HomeMy WebLinkAboutM091911
District No.1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson
District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Snllivan
District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin
County Administrator: Philip Morley
Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney
MINUTES
Week of September 19,2011
Chairman John Austin called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of
Commissioner David Sullivan and Commissioner Phil Johnson.
PUBliC COMMENT PERIOD: The following are a summary of comments made by
citizens in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions:
. Elected Official Ruth Gordon does not have adequate office space and urged the Board to find
the necessary funds to correct the situation;
. The County should be discretionary of funds being spent whether the money comes from local
tax dollars or State tax dollars;
. Two citizens urged the Board to implement SSB 5451 into the locally approved Shoreline
Management Program (SMP);
. A citizen thanked AI Cairns for presenting public workshops on composting;
. A citizen stated Item No.5 on the Consent Agenda does not have accurate insurance
requirements and the economy directly affects children and their quality of life; and
. The State is projecting a bigger deficit than before and the Board should look at where the
County can cut cost.
APPROV ALAND ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Sullivan
moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Johnson seconded the
motion which carried by a nnanimous vote.
1. AGREEMENT: Community Access Services; In the Amount of $28,800.00; Jefferson County
Public Health; Concerned Citizens
2. AGREEMENT: Birth to Three (3) Years Program; In the Amount 0[$5,148.00; Jefferson
County Public Health; Concerned Citizens
3. AGREEMENT: Group Supported Employment; In the Amount 0[$19,200.00; Jefferson County
Public Health; Skookum Corporation
4. AGREEMENT: Individual Employment and Person to Person Services; In the Amount of
$119,483.00; Jefferson County Public Health; Skookum Corporation
5. AGREEMENT, Amendment No.3: Facilitation and Project Management Services for East
Jefferson Watershed Council; Additional Amount of $11,622.00 for a Total of$79,122.00;
Jefferson County Public Health; Blackmore Consulting, LLC
6. AGREEMENT: H.J. Carroll Park Caretaker; No Dollar Amount; Jefferson County Public
Works; John and Mary Crooks
7. AGREEMENT NO. 180-543-1858: Hoh Shop Roof Retrofit Project; In the Amount of
$59,708.00; Jefferson County Public Works; PHC Construction, LLC
Page I
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 19,2011
8. Payment of Jefferson County VouchersfWarrants Dated September 12,2011 Totaling
$1,775,535.30 and Totaling $1,133.89
COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners each provided updates
on the following items:
Chairman Austin participated in the Ranger Run last week and attended a Washington Wildlife
Recreation and Coalition meeting.
Commissioner Sullivan reported he attended a Chimacum Grange meeting, toured local farms and a
presentation made by Will Allen last week. He will attend a Public Utility District No.1 meeting this
week.
Commissioner Johnson participated in the Ranger Run and attended the Quilcene Fair and Parade. He
will be attending a Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) meeting in Port Ludlow this week.
Comments Received and Deliberation on Draft Jefferson County Response to Ecology
on Changes to the Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (MLA08-475): Michelle
McConnell, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development (DCD), stated that Department
of Ecology (DOE) responded to the County with a conditional approval in January of2011. They had
several recommended and required changes. In June the County wrote a draft response and held a public
comment period ending in July. The statutory deadline for the County's adoption is December 1, 2011.
There is some interest in SSB5451 regarding terminology for conforming and non-conforming land uses.
The Department of Ecology stated each jurisdiction mayor may not address SSB5451 and recommended
the County to seek advice from their own legal counsel for advice if new text in regards to this issue
needs a new public comment period. After conferring with legal counsel, it was determined a new
public comment period was needed if there was additional language added related to SSB5451. The
County has 63 possible changes to the draft response to Ecology under "Attachment B (Required
Changes)" and "Attachment C (Recommended Changes)".
Commissioner Sullivan stated that SSB5451 is trying to resolve the perception of
property labeled non-conforming. Concerns have been voiced that people who are looking to buy
property labeled non-conforming may effect the price because the perception is they are not to receive a
loan on non-conforming land. However, there is no real evidence supporting that perception.
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, stated the diagram handed out by Ms. McConnell
visualizes the difference between legal and illegal and conforming and non-conforming and how the
term "Grandfathered" can and cannot be used. David Alvarez, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, stated a
question to think about is how would land being labeled conforming or non-conforming affect a citizen
if they wanted to expand their building? Ms. Hoskins stated a house could be constructed under a
conforming residence under a non-conforming parcel. If someone came in that did not meet the 150 feet
setback and wanted to expand their house DCD would first look under the code and see if there is an
allowance on a non-conforming lot where they may still be conforming to the code. Mr. Alvarez stated
if the house was permitted before the new SMP went into effect it would automatically be considered
legal non-conforming use. County Administrator Morley stated after he reviewed SSB5451 it raised
questions for him. He asked if there is a house that was called non-conforming but changes to
conforming, and the property owner wanted to expand they would have to meet the requirements of the
Page 2
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 19, 2011
150 foot setback? Ms. Hoskins answered as soon as someone would want to add on DCD would look at
the non-conforming rules of the code because they would be considered conforming until they wanted to
expand. County Administrator Morley said that in SSB5451 it states the jurisdiction would still have to
ensure that there is no net loss and asked if we would have to have another set of rules for standards and
review? This legislation was adopted this session and we have been criticized in the past for being on
the cutting edge of new legislation. It is his belief that the County should let other jurisdictions take the
lead on this so the wrinkles can be ironed out first. The Commissioners concurred not to add language
to the SMP in regards to SSB5451.
Ms. McConnell explained one of the main issues addressed in the public comments were
finfish aquaculture. She went through an itemized list of 63 proposed changes resulting from citizens or
the Department of Ecology's comments.
Under "Attachment B" (required changes) the Board agreed with changes to items
numbered one through eleven. Items twelve through fifteen is in regards to aquaculture which Ms.
McConnell proposed to postpone discussion. Items number sixteen and seventeen the Board agreed with
DCD's recommendation. The Board postponed discussing item number eighteen. The Board agreed
with items numbered nineteen through twenty six.
Under "Attachment C" (recommended changes) the Board agreed with DCD staff
recommendations of item number one through twelve. Item number thirteen was postponed for later
discussion. The Board agreed with item number fourteen.
Under "Additional Revisions Proposed for Clarification", the Board agreed with items
numbered one through twenty. The Board postponed discussion of item number twenty-one and agreed
to items number twenty-two and twenty-three.
The Department of Community Development staff will bring this issue back before the
Board for further deliberations at a future date.
The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the business scheduled for the morning.
All three Commissioners were present when the meeting reconvened at 1 :35 p.m.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip
Morley reviewed the following with the Board.
Port Hadlock Sewer Update
Budget Update
Calendar Coordination
Miscellaneous Items
Future Agenda Items
The meeting was recessed at 4:34 p.m. for the afternoon. All three Commissioners were present
when the meeting reconvened at 6:31 p.m. in the Superior Court room.
Page 3
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 19, 2011
HEARING re: Voluntary Stewardship Plan for Protecting Agricultural Lands and Critical
Areas: Commissioner Austin opened the public hearing and explained it is regarding the Voluntary
Stewardship Plan for the viability for agriculture and maintaining critical areas. Al Scalf, Director of
Community Development introduced himself, Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager and Donna Frostholm,
Associate Planner. Ms. Frostholm gave a staff report regarding the Voluntary Stewardship Program.
The Chairman then opened the hearing for public testimony.
Monica Fletcher: Tonight she is here to give input on behalf of the North Olympic Group of the Sierra
Club which has more than 450 members residing in Jefferson County. The Sierra Club recognizes the
great value agriculture has brought to the region and the role it plays in maintaining the health of our
food, the open space and viable employment for our community. They have reviewed the proposal and
recommend the County to opt out of the Voluntary Stewardship Plan for many reasons. The Sierra Club
gives strong support to the Critical Areas Ordinance and due process and will continue to promote this
regulation for the most manageable situation for assessing and assuring the success of local ecosystem
restoration and health. They believe Jefferson County should stick with the current critical areas
ordinance process that has gone through a vigorous public process and withstands many court
challenges. They are also concerned about treating different sectors of our community differently from
others and would also like to maintain good working relationships with the tribes and believe their
collaboration in land process is critical. The reading of the program has a lack of assurance for short and
long term funding and the reliable funding for the longevity of the watershed group structure and
enforcement is not clear nor has access to preform necessary enforcement is guaranteed. This Voluntary
Stewardship Program agreement will heavily rely on State commissions for direction and fellowship of
the program. The time line would be almost 10 years offorming benchmarks, assessing and ultimately
objecting and reverting back to the critical area ordinance on individual plans.
Al Latham: As manger of the Jefferson County Conservation District he would like to report that at the
last Board meeting the Conservation Board of Supervisors voted to opt in with some concerns. They are
concerned how it will work out with the known and unknown but believe it would be more beneficial for
everyone to opt in. They recommend opting in for the entire County rather than having one watershed
different than the other. On a personal note, he is asking what are the problems we are trying to solve
with the Voluntary Stewardship Plan and further regulations on the critical area ordinance agriculture?
For the last twenty to thirty years the local farmers have done an excellent job on protecting and
improving their impacts on the critical areas, especially the streams and the wetlands. Probably ninety
percent of our prime agriculture soil is considered to be wetland soils. How would the use of those soils
be restricted when they are the most important? Since your question is to opt out or opt in, the
Conservation District's opinion is to opt in.
Page 4
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 19, 2011
George Yount: He is speaking on behalf of the Environmental Council which has some serious
reservations on the program. While the concept of voluntary stewardship is one that they have favored
and some of them were on the critical areas ordinance working group and supports the concept. The
concern that they have is it should remain local and not at a state level. If the County does this for one
industry group than it has precedent for other industry groups. They are not in favor of taking it out of
the Growth Management Act guidelines. The area does have records of voluntary stewardship here and
the CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) is a good example of this. Approximately
eighteen percent of Chimacum Creek is under the CREP. The Ruckelshaus talks about protection and
enhancement. Their concern is there are a number of farming groups that are taking the County to court
over the Critical Area Ordinance and the very same folks that want to be in the voluntary program. He
would like to talk to them directly to see if an agreement could be reached.
Dick Bergerson: He is representing the membership with the Chimacum Grange. One important factor
that is often overlooked in discussion with farmland is most farmers are land rich and cash poor. A
farmers land is their most important asset. When a person owns a business they have to use their assets
to keep their business going. The land is really something that they need to use, without the land they
have no business. Most of our farmers are small producers and in Jefferson County almost everyone is
near a critical area so what is going to happen, take their land away so no one can use it? We might as
well drive another nail in the coffin. For many farmers their land is a retirement investment and there
has been many restrictions put on farmlands and the land has been steadily losing value through the
decades. Years ago if someone had 100 acres and sold it, that money could see them through their late
years. Today it is harder to build on land and people may try to keep it and feed themselves off of it.
When it comes to voluntary stewardship, Jefferson County farmers have been leading the way in
corporation and really good stewardship. Opting in to the Voluntary Stewardship Program is essential
for setting definite bounds for which the farmers can or cannot operate while usefully and productively
protecting the environment and allowing farmers to make an attempt to make a living off of their land.
All watersheds in Jefferson County should be included in the plan and the Chimacum sub basin should
be selected as the primary watershed. The Voluntary Stewardship Program will allow our farmers to use
their most important asset for the benefit of the people. Farmland is only farmland when it can be
farmed and he urges that the Board take a tour of the County's farms and see what kind of stewardship
there is and what buffers are working so the Board can gather the real facts before making this tough
decision.
Frank Hoffinan: He was one of the citizens involved in the critical areas process which was an
unpleasant thing to watch and be involved in. He had hoped that the Ruckelshaus resulted in code
regulations. The groups, the farmer, environmentalist and tribes have stated the process is appropriate
and will work in the long run and can protect the functions and values of the farm and agriculture land.
The Voluntary Stewardship Program will help the farmers form partnerships as opposed to bureaucrats
having to fight the fight. He has heard that some of the tribes are not happy with the Ruckelshaus but the
Board should go ahead with this and address the issues they have. One of the things climatologist say
about the peninsula and Climate change is that precipitation will not only increase but will come all at
once, for example a tropical storm. He has seen on Hastings Avenue that the buffers were exceeded so
there were ponds last year. He suggests that Kitsap, Mason, Clallam and Jefferson Counties can pull
their resources together to hire biologist to help the people understand science.
Page 5
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 19, 2011
.~'''~
."-
."~
AI Cairns: He is concerned about a lack of reliable funding for either program. If the critical area
ordinance was chosen, the only funding source would be from the general fund which is a big concern
because of the dire circumstances that fund is in. There might be available funding from the state for
Ruckelshaus. Worse case scenario is this is funded by the general fund and best case scenario is it is
funded by the state. He would hope that would interest this Board. He has heard some concern the
Ruckelshaus isn't a locally driven program and that it should be kept in local jurisdiction but the Growth
Management Act certainly wasn't local. In either case the state is going to be directing our program
substantially. Chimacum Creek is already voluntarily protected at 18 - 20% which is a remarkable
number given that the there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism for that type of protection and
enhancement and this speaks a lot about our agriculture in our agriculture community. The critical areas
ordinance has been challenged in court and probably will continue to be if the Board opted for that
program. He asks that the agriculture community, the tribes and our local environmentalist are able to
provide input on which is the favorable way to protect and repair our wetlands.
Judith Alexander; She has heard that the Ruckelshaus plan has been designed for the people that are at
odds and the agreement was acceptable middie ground. She is in favor of honoring that the process is
worth something rather than continuing it on by disregarding their work and starting from scratch and
not understanding that people have already talked this through. She did take a tour of Chimacum Creek
and the farms related to it and feels convinced that we have a respectable interest if we opt in we will
have people respond to the need for the care and concerns. The education of agriculture and growing
their own food is on the rise. Without having a lot of knowledge of the two choices, opting in seems like
the better choice because she respects the integrity of our citizenry.
Gretchen Brewer: She has not had the time to read the options in depth but read some important points
to keep in mind. Once farmland and open space is gone it is gone forever. It is very important to make
the choice that protects the buffers permanently and that there be real recourse to make sure that
happens. The decisions should be made on the best available science. There are modem farming
technics that can help people grow food and having adequate buffers should not impact farmer's ability
to have productivity on their land. They may have to change their technics a little bit but that is all for
the better if it makes for a healthier land. It should not be exempt from the Critical Areas ordinance and
Growth Management Act, those are very important safeguards.
Patricia Farmer: Ordinarily she is in favor for regulations when it pertains to the environment. In this
case we should change the bar because the farmers really want to protect their land. She would like to
see them trying to do something without so much regulation and trust peoples honor system.
Chairman Austin closed the hearing for verbal testimony. Written comments will be accepted until 4:30
p.m. on Friday, September 23, 2011. The Chairman thanked the public for coming. County
Administrator Morley stated that under the Act that created this opportunity consultations need to be
done with agriculture groups, environmental groups, and tribal organizations. What is the status of
those? AI Scalf answered DCD staffhas met with agriculture and environmental interest and will be
meeting with tribal interest this week. Upon the completion of those meetings, DCD will update the
Board at a future meeting.
Page 6
Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of September 19,2011
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sullivan moved to adjourn at 7:05 p.m. until
the properly noticed special meeting or the next regular meeting. Commissioner Johnson seconded the
motion which carried by a nnAnimous vote.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD ~MMISSIONERS
J~_Chak
~~
Raina Randall
Deputy Clerk of the BOard
Page 7
Regular Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR AGENDA REQUEST
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
Al Scalf, Department of Community Development (DCD) Directo~
Stacie Hoskins, DCD Planning Manager
Michelle McConnell, Associate Plannr~
Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner~
FROM:
DATE:
September 19,2011
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing for Voluntary Stewardship Plan Decision
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
ESHB 1886, which pertains to a voluntary stewardship program (VSP) for maintaining the viability of
agriculture and protecting critical areas, went into effect on July 22, 2011. Jefferson County must determine
whether to opt in or opt out based on requirements specified in ESHB 1886. Should the County choose to
opt in, the County must determine which watersheds are to be included in the VSP and must select a priority
watershed. As part this process, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) approved a decision making
process on August 1, 2011 that includes soliciting public input and conferring with key stakeholder
representatives on the topic. On August 22, the BoCC approved public noticing of a 30-day VSP comment
period and a public hearing to be held on September 19, 2011) W\\H 'Tl~ Pvl?\-\c... co !IA"""elJ7'
f~OD (..U)i?,.,!1> kr '-fl, '?o P,M.. ON :f'k.'f)I'<-{, 5e/>reM.~ 2-?(.1..O11 .
ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS/PROS and CONS:
The County must make a decision whether to opt in or opt out within six months of the effective date for
ESHB 1886, or by January 22, 2012. To fulfill the legislatively mandated requirements, Jefferson County
needs to consider public input. Should Jefferson County decide to opt in, Section 4 of the new legislation
requires that public noticing must be followed. Providing a public notice at this time provides the most cost-
effective and efficient means of addressing this requirement.
During the August I, 2011 BoCC meeting, the Board agreed to a decision making process as outlined in the
August 2, 20 II staff memo. This process included preparation of an Informational Paper and a 30-day
public comment period with public hearing to gather citizen input. A memo summarizing the August I,
20 II decisions and a copy of the public notice were attached to the August 22, 2011 Agenda Request, and
the Informational Document is available online through the County website.
FISCAL IMPACT/COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
This work will be completed by funds provided to Jefferson County Department of Community
Development from the General Fund in support oflong-range planning projects. Since Jefferson County
must address the requirements of ESHB 1886, some of the money from the General Fund for use in DCD
long-range planning will be used for this emerging issue.
...~~-
Regular Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BoCC hold a public hearing on September 19, 2011 to receive comments from
the general public that pertain to the VSP opt in/opt out and watershed selection decision.
REVIEWED BY:
'7(( y-;(;-
Date
40_._
......--. ;./"-"/
',--, 'I
1
'~~~~vr
HEARING RECORD
North Olympic Group of the
Sierra Club
P.O. Box 714
Carlsborg, W A 98324
Board of County Commissioners
John Austin
Phil Johnson
David Sullivan
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, W A 98368
'-p
:)1:
l 2011
RE: Voluntary Stewardship Program (ESHB 1886) for Jefferson County
Commissioners,
The North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club has more than 450 members residing in Jefferson
County. Following is our position on the proposed subject program, also known as the
Ruckelshaus Agreement that addresses future land use by agricultural interests in the county.
The Sierra Club recognizes the great value that agricultural endeavors have brought to the
region, and the role agriculture plays in maintaining the health of our food, our open space, and
viable employment for a section of our community. We are committed to providing support to
agricultural operations that support the mission of the Sierra Club to protect and restore the
quality of the natural and human environment.
We have reviewed the proposal and recommend that the county opt out of this voluntary
stewardship plan (VSP) for a number of reasons.
The Sierra Club and its members have given strong support for the Critical Areas Ordinance
process developed for the county and will continue to promote these regulations as the most
manageable system for assessing and ensuring the success of local ecosystem restoration and
health. This is not the time to produce another new, complicated process, but rather a time to
proceed with the current approved CAO plan that went through a rigorous public process and has
withstood a number of court challenges.
The Sierra Qub is also interested in maintaining good working relationships with the Peninsula's
Tribes and we believe that their collaboration in any land use process is critical. A decision on
their part to not support a voluntary property-owner-crafted plan should be respected and to
proceed with the VSP would be seen by Sierra Qub as constituting a serious failure in the new
process and its decisions. We would be less willing to work with a coalition that did not include
the very important Tribal input.
We also note the lack of assurances for funding for this project in both the long and short term.
The longevity (reliable funding and political support over time) of a watershed group structure
I
'-
2
for monitoring and enforcement is not clear, nor is access to perform necessary monitoring and
enforcement guaranteed (e.g. easements).
Lastly, we are exceedingly wary of the current timeline for the proposal. Our reading of the
program gives reason to believe that years may pass before funding is secured for the various
program elements. In a positive scenario-in which this funding is in place within two years-it
may take nearly three years from that point to craft and have an approved VSP plan. In two years
from that point, benchmarks would be assessed for failure or success, and if they are deemed
inadequate, new benchmarks would be set that would be re-assessed in another five years. If the
owner fails to produce the desired results, at that time only would the owner be removed from
the program. The county would then revert to the CAO guidelines we have in place now. This is
a time frame that could contain a decade or more of deteriorating conditions that are critically in
need of attention and remedy now.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns regarding Critical Area protection through
the Voluntary Stewardship Program (ESHB 1886). The North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club
at this time believes that Jefferson County should opt out.
Monica Fletcher, for the North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club
Note: This letter has been approved by the Executive Committee of the North Olympic Group of
the Sierra Club
2
"--"'-" '/ --..." '{--'"
HEARING RECORD
George B. Yount
717 _25th Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
September 19, 2011
"''ll''''C'~ ~ ~\ '-or, ~
:)t.r' t ;i Lt,~j'
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Comments on the Voluntarv Stewardship Proqram on behalf of the Olvmpic
Environmental Council
Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Olympic Environmental Council, we thank you for the opportunity to share
our views on whether Jefferson County should opt in or opt of the Ruckelshaus
Agreement's voluntary stewardship program. OEC has followed the course of the Critical
Areas Ordinance since the inception of the Planning Commission's subcommittee in the
fall of 2007.
We might favor the concept of voluntary stewardship plans at the local level rather than
creating a by-pass of the Growth Management Act for a specific economic sector of our
state's economy. If agriculture can spin off, does this set the precedent for other
economic sectors to seek a new state commission to go through the Growth Management
Hearings Board? We support the existing Critical Areas Ordinance track to keep our
issues and solution in the hands of our local county government. .
As much as we want to support voluntary stewardship, we are troubled by Jefferson
County's history of voluntary stewardship in support of the ecological functions of our
watersheds. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided monetary incentives to
farmers to restore and maintain riparian zones on streams and wetlands. They cite the
beneficial reasons why it helps the environment and farming community. According to the
Conservation District, only fourteen farmers in the past twenty years have signed on. A
look at the Conservation Rehabilitation Enhancement Program map for Chimacum Creek
shows that less than 18% of Chimacum Creek and its tributaries have functioning riparian
zones, even though the program has been available for over 10 years. The Department of
Agriculture funding has been severely cut and is no long available to our farmers.
The Conservation District encourages farmers to develop best management practices
plans. I asked the district to share how many farmers have a best management practices
plan. I was informed that there may be a hand full. .
The contentiousness of the Planning Commission subcommittee on the development of
the CAO has poisoned the well of good will and trust. The actions by many supporters of a
voluntary approach are the members the Olympic Stewardship Foundation or the plaintiffs
in challenging the validity the CAO before the Growth Management Hearings Board, the
Thurston County Superior Court, and the State Court of Appeals. And, according to the
Olympic Stewardship Foundation president, they may still be requesting reconsideration of
the State Court of Appeals devastating ruling. To date, they have lost their case at every
level What is ironic to us is the fact that the Board of County Commissioners, at the
recommendation of environmental groups, put into the ordinance that ongoing agriculture
would be exempt from the CAO.
The Farm Bureau spearheaded Initiative 933 which would have limited the County in its
ability to write and implement land use regulations. The Bureau went for "pay for the
perceived impact or waive the regulation." The initiative lost in this county by over 70% --
showing that our citizens want good land use regulations that protect the environment.
On June 23, 2011, Mr. Ron Allen, tribal chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe wrote
a letter to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development explaining the
tribe's serious reservations about the voluntary stewardship program. He cites several
examples in Skagit County. He writes.... "Agriculture is important to our economy and
community. Landowners wish to keep as much of their property in production as possible.
This is an understandable position. But voluntary measures are not the uniform answer to
address protection of our environment. The Tribe feels very strongly that some sort of
regulatory back stop is essential to protecting critical areas..." We concur.
Given the opposition to the Critical Areas Ordinance and low numbers of voluntary
stewardship in the CREKP program to date, it appears that the remaining farmers have
very little interest in such a program.
The Ruckelshaus Agreement calls for "promoting work plans to protect and enhance
critical areas". So far, even with generous financial incentives, only a handful have
participated. How much of the critical areas is the farming community willing to protect and
enhance?
We have time to decide to opt in or out. The most important issue in our view is our ability
or inability as a community to have a dialogue and come to an agreement on land use and
environmental issues. Are we willing to sit down and have a little quiet diplomacy and
fence mending? We believe frank discussions with all parties without pontificating
philosophy and political rhetoric needs to take place before the County considers opting in.
By all parties, we mean the farming community, the S'Klallam Tribe, and the environmental
community.
We remain skeptical of a voluntary stewardship program based on past experiences, and
share the same concerns voiced by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. We would like to
hear from the farmers first hand on how they would make it work.
Since:JJ' ~ IL.
./V~ ~{/:" 7/N~ -
George B. Vunt c:;rr-
Olympic Environmental Council
Inc: 1
Cc: OEC Board
-./
'.'
"
\
"
" " I I
I "
I "
I
- .. I
j
J
I
,
" " I
i '"
" '"
,
"
"
"
"
"
I
Roads
eRE? _buffer ~
- eRE? Stms
Chimacum Valley CREP Sites
Jefferson County, VVashlngton
\
\
,
"
\'
N
I
HEAf<ING REC'
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
Testimony?
YES NO MAYBE
~' 0 0
DDm
~DD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
000
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
ODD
D DD
DDD
,~
HEAf~ING RECORD
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
TITLE: Hearina re: Voluntarv Sterwardshio Praaram
DATE: Monday, Seotember 19 at 6:30 a.m.
PLACE: Superiar Courtraam, Caurthouse
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
(Not Reauired) I 'Not Reauired) YES NO MAYBE
f+-L &tr...JJ /)M '110 tJffo/'dl4 Ill? c.'.-Ef-' fI.1Acl.{.'~ 0^oo
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
nnn
HEARING RECORD
JEFFERSON COUNTY
GUEST LIST
TITLE: Hearina re: Voluntarv Sterwardshin Proaram
DATE: Mondav, September 19 at 6:30 n.m.
PLACE: Superior Courtroom, Courthouse
NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony?
Not Required) IINot Required) YES NO MAYBE
G ~ R Lt r:eJd.&~ rrr: D ~D
J/J A1 r (;t r:; ~ I J " 2N5 --- ,~ " ~ DD
., .L/u c- . VT
J D DD
D DD
D DD
D OD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
D DD
DDD
DDD
DDD
DDD
ODD
DDD
000
000
n nn
.'C ~ U::::'D ~ IJo II \
)effbocc
rUbe: 1 U.ll
From: Chimacum Grange [chimacumgrange@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20,2011 12:49 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Voluntary Stewardship
Gentlemen,
HEARING RECORD
During my VSP testimony last night I mentioned that you should get out to visit some farms and
farmers to see how relatively small buffers are actually working to protect critical areas.
I'd like to offer to take each of you on a short tour, realizing that it would only be one at a time.
Alternatively, you might ask Al Latham to lead a tour, if he has time.
Dick Bergeron
President, Chimacum Grange
9/20/2011
.c.C: ,DCV 7 (;).0 /II
jeffbocc
rage j or j
From: Admiralty Audubon [admiraudub@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11 :56 AM
To: jeffbocc
Cc: Rosemary Sikes
Subject: VSP Comments from Admiralty Audubon Board
Attachments: AAS_VSP _Comments_sep11.pdf
Dear Commissioners,
HEARING RECORD
Please fmd attached comments regarding the Voluntary Stewardship Program.
Thank you.
Debbie Jahnke
Membership, AAS Board
Admiralty Audubon Society
PO Box 666
Port Townsend, W A 98368
http://admiraltvaudubon.org
9/20/20 II
...-
~
~~~Jt . "~:IC,:~~,.L----~""
cAilMit'.lfl d1u4lubolll..soei.~, - e.l!Io~ deIfoK4D Cou.,,,, W..lti.,,~"..jhte
poer Offin!~" ..., 1'0" 7__1Nf W~ 91;6'
20 September 2011
HEARING RECORD
Board of Commissioners, Jefferson County
PO Box 1 220
Port Townsend WA 98368
re: VSP Comments
Dear Commissioners;
These are financially frugal times. In Jefferson County, we have programs in place to protect our
critical areas. Why would we want to opt in to a new and voluntary program with an uncertain
outcome and no assurance of adequate funding for development or for monitoring compliance?
Those who have expressed desire for a voluntary program include our local Farm Bureau, the
Chimacum Grange, and the Olympic Stewardship Foundation. These groups have unsuccessfully
challenged the Critical Areas Ordinance before the Growth Management Hearings Board; the
Thurston County Superior Court; and the State Court of Appeals. Their interest in a voluntary
program is belied by their low rate of participation in voluntary and/or alternative programs already
in place.
The USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a voluntary land retirement
program designed to safeguard ground and surface water resources, protect environmentally
sensitive land and restore habitat. Although CREP has been in existence for 20 years, only 14
Chimacum Valley farmers have chosen to participate. Less than 20% of the riparian zone has been
restored.
The Critical Areas Ordinance already includes a voluntary alternative stewardship approach,
referred to as the Critical Areas Stewardship Plan (CASP). Although it does not currently address
agriculture, CASP could be adapted at the County level for agriculture more effectively and with
greater efficiency than a state-governed Voluntary Stewardship Program.
Water rights are critical both to agriculture and to habitat management of critical areas. Water is not
included in the Voluntary Stewardship Program. The same groups that support VSP have opposed
the Department of Ecology's in stream flow rule which reserves a minimum flow for salmon
survival. Insufficient information is available about our aquifer capacity. Depletion of our aquifer and
saltwater intrusion are very real threats to sustainable agriculture and wildlife habitat and any
program offered as an alternative to CAO must include water managment.
The Board of Admiralty Audubon recommends that the Jefferson County Commissioners opt out of
the Voluntary Stewardship Program. We urge you to keep our regulatory functions local.
Board, Admiralty Audubon Society
http://ad mi raltyaudu bon. org
admiraudub@gmail.com
.--
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donna Frostholm
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:43 AM
Raina Randall
FW: VSP meeting
HEARiNG-REGeRD
. ..!!l- .
Raina Randall
Raina:
I received this email in response to the outreach DCD is conducting to stakeholder groups.
Donna Frostholm
Associate Planner/Wetland Specialist
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
dfrostholm@Jco.iefferson.wa.us
360.379.4466
Department of Community Development is open from 9:00 to 4:30 Monday through Thursday; DCD is closed on Friday.
All e-mails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to
Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW.
u---Original Message-----
From: Randy Lumper rmailto:rlumper@JSkokomish.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 20114:35 PM
To: Donna Frostholm
Subject: re: VSP meeting
Donna,
The Skokomish Tribe is requesting the Jefferson County's BOCC opt out,
of having a VSP in Jefferson County. The Skokomish Tribe feels that the
VSP has too many uncertainties associated with it, and the funding is
not great enough to produce tangible results. The Skokomish Tribe also
feels that there will not be sufficient oversight from the Tribe to
ensure that the VSP is meeting the goal of net habitat gain in Jefferson
County. While Critical Areas Ordinances (CAO), if developed and
implemented properly can achieve the desired results of
protecting/increasing habitat complexity and integrity within riparian
corridors and shorelines of Jefferson County. CAO's are also harder to
vary from once adopted, unlike a VSP which has the potential to produce
a multitude of different results for each project, that mayor may not
meet habitat protection goals. Also if the Jefferson Conservation
district was to manage Jefferson Counties VSP, the individual projects
would not be subject to public review as their work with farms is exempt
from FOIA. So once again the Skokomish Tribe is requesting the
Jefferson County's BOCC opt out, of having a VSP in Jefferson County
1
'-
Randy lumper
M.E.S., B.S.
Environmental Planner
Skokomish Tribe
Office #1-360-877-5213 #451
Cell #1-360-490-5603
Fax#1-360-877-S148
Joseph and Alex:
Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) is in the
process of addressing ESHB 1886, which pertains to a Voluntary
Stewardship Program (VSP) for maintaining agricultural viability while
protecting critical areas. At this point, DCD would like to meet with
Tribal representatives as part of the decision whether to opt in or opt
out of the V5P.
As representatives for the Skokomish Indian Tribe, DCD would like to
invite you to meet with staff on Wednesday, September 21 from 9:00 to
noon. The meeting will be held in a DCD conference room, which is
located at 621 Sheridan Street in Port Townsend (near the QFC). DCD
will not be making any presentations as we would like to hear what the
Tribes think about the VSP. During this meeting, DCD would be
interested in hearing from the Tribes whether Jefferson County should
opt in or opt out of the VSP. Also, DCD would like to hear which
watershed(s) should be included if Jefferson County opts in.
Please let me know if you are interested in attending. If either of you
are unavailable that day, you should feel free to send someone else from
the Tribe who can provide input during the meeting.
Regards,
Donna Frostholm
Associate Planner/Wetland Specialist
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
dfrostholm (iiJco. iefferson. wa .us
360.379.4466
Department of Community Development is open from 9:00 to 4:30 Monday
through Thursday; DCD is closed on Friday.
All e-mails sent to and from this address will automatically be archived
by Jefferson County and emails may be subject to Public Disclosure under
Chapter 42.56 RCW.
2
'-'
THIS EMAll AND ANY FilES TRANSMITTED WITH IT ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND ARE INTENDED SOlELY FOR THE USE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM THEY ARE ADDRESSED. This document may contain information covered under the
Privacy Act, S USC 552(a), and/or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (Pl104-191) and its various
implementing regulations and must be protected in accordance with those provisions.
If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be
advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of
this email is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error, please return immediately to the sender and delete this copy from your system.
Thank you for your cooperation.
3
From: chuck boggs [westbrookangus@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:38 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Supporting agriculture
Attachments: saee buffers 092011.doc
Page I 01 I
HEAR!NGRE"1RD ..
jeffbocc
9/21/2011
September 20 2011
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Honorable Commissioners:
As responsible landowners and Rancher/Farmers, we find it interesting that even with the
current growth of interest in locally grown food, certain parties want to take viable
agricultural land out of production.
We have spent a considerable amount of money and time preventing agricultural runoff from
entering the watershed; the people that visited our operation during the recent Jefferson
County Farm Tour thanked us for taking care of the land.
The increased interest in Farmer's Markets and a new program to promote providing local
food to local schools should be enough evidence that the residents of Jefferson County want
the greater portion of the food they feed their families to be provided from local agriculture
operations.
Farm/Ranch operators have it in their best interests to do no harm to their land or the nearby
streams.
We urge the Board of Commissioners to allow Voluntary Stewardship, using best management
practices to protect the land rather than the proposed arbitrary buffers that will take away the
ability to help feed our local population.
We also urge that the Voluntary Stewardship program be applied to all watersheds in
Jefferson County and that the Chimacum sub-basin be selected as the primary watershed.
County government should be promoting local agriculture rather than imposing regulations
that would hinder increased and continued production.
Thank you for your interest in this critical matter.
Chuck and Julie Boggs
West Brook Angus
Chimacum, Washington
, ce' ~LJCU '1{.;21..o111
rage j or j
Leslie Locke
From: John Austin
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 6:08 AM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Attachments: 100_6881 (2).jpg; 100_6960 (2).jpg; 100_6889 (2).jpg; 100_6953 (2).jpg; 100_6892 (3).jpg;
100_6953 (3).jpg; 100_6888.jpg; 100_6930 (3).jpg; BoCC Letter on Ruckelsha Agreement
2.pdf
HEARING RECORD
From: George Yount[SMTP:GYOUNT@OLYPEN.COM]
Sent: Friday, September 23,2011 6:05:56 AM
To: John Austin; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson
Subject: Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Gentlemen,
Please include this e-mail and attachments into the record as testimony on the Ruckelshaus Agreement.
The arial photos are representative examples of why we need better protection and enhancement ofthe
riparian zone along Chimacum Creek. I was informed Monday evening that my testimony regarding
CREP stewardship did not include the areas that have been fenced to keep cattle away from the creek.
Unless fences have been installed in the last year, these photos prove otherwise,
I am also including my August 9th letter to the Board because it was submitted before the beginning of
the comment period, It is still timely and relevant after the public hearing, I was moved by the fact
that not one farmer from Chimacum or Quilcene were present to state their support. I am troubled by
that because Mr. Dan Wood of the Washington Farm Bureau it was the farmers who got the VSP into
the Agreement and they needed to support it.
I am also troubled by the testimony of the Chimacum Grange President. His main thrust was not on the
voluntary stewardship plans but on the desire for farmers to sell their property for retirement purposes, I
thought the issues revolves good stewardship and the care of our watersheds,
I hope the photos and comments are helpful in your decision.
Sincerely
George B. Yount
717 25th Street
Port Townsend W A 98368
9/26/2011
'.
George B. Yount
717 25th Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
August 9, 2011
Board of County Commissioners
John Austin
Phil Johnson
David Sullivan
Jefferson County
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Ruckelshaus Aqreement
Gentlemen,
I have reviewed the Ruckelshaus Agreement and have attended several briefings
regarding the voluntary stewardship program. The Agreement re-affirms the importance
of the Critical Areas Ordinance in terms of protecting, and even restoring sensitive
ecological habitat functions and values. Agriculture is an industry that is crucial to our
economic and physical well being, but it does impact rivers and streams. Like most
industries, agriculture is adapting to new methods and practices that leave a softer foot
print. I applaud those farmers who have made and are willing make adjustments which
allows agriculture and habitat to co-exist.
As Mr. Dan Wood of the Farm Bureau said last May, the ball is in the farmer's court. They
wanted a voluntary stewardship plan and they got it. Now they have to demonstrate they
can sit down with their local First Nations and diverse interest groups and work out issues
like how do we protect, and in some cases, restore watershed habitats? How do we asses
what we have now? How do we monitor for compliance? What is included in a
stewardship plan? What agency has authority to administer the program? If the farmers
can't get together and come to a mutual agreement Mr. Wood would be correct in terms of
the consequences. He implied the environmental community could ratchet up anti-
agricultural practices campaigns and even use the courts to affect change. It would not be
a happy future for those farmers who choose to not to work with the First Nations and the
environmental community. It would not be a happy time for environmental groups either. I,
for one, do not wish to take this road. I feel it is time we try to work together and resolve
these differences once and for all.
The County is now asked to opt in to the Ruckelshaus Agreement. If the County does,
there is promise of state funding some time in the future to help implement the program.
The funding is not much, but it would help. Before we take the step to opt in, some key
questions need to be answered. How many farmers in Jefferson County are currently
exempt from the Critical Area Ordinance? They need to be contacted and they need to
agree to participate and opt in. Without their commitment, the project is not worth the
time, effort, or money. I would recommend DCD or the Conservation District along with
the Farm Bureau make contact as soon as practical. Once this information is
ascertained, to go or not go would be obvious.
If the decision is to continue exploring opt in, I would suggest you consider the concept of
environmental mediation. In 1979 environmental mediation was effectively used in the
Jefferson County in citing the ferry terminal in Port Townsend, as well as locating and then
renovating a general utility category airport. I know this because I was the mediator
selected from the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of Washington. The
Ruckelshaus approach was environmental mediation on a state level. We need a local
level problem solving approach. There are a number of good qualified mediation groups
that provide this service. If all the sides are willing to make the effort to mediate, a skilled
professional can be enormous help in facilitating resolution. I would be happy to share
with you how this process could work.
Again, there is no sense in opting in if a significant number of farmers are not willing to
settle some key environmental issues once and for all. As Mr. Wood said, "The ball is in
the farmers court." I agree success or failure is in the hands of the farmers.
Sincerely,
George B. Yount
'-ec~.' DC\J cr (:JLo III
J.uS......l V.I....
Leslie Locke
From: John Austin
Sent: Friday, September 23,2011 3:30 PM
To: Leslie Locke
Subject: FW: Voluntary Stewardship Plan
HEARING RECORD
From: George Yount[SMTP:GYOUNT@OLYPEN,COM]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:28:44 PM
To: John Austin; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson
Subject: Re: Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Auto forwarded by a Rule
The arial photos were taken on January 142008
George
m_ Original Message .....
From: J-'>Dn Austin
To: Georae Yount
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11 :02 AM
SUbject: RE: Voluntary Stewardship Plan
What are the dates on the aerial photos? JA
From: George Yount [mailto:gyount@olypen.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23,2011 6:06 AM
To: John Austin; David Sullivan; Phil Johnson
Subject: Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Gentlemen,
Please include this e.mail and attachments into the record as testimony on the Ruckelshaus
Agreement.
The arial photos are representative examples of why we need better protection and enhancement of the
riparian zone along Chimacum Creek, I was informed Monday evening that my testimony regarding
CREP stewardship did not include the areas that have been fenced to keep cattle away from the creek
Unless fences have been installed in the last year, these photos prove otherwise,
I am also including my August 9th letter to the Board because it was submitted before the beginning of
the comment period, It is still timely and relevant after the public hearing, I was moved by the fact
that not one farmer from Chimacum or Quilcene were present to state their support. I am troubled by
that because Mr, Dan Wood of the Washington Farm Bureau it was the farmers who got the VSP into
the Agreement and they needed to support it.
1 am also troubled by the testimony of the Chimacum Grange President. His main thrust was not on
the voluntary stewardship plans but on the desire for farmers to sell their property for retirement
purposes. I thought the issues revolves good stewardship and the care of our watersheds.
9/26/2011
~ (le..... L.. V~ L..
I hope the photos and comments are helpful in your decision.
Sincerely
George B. Yount
717 25th Street
Port Townsend W A 98368
9/26/2011
l'age 1 or 1
jeffbocc
-~-'._-~~._-~~""--~"'~-'.""""'~~~-'--R.."""'--_._.---~.. . ...._-~--
From: diane johnson [drdianejohnson@gmail.com]fARINGnrCQRa
Sent: Friday, September 23,20113:16 PM . . Ifti .
To: jeffbocc :~,',~~ ,;t~;'.' ;(_,~" t;:'.~
Subject: Citizen Comment re: Ruckleshouse Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Jefferson County Commissioners:
SEP 2:;
I am writing on behalf of myself as a farm owner in Tarboo Valley, a ChiIV~CI!ln4rap,g~,bffi~. "
member, a participant in the Citizens for Local Food movement, a board n:ieifuber dtthtOryirtj'licC
Stewardship Organization, formed to facilitate voluntary stewardship Prog~9.,~~"~!
landowners, a home gardener, and a lover of fresh, local, tasty, maximally nutritious food.
I strongly encourage you to opt in to the Ruckleshouse Voluntary Stewardship Plan under
your consideration at the present time. I believe it will provide maximum protection for
agriculture in our area, which is essential for food resiliency and food security in our County.
The Jefferson County Conservation District, which you fund, has been helping farmers develop
"best management practices" for over 40 years, in close cooperation with such environmental
groups as Wild Olympic Salmon, with amazing results. Not only can they demonstrate that local
ag has been able to establish and maintain clean streams, but that their efforts have resulted in
returns of salmon in Chimacum and other creeks to historic levels. Thus, I believe Ruckleshouse
will also provide the best protection for our beloved environment, as well!
Our farmers care about conservation-.it's a proven fact. But to achieve this level of success, it
must be voluntary, achieved through education and a spirit of teamwork, not legislation.
As has been pointed out countless times by many people, most of the agricultural soils in East
Jefferson County are hydric soils, i.e., de facto wetlands. The record in Jefferson County shows
that agriculture on these soils co.exists quite nicely with conservation goals when best
management practices are utilized. Please help our farmers be successful in providing the food
security and the great food we ALL want and need, and allow them to continue their already
excellent practices in protecting the environment, too. Don't resort to rigid and restrictive large
mandatory buffers that will make agriculture, new or old, virtually impossible. Please choose to
opt in to Ruckleshouse.
Thank you.
Diane Johnson, Ph.D.
1521 Dabob Rd.
Quilcene, W A 98376
9/23/2011
'- ..
IJ";) rt::. ~ 0 I '1 "" f" '-- I.. u " " t . c $.
{?a SH f)hcr t, F'res.
II z.: C c " t h {(oJ (j. tl
CJ1,'m Cd t-<'Y\. k'c< 'ff32<)-
Sept. /9, ~olf
,-U . '11
"./l.(.' '{"Ut.(:.
HEARING RECORD
~'EP ');)
j h.,)
"Se ~rw-:'0" ('0lc< Y\ t~j B DC. C-
Po. 't T.:-WI.;.(llil. tJ"
5~bl<'tt ~/S P
Dear. 60(C(Sci,.... Da~,.t1 Ph,;)
The Nod~OI';Ji"~ri"v C.,u"t.'H F'a,.... t3(/~fQtv st....on"li1
'54 ppor ts 0 J'I t /11 '1 '" to l f.v2.. L/c It.<.... ta ,:::/ 5 t4?t.Jc. /CI 51, 'f'
Pr08vCIW\. (VSPJ. i<)e ci0 not WCi"t (~"0tJ,ey
~'11ht like .\<(.re-rso~ CO!"....t'J SG<.u 5-b Lj4?Q'!. C<CJU.
~c>(.<( I<",,:w t4 h.stoy'j of tlc e~l'tl'<d'( /j....eM i',..,
S.( 1 't ~ yt c; t.z. w' ~(e LJ '1 ecu t, 1>1 eo" -t f-'..,,..
Yi" W c: A's Po.... tl<] r,'L i. I b, ...<2.) a h (I t J, e b Ci rt Ie r, " r
bt(,ltllh 1 y.(' fa t I.:,r,s)., 'I:J~ c/(,y,'" 9 t~. i<1..uk~j5),tiU<'
pYblCSS. /')Jease. "O(Jt 1/,,,'1
A JD C F6 ~.I t C "L' ('III fa. ''I' '" feWL'L,.i..J.'f;
IV. I 5 Q 0 "" ty) , t L eeo v v
('rc'.\~'P'''s Cl.nd bel,el/es tJ.,e F")etJ V./fl c.PP,O,,'''-
LA.!,' {( cI~ ",.:>"S-t i'l tzrJ.,a t loc4/ sf,tAe hu/de,-;;. (let"
P,':'d ~c"" vn.:>" '1 r"!( "d C/. 'I cI5A~"ccl /'/1 t erCSt-S.,
i-<.Je.. kJe{ I€. ve t r~ "- Jc,> t, "9 -;,t eWtll't1 ti)1/1' / 's be it e,.-
tha"- the b,"'j 'St/~/41 veaf'G""9 {here.. c./:;L> l1eed~
'te be- <~ (Jo'] ie deal ",v,'tlt bac/ c; ( tors.
Suc Cf:;5 or tJ,e f'Y"9 ~u "'" 0J,'tf c!emoh:;,tr,,- teo t'J...a t
I'ho~e Qan. be u ceo,." /Isl..ed b iJU.jc,Mi toqetl.ey
p !:J /
('ind. C<J0,d.'",,:\ eostftj ClhC' ('OJ,tentIO'-<5 JaLJ;;",:t5
Sel+el".ol\ ~O'-1n.t'j ('Q".s<?,Jut/:'^ i)i$t,'Gt h,,> bi?<21l Co..
(.,<;u,kl'"'3 SUC(f5f. wAG;' tl-..e Di's.ty,,-t :Jti<J C<..
f'y"blch\ ,'t j,,,) u)(nLecl //Dft<",{"r(/ with.
~rOP"Yt:<r oc-v"e.n tv So/,/e fh.,-, ~YOblen, '.'<"'7
, .- l::;. clOCCtnl""-ntt-"'1 t-J....e jOr<'6/e.rn vc;tJ,e-r 1:J...a"
':)ia>~......In.<J tAe"'....
'.
L10(.<:, tk, 6occ, has huel h-,c,"'1 7uest'w^, Cln('!
iud<hOWi., elbcu~ hwcc! t/-J2 U S() i<->,'If wo,k.. /-11
(,/-;;1<.) has YYlclh';i fiAb1.IC/'-S. L-cts Fc'-'Jet t4 vetc.,'c
-1 hcreLit l",<<stIOr. is, Dc we. >",clff!:} Gua"i H'j
11'\ -::r-.c.? If 50 111 h€l?cl5 tf.) be give,,- tL.."
\~T-'t p,?flt-I~"f e" (/,'I'Ci1Yh.,...t to $L<c({,etl. '..}1
l ( t I r (t. I .. t ~ Fei y ....... t J...&...
r)t'fcS c leno,..;,r-' I't" CUh 0/, ",...,,-
I.....oy( el'e;,(I""t,;;c /Ctl1d. /Jj /1(15 CiIY^C~d'1 /':J5l
/OO'S or [1(,'es. tc 5,,1""0" enhC-rl<"-,,,.ent. 6c.rr-eys
SCci\'est~e. ban/,er. PG5tured ju(,;.J!cUlCl5. neRd
to COht'hl'C' tc:: h", (((..",<:"(1 t-c Sq,-,c lar/elf;:,
rLitc.(r"C C.vufOS. J.,j,,~) fClon:-:, he?d to he <{ /IOLded.
AJ 0 C F 6 ~ee(.s i hat Po v OJ {'" he. ~ u s-t a Jr\ " b Ie
It hHc(~ tv h..-?" ELohoh;.,-"../I'j U:Ctb(e. /l
2(U~1()y.,."<-,,f(,-( (f(d]~ (00"'" looks t,o SC<"'c?c'rcl~J,.f'
'So , f: C: (\ " f ~. Q V e Cc b" He... F(i y YVl t.J i fuz,
\-led:. je"e-rQt/::',,-~
11{1ev /c.<t LL)ee/c~ n" {
rl {" / , ~ h re y' e"11 L e
~(J,v.t:'l...
;vu.., itj...vi:''Jt :-J:L' ~ t . ,t~, e II1 t. c. "cI
tll'-Y"- I':> c.. f.~t(( }}I';l/t"/>1f>"",'t
Let Lt5 Fa "'" Wi 'it-, at< I:- a ddltJ~h
'\ E'j".d c< t/;'f- .
"~), 'II-... t 4
lU,1/ /lIIEn
h-' .- 3'. C. H'i'
bC.i,clens oF'
\'~I '''.'
, e Q~ 0 P t
Lv iJ y je... "
..
LJ "-
t-,j. f i
V'no /~
tis. U'::>IJ
11\
'"\ . J
1<~get Sh".t- I ,~)
\ ("'1Vt. ~j/{,~
Page I of 1
j:::~CC~~I:~~~~ Grang~ [Chima:~~~~~~-:~~:~~J;tEARINS-~---
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:59 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Written testimony on Voluntary Stewardship Plan
September 22,2011
~
"
-->-""
SEP 23 201'
Jefferson Board of County Commissioners
via e-mail
,
\"'"
Honorable Commissioners,
The policy of the Chimacum Grange and Washington State Grange favors opting in to the
Voluntary Stewardship Program.
As evidenced by the oral testimony given during the public hearing, should the issue of
buffers on agricultural land revert to the critical areas process, we foresee a return to
counterproductive divisiveness over the issue of standard buffers being applied to farmland.
Should agriculture be subjected to standard critical area buffers, we foresee a serious impact to
our farmers that may drive many ofthem out of business.
. Almost all of our farmers have been excellent stewards over the past quarter century, constantly
. .
Improvmg.
. Should money for implementation of the VSP be unavailable, our farmers will continue to be
excellent stewards as monitored by the Conservation District.
. No one is completely happy with the results of the Ruckelshaus Process,
of us in the Grange, yet it is a compromise with which we can live.
including those
. In answer to the argument by some that establishment of buffers and setbacks should be a local
issue, we are compelled to ask, "Is GMA local."
Please opt-in to Voluntary Stewardship, with the program applied to all watersheds in the
county and the Chimacum sub-basin as the primary watershed.
(s)Dick Bergeron
President, Chimacum Grange
P. O. Box 604
Chimacum W A 98325
(360)732-0015
9/2312011
Page I ot I
jeffbocc
.Fr::~--~~uce~I~~~an and amy r:~:~~;i~;:;~a
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:25 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: VSP Comments
hi
~
("~p 2 ~ zr.
<..;..:. !) d
September 22, 2011
To The Jefferson County Commissioners Office:
;~J t:'
;i
~:
As a start-up farm in Jefferson County we are writing to expose what we feel is the negative nature of the
proposed ordinance HB1886, Ruckelshaus Process and the detrimental results we feel it would have on this
farming community.
It is with great concern that we write to emphasize the importance of a voluntary stewardship program on our
farm and in our community. Using our land responsibly and producing a much wanted and economically
sustainable product is our goal. Agricultural endeavors are encouraged by Jefferson county. Mandatory
buffers would greatly inhibit farming enterprises at a time when there is a resurgence of family farms in our
community. Instigation of such an ordinance would limit the use of our land and effect our farm in a negative
way. We urge you to opt in to the voluntary stewardship program and help to encourage farming in this
county rather than limit land-use.
Sincerely,
Amy Rose Dubin & Bruce Gleeman
Chimacum Valley Dairy
9123/2011
r(tgc I VI I
~::~;~:AI B~rgstei~~~ergstein@~~aiL~~6RlJ--2L- - .~.-
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 4:24 PM '"'f"P 2 ~2
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Ruckelshaus VSP and the County
Mr. Commissioners:
As the county debates whether to adopt the Ruckelshaus VSP or to simply take the 'traditional'
Agriculture into the overall SMP, (which is the current status of 'new Ag'), these are my thoughts on the
matter.
I volunteered for four years as a member of the SMP Citizen's Advisory Panel that complemented the
Technical Advisory CounciL Also during that time, I was a member of People For Puget Sound, which has
been one of two environmental organizations asked to participate in the Ruckelshaus process. We are a
respected organization that the State asks to participate in crafting these kind of compromises.
The track record of voluntary participation for protecting or enhancing riparian zones on Chimacum
Creek is spotty. The USDA CREP Program that pays farmers to restore riparian habitat has been in
place for aimost twenty-five years and only 14 farmers are enrolled, which represents a minority of the
possible land needed for complete protection of the creek. The Conservation District promotes a
voluntary best management plan and only a handful offarmers have BMPs. The agriculture and
property rights members of the Planning Commission Sub Committee picked to revised the CAO
vigorously fought for minimal buffers that could not be justified by the best available science. Given this
track record, I cannot see how voluntary efforts can be expected to achieve success when previous (read
current) voluntary efforts have faiied. It is important to note that the citizens ofthis county have
subsidized these same farmers by giving them significant tax breaks for their property through the open
space initiatives such as the Conservation Futures Fund. It is time that they join the rest of us in
protecting the shorelines of this county, that include rivers and streams where endangered runs of
salmon still spawn.
Additionally, the Tribes, namely the Jamestown S'Klallam, have not supported the voluntary program, as
they also point out the failure of other voluntary programs to achieve water quality goals. Without their
support, this is unlikely to be a successful program. I would recommend working with them to find a way
to bring them to the table and then go from there.
Given all that, plus many more important issues that are addressed by other organizations here in the
county, I cannot recommend adopting the Ruckelshaus Amendment. I recommend opting out of it and
simply rolling the traditional agriculture community into the rest of the county citizens who are
supporting the SMP. This would allow OCD and others in the county to work with the farmers affected
by this to come up with programs to help them implement the laws. Perhaps going back to the state to
see if some of the money we are turning down can be used to actually help refund farmers some of their
costs for finding appropriate ways to implement this on their property. It seems an equitable way to
move forward for aiL
Thanks for your attention to this.
Sincerely,
AI Bergstein
Port Townsend
9/22/2011
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
~
Owen Fairbank [sofairbank@olympus.net]
Thursday, September 22, 2011 1 :30 PM
jeffbocc
VSP Comments
jeffbocc
2') 2.11"'
SEP ~J
September 22, 2011
Esteemed Commlsslonero:
While the Ruckelshaus voluntary stewardship plans have the potential to provide an alternative to landowMro, this is
a complex situation with no simple solutions. My broad experience with conservation easements, another form of
voluntary land protection agreement, shows that regular monitoring is Mce.;sary to ensure conformity with the pian
or agreement. It is also essentiai to have meaningful enforcement if the agreement is perform its Intended function.
As you know, agricultural use Is currently exempted from our Critical Areas Ordinance so the Voluntary Stewardship
Plans are not needed for our farmers to continue to produce food that feeds us aii.
Given the budget chaiienges at both the County and the State level, I feei it is unrealistic for the County to take on
this new program that will require additional staff resources, even before State funding Is available to support the
plan. To expect adequate funding to fuiiy implement this VSP option is unrealistic In the State's present economic
condition, and I do not see evidence that Jefferson County has the resources to review plans, monitor water quality
and other conditions in a meaningful way. and enforce code if conditions do not meet expectations.
Another consideration Is possible Federal or Tribal requirements that could preempt any County or State code. If
the.;e do come into play, then the time and effort spent on VSPs will have been wasted.
In consideration of these factors. I encourage you to opt out of the Ruckelshaus voiuntary stewardship plan at this
time, while hoping that conditions might make it a practical and feasible alternative in the future.
Sincerely youro,
Owen Fairbank
508 Lawrence St.
Port Townsend. WA.
1
jeffbocc
t'age j or j
u_____________~fARfriGRECQRQ~4_-_.::.~-M~~+--- _
From: Karyn Williams [karyn@reddogfarm.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1 :29 PM
To: jeffbocc
Subject: Comment on Voluntary Stewardship Proposal
Dear County Commissioners,
('I",:,p I) (J
'.. ~, . ' /." (.
I am writing as a owner of Red Dog Farm, a 23 acre working organic farm in Chimacum that is
actively participating in efforts to keep our rural farm community economically viable and
culturally vital. Over the past seven years that I have been farming in Jefferson County, I have
come to appreciate the complexity of issues related to land use. I have also come to appreciate
the many partnerships that are working in our community to help us keep a healthy balance
between working land and conservation values.
I am writing now to ask that the commissioners opt in to the Voluntary Stewardship proposal
(HB1886, Ruckelshaus Process), that it be applied to all watersheds in the county, and that the
Chimacum sub-basin be selected as the primary watershed. Given the fact that the issues are
not black and white for land use, and given that we truly want and need vibrant farms operating
with a sustainable ecological ethics, I believe that we must work together to eliminate the "us"
vs. "them" mentality that has arisen in land use debates and find common ground through
deepened conversation, mutual respect and common vision for our future. This common vision
cannot be regulated but must come about through respectful partnerships.
We are fortunate in this community to have such engaged citizens, collaborative farmers, and
numerous organizations devoted to pursuing this conversation in good faith.
Thank you for your efforts to serve our community and I urge you to support the Voluntary
Stewardship mode.
Karyn Williams
Red Dog Farm
PO Box 40'
Chimacum, W A 983'5
(360)73'-0"3
(360)774-6'49 cell
www.reddogfarm.net
karyn@reddogEarm.net
9/22/2011
jeffbocc
.... .....~....*AR!NGRECORO..~..........
SEP 2 2
I am writing now to ask that the commissioners opt in to the Voluntary Stewardship
proposal (HB1886, Ruckelshaus Process), that it be applied to all watersheds in the
county, and that the Chimacum sub..basin be selected as the primary
watershed. Given the fact that the issues are not black and white for land use, and
given that we truly want and need vibrant farms operating with a sustainable ecological
ethics, I believe that we must work together to eliminate the "us" vs. "them" mentality
that has arisen in land use debates and find common ground through deepened
conversation, mutual respect and common vision for our future. Thiscommon vision
cannot be regulated but must come about through respectful partnerships.
We are fortunate in this community to have such engaged citizens, collaborative
farmers, and numerous organizations devoted to pursuing this conversation in good
faith.
Thank you for your efforts to serve our community and I urge you to support the
Voluntary Stewardship mode.
With appreciation,
Crystie Kisler
Finnriver Farm & Cidery
info@finnriverfarm.com
www.finnriver.com
home: 360-732-6822
barn: 360-732-4337
For the latest:
www.facebook.com/fi n n river
9/22/2011
rage 1 or 1