed specifically to be part of a larger corridor.
Particularly in the case of the Carleson Chimacum Creek acquisition, the project will almost
complete a wildlife corridor. The value extends beyond the project parcel. Phil Andrus recalled
that Finnriver Farm also has monthly walks and trained docents. It’s difficult to see any single
parcel by itself and to evaluate it apart from the larger context. John Wood felt that the question
should be revised to say “potential” educational value. He considered how the addition of the
project area would enhance the existing educational values. He didn’t feel it added anything that
the corridor doesn’t already have. Fred Weinmann noted that the Winona Wetland is a
particularly important part of the Corridor for wildlife. This project would complete the buffer
around the wetland. If this project isn’t acquired, and instead a house is built, it would change
circumstances for a large area. Several preliminary scores were adjusted. JD Gallant remembered
that the Land Trust has no plans for public access to this site.
Question 11
2
?
To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources
a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3
points
b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points
c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point
Lige Christian pointed out that another option for “0” is needed for this question - a “d” to
indicate no historical or culturally significant resources. For now a “no answer” can suffice for
this.
Question 12
To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use?
a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points
b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable
silviculture Certified = 3 point Uncertified = 0 points
Since there is no management plan, members agreed a “0” was appropriate for “a.”
There was no discussion on “b.”
The total score for WINONA BASIN - BLOEDEL project was 2018; the weighted average was 224
(2018 divided by nine raters).
Phil Andrus moved to nominate the project for funding. The motion was seconded by
Lige Christian.
There was no discussion.
Fred Weinmann called for a vote. By show of hands, the motion was approved
unanimously.
Lige Christian moved to rank the projects as follows:
1. Carleson Chimacum Creek Acquisition
2. Winona Basin – Bloedel
2
Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious
ceremonial and social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of
resources under chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW.
Phil Andrus seconded.
Lige Christian chose to rank the projects consistent with the scores they had received from the
Committee. In the past, where a project with a lower score was given a higher final ranking, a
justification was provided. The ranking in this case should reflect the scores. Phyllis Schultz
pointed out that the difference in scores was not great. Mr. Christian clarified that his ultimate
intention is to make a motion to fully fund the projects. In the unlikely event it is not possible to
fully fund both, the Committee has indicated its preference.
Phil Andrus considers the Chimacum project more vital due to the salmon run. Phyllis Schultz felt
the projects to be of equal value since a house built on the Winona project area would have a
significant impact on the Quimper Wildlife Corridor. Several other members felt the projects were
of equal value, but for different reasons. Rick Jahnke sees the Chimacum Creek corridor as a
system stretching from Irondale Road down to the estuary where the effort to protect the
salmon corridor is essentially complete. If the property were to go on the open market, it would
likely be sold easily whereas there are many similar properties in the vicinity of the Winona
project. The Winona property is an important piece of the bigger project but it doesn’t complete
the effort in the same way that the Chimacum parcel does. He would also put Chimacum ahead.
Fred Weinmann called the question.
NAY
AYES
Jerry Gorsline John Wood
Janet Kearsley Phyllis Schultz
Phil Andrus
JD Gallant
Rick Jahnke
Lige Christian
Fred Weinmann abstained. The motion passed.
Lige Christian then moved to fully fund both projects. Janet Kearsley seconded the
motion.
Mr. Christian pointed out that the commissioners do not have to take the advice of the
Committee, so it’s helpful to spell out where the priorities are.
JD Gallant made a friendly amendment that funding levels be the same as those
requested in the applications. Lige Christian accepted the amendment. Fred
Weinmann called the question. The motion passed unanimously.
VIII. Observer Comments: None
IX. Adjournment:
Fred Weinmann adjourned the meeting at 5:07 PM.
Appendix A
Composite Rating Sheets