HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 Report of the Cons. Futures Advisory Committee1
7
r
11
1
y 4
Cedar River Group
John Howell
john@CedarRiverGroup.com
500 Union Street • Suite 1045 • Seattle, WA 98101
Tel. 206 - 223 -7660, Ext. 102 • Fax 206 - 223 -7665
Projects in the Public Interest
CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................................................. ...............................
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. ............................... 3
Background................................................................................................... ............................... 3
Jefferson County Conservation Futures ........................................................ ............................... 3
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee ........................ ............................... 3
ProjectStaff ................................................................................................... ............................... 4
ProgramResearch ........................................................................................ ............................... 5
Jefferson County Conservation Initiatives ..................................................... ............................... 5
Conservation Futures Revenue Estimates .................................................... ............................... 6
t PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... .................................................. ................::........:.... 7
Recommended Statement of Principles . . 7
Overall Program Principles ............................................................................ ............................... 7
' Conservation Futures Evaluation Criteria .::::::::::::::::::::::...:...::::::::::::.:.::.:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 10
Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet . 13
Conservation Futures Acquisition Application ............................................. ............................... 16
l�
PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 22
Board Structure and Representation ........................................................... ............................... 22
Staffing for the Citizen Advisory Committee ................................................ ............................... 22
MeetingSchedule ....................................................................................... ............................... 23
ApplicationSchedule .................................................................................. ............................... 23
PublicHearing ............................................................................................. ............................... 23
OutreachEfforts .......................................................................................... ............................... 23
CONCLUSION............................................................................................... ............................... 24
APPENDIX..................................................................................................... ............................... 25
DraftScope of Work .................................................................................... ............................... 26
Glossary...................................................................................................... ............................... 27
Summary of RCW 84.34 Sections Pertaining to Conservation Futures Program ...................... 31
Chapter 84.34 RCW OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURAL, TIMBER LANDS — CURRENT
USE -- CONSERVATION FUTURES ...................................................... ............................... 33
Jefferson County Resolution 44- 99 ............................................................. ............................... 58
Conservation Futures Tax County -by- County Overview July 2000 ............. ............................... 59
Follow -Up Answers to Questions About Other County Programs ............... ............................... 66
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan — Open Space, Parks & Recreation, and Historic
PreservationElement ............................................................................... ............................... 68
Jefferson County Conservation District ....................................................... ............................... 89
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ........................................... ............................... 90
Wild Olympic Salmon, A Salmon Recovery Newsletter ............................... ............................... 91
JeffersonLand Trust ................................................................................. ............................... 101
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund ........................................... ............................... 108
MEMORANDUM: Alternatives for the Project Selection Process ............. ............................... 109
' Meeting Summary July 26, 2001 ............................................................... ............................... 111
Meeting Summary August 15, 2001 ............................ ............................... ... 114
...........................
Meeting Summary September 5, 2001 ...................................................... ............................... 118
' Meeting Summary September 19, 2001 .................................................... ............................... 121
Meeting Summary October 9, 2001 .......................................................... ............................... 124
1
fl
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The conservation futures program was created by the Washington State legislature in 1970 as a local option
tool for preserving open space lands. Since that time, twelve counties around the state have approved the
program. In 2000, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners adopted a conservation futures
program to generate local funds for the purpose of preserving lands within the county. The Commissioners
created a citizen advisory committee and asked the committee to develop recommendations for the
implementation of the new program. This report describes those recommendations and formally transmits
the committee's work to the Board of Commissioners.
The Advisory Committee began its work by developing a solid foundation of information. It reviewed the
state enabling legislation and carefully examined the experiences of other counties that have adopted a
conservation futures program. After receiving an initial briefing on other county programs, the Committee
requested additional information to clarify certain issues. The Committee also received briefings from
county staff and others within the community familiar with current conservation initiatives in Jefferson
County. The Committee wanted to make sure that the new conservation futures program was
complementary to current initiatives, and did not duplicate efforts already underway. The Committee also
' received a briefing on the anticipated level of available funding. Approximately $150,000 will be available
annually.
' Once background information was gathered, the Committee began to develop its implementation
recommendations. Deliberations centered around the creation of several tools:
I
U
• a statement of overall principles to guide the development of the program;
• evaluation criteria and a rating worksheet that establish priorities for future acquisitions;
• an application that describes the level and type of information required to apply for funding; and
• recommendations on the type of process that should be used to make decisions about the allocation of
these funds.
The Committee drew heavily from successful programs in other counties. In particular, the models offered
by Island, Snohomish, and Pierce counties were most helpful. The Committee spent a considerable amount
of time discussing the unique needs of Jefferson County and adapting features from other counties to local
circumstances.
For example, because the amount of conservation futures funding is limited, the Committee placed a strong
emphasis on the ability to use these funds to leverage other fund sources. The Committee also felt it was
important to emphasize the long -term need to steward and maintain properties once they are acquired. The
Committee's recommendation is that projects should not be eligible unless accompanied by a stewardship
plan. With regard to specific land types, the Committee recommends that several categories of land receive
high priority. Land that preserves habitat for endangered or threatened species or for a wide variety of
native flora and fauna, sites that create wildlife corridors or migration routes, and agricultural lands will
have an opportunity to receive stronger consideration than other land types.
Finally, after several months of considering program recommendations, the Committee turned its attention t
to the process for selecting projects for funding. The Committee recommends that the Board of
Commissioners create a citizen advisory committee to assist the County in making decisions about the use
of these funds. The citizen committee would be advisory to the Commissioners, and staffed by the County. ,
It is recommended that the current citizen committee be retained and enlarged to provide a smooth transition
through the first year of implementation. If these recommendations are approved this year, applications for
the new program could be available in April 2002, with funding decisions by June 2002. '
The new conservation futures program represents a wonderful opportunity to use local resources to preserve ,
and protect critical open space lands within the county. The recommendations in this report suggest a
method for Jefferson County to create an exciting new program. Like all new programs this one will require
careful monitoring and evaluation. The Commissioners should ask the citizen advisory committee for an '
annual evaluation of how the program is meeting the needs of Jefferson County and its citizens.
2
u
0
1
' INTRODUCTION
Loy
' IN
Background
' In 1970, the Washington State Legislature adopted the Conservation Futures program (RCW 84.34) giving
counties the authority to levy property tax for the purpose of acquiring open space lands. Counties can levy
the tax, up to six and one - quarter cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation, on all taxable property
within the county. Revenues can be used to acquire specific types of threatened property, including open
space, wetlands, habitat areas, agricultural and timber lands. The funds can be used for fee simple
acquisitions, purchase of conservation easements or development rights. However, conservation futures
funds cannot be used for maintenance or stewardship of properties. Lands cannot be acquired for the
purposes of active recreation (such as ball fields, recreation center, etc.) and all acquisitions must have a
' willing seller (i.e. eminent domain cannot be used to acquire lands).
A dozen Washington counties have implemented conservation futures programs since the Washington State
'enabling legislation was passed.
' Jefferson County Conservation Futures
In May of 1999, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution 43 -99 expressing its
intent to consider authorization of a property tax levy for the purpose of creating a conservation futures
' program. The resolution called for the formation of a citizen advisory board to provide recommendations to
the Commissioners regarding the implementation of a conservation futures program. This initial effort to
establish a program was postponed as a result of concerns about the potential effects of statewide ballot
' Initiative 695.
In Fall 2000, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners approved an increase in the property tax levy to
' create a county -wide conservation futures program. The Commissioners also reaffirmed their intent to
establish a citizen advisory committee to develop recommendations for the new program.
' Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
LI
r]
In July 2001, the Commissioners created a citizen advisory committee. The Advisory Committee was made
up of nine members of the community who represented various interests, including Jefferson County
government, the City of Port Townsend, the Jefferson County Land Trust, farming, real estate and forestry,
with three citizens at- large. The Committee included the following idividuals:
Glen Huntingford e
David Johnson
Janet Kearsley
Kevin Miller_XWYX
Ralph Rush
Roger Short : A'4A4-
Dennis Schultze
Sarah Spaeth
Alan Youse
ai7P'/0i
The Committee's purpose was to develop recommendations that would result in the creation of a
conservation futures program in Jefferson County. The Committee was also asked to develop
implementation strategies, including criteria for potential acquisitions, a scoring system for rating projects,
' an application form, and recommendations about the decision - making process. The Committee had a
deadline of November 2001 to provide recommendations to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners.
3
1
The Advisory Committee provided overall gu idance for the project, a pp r vin g an initial scope of work for '
the project (see Appendix) and developing detailed recommendations. With this report the Committee's
recommendations are being forwarded to the County Commissioners. ,
The Committee selected its own chair, Sarah Spaeth, who conducted committee meetings. David Johnson '
was elected vice - chair. It should be noted that Committee members spent many hours of personal time
reviewing documents and preparing for meetings.
From July through October, the Committee met4vg times to review background materials, listen to ,
presentations from individuals familiar with current open space preservation programs, and to discuss a
recommended course of action to establish and implement the program. Meetings lasted from two to three '
hours. Committee members established a set of groundrules•to guide their meetings and discussions.
The first two Committee meetings focused on informing the Committee members about the state enabling
legislation, the experience of conservation futures programs in other counties, revenue forecasts, and the
current open space preservation programs and activities within Jefferson County. The Committee received a
number of background documents provided by program staff, as well as presentations by stakeholders in
'
Jefferson County.
The next three meetings were devoted to reviewing and approving several draft documents, including the
'
following:
,
Principles to guide the development of the program
Evaluation Criteria to establish the program priorities
Rating System to establish a point system for the criteria
Application Form to be used by project applicants
These documents became the core of the Committee's recommendations. The Committee also developed '
recommendations concerning the process for implementing the Conservation Futures program in Jefferson
County.
Project Staff
Cedar River Associates, a consulting firm, was retained by Jefferson County to prepare the initial scope of ,
work and provide staff support for the Advisory Committee. Their work included gathering relevant
background information, researching practices in other counties that have a conservation futures program,
preparing draft materials for review by the Committee, providing agendas and meeting summaries, '
conducting necessary follow -up after each meeting, and preparing the final report. John Howell and Gaylis
Linville comprised the team from Cedar River Associates that managed the project and attended the
meetings, and Liza Couchman provided administrative support between meetings. '
A number of Jefferson County staff also provided the Committee with valuable support: Gary Rowe,
Director of Central Services; Al Scalf, Director of Community Development; Warren Steurer, Director of '
Public Works; and Dave Christensen and Barbara Bower, from the County office of Environmental Health.
Members of this County team attended Committee meetings and provided useful information and insights
for the Committee's consideration. In addition, Rene Talley provided excellent administrative and logistics '
support for the Committee.
4 '
C
Program Research
The first step in the program development process was providing Committee with information on
conservation futures and how a program could be fashioned to meet the specific needs of Jefferson County.
Listed below, with brief descriptions of each, are documents that were provided by project staff and
stakeholders in the community, all of which are included in the Appendix:
Glossary of Common Terms — a useful glossary of terms related to conservation futures and open
space programs.
Washington State RCW 84.34 Conservation Futures — a summary of the Washington State law
and a copy of the legislation.
Jefferson County Resolution 43 -99 — the enabling legislation to levy a conservation futures tax and
to establish the Conservation Futures Advisory Committee.
Conservation Futures Tax County -by- County Overview — a report on eight Western Washington
counties' conservation futures programs, including information on year enacted, application and
process, 2000 revenue, bonding issues, acquisition priorities, types of acquisitions, key acquisitions
and other funding sources. There is also a brief summary of the Committee's specific follow -up
questions.
Jefferson County Conservation Initiatives
a son Co ty
The second step toward development of recommendations was to understand the range of current policies,
programs and activities regarding preservation of open space in Jefferson County. The Committee wanted
to be informed about those activities that could complement, or conflict with, a conservation futures
' program. The Committee received briefings on the following (see Appendix for presentation materials, and
briefing descriptions included in the Meeting Summary for August 15, 2001.):
' Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Al Scalf, of Jefferson County Community Development,
discussed the Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation element of the County
Comprehensive Plan.
' Jefferson County abitat Preservation Initiatives. Dave Christensen of Jefferson County
tY
Environmental Health, provided an overview of Jefferson County habitat conservation efforts,
' including the culvert inventory, the Lower Big Quilcene Plan, the Linger Longer Study and the
Refugia Study.
' Jefferson County Conservation District. Al Latham spoke on behalf of the Jefferson County
Conservation District, and provided information on the USDA/Washington State Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and the Chumsortium initiative.
Jefferson Land Trust. Sarah Spaeth gave an overview of the efforts of this non - profit organization.
She provided a map of currently protected properties and a summary of properties the land trust
would like to target for conservation.
1
5
Conservation Futures Revenue Estimates
Gary Rowe, of Jefferson County Central Services, provided a summary of tax assessments and projected
revenue. He reported to the Committee that revenue from the conservation futures tax in 2001, the first year
of collection, will be approximately $155,000. The revenues should grow modestly over time as the
county's total assessed value grows.
He also provided a report that detailed several options for bonding against the tax (see Appendix) However,
he and several Committee members noted that with $155,000 in annual revenue, a twenty -year bond could
raise only $1.75 million. Given the small size of the bond, and the estimated interest payments, it was
suggested that bonding against this revenue stream would not be prudent. It was further suggested that, in
any given year, if there is an urgent need for program funds in excess of the annual conservation futures tax
revenue, the County may want to consider borrowing from other county funds or external fund sources.
6
PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
�9Sy U '0
' IN
The Conservation Futures Advisory Committee considered all of the documents and the presentations it
received and then began to craft recommendations for the conservation futures program. A "program
pyramid" was used as a guide to develop an increasingly specific set of recommendation. The discussions
started with development of a statement of principles. From there, land acquisition priorities were
testablished and ultimately, a set of specific selection criteria and an accompanying numerical rating system
were developed.
Recommended Statement of Principles
Committee members began by discussing the broad, conceptual outlines of their recommendations, and
' preparing a set of principles to guide their deliberations. This helped the Committee determine where there
was consensus and where there was difference of opinion. The first draft of the principles was influenced by
the Committee's understanding of conservation futures programs in other counties, Jefferson County
tpolicies and open space needs within the county. The Committee attempted to design a set of principles that
address the unique needs of Jefferson County. For example, because of the limited amount of funds
available annually, the ability to leverage other funds surfaced as a very significant guiding principle.
' Additionally, Committee members felt that all project proposals must have a long -term maintenance or
stewardship plan for the property. The principles also acknowledge that it will be important to review the
implementation of this new program within the next two years to ensure that it is meeting the needs of the
' citizens of Jefferson County, and also that as federal, state and local policies change the land conservation
priorities may also change.
The principles are divided into three categories: Overall program principles, acquisition principles and
process principles. Many of the statements below are developed in greater detail in the program criteria and
' rating system that follow.
Overall Program Principles
' • Use conservation futures funds to leverage resources (grants, donations, and partnerships) to preserve
lands that provide the greatest benefits to the community.
• Design and implement the Jefferson County program based on other successful programs.
Acquisition Principles
' • Preserve lands that are threatened by development or resource extraction.
• Take advantage of opportunities to preserve "signature" properties that help define the character of the
county or a community.
' • Preserve lands that have significant regional or community benefits.
• Preserve lands that provide a variety of habitat for flora and fauna, including lands that support
threatened or endangered species.
' • Acquisitions must be supported by strategies to manage the long -term maintenance and stewardship of
properties.
e Conservation futures funds will be available on a county -wide basis, and outreach efforts should
' promote the program.
Process Principles
'
• The program is voluntary. Property owners must be willing participants.
• Allocation decisions should include some form of citizen involvement.
'
• Acquisition priorities and the County's selection criteria should be reviewed at least every two years by
,
a citizen advisory committee and the County Commissioners. The process should be designed to meet
the county's changing needs over time.
,
• Project sponsors will insure that a proposed acquisition is suited for any proposed use, meets the
eligibility requirements as defined by state law, and is consistent with appropriate county or municipal
codes.
• The program should allow for different types of acquisitions, including fee - simple acquisition,
easements, or purchase of development rights.
• Eligible applicants will include the,r.�unty, municipalities, park districts, state, or federal agencies,
private non -profit corporations or associations based in Jefferson County, and private individuals.
Individual applicants, or state and federal agencies, must have the sponsorship of the county, a local
government, or a private non - profit corporation based in Jefferson County.
,
• Ownership of properties or easements will be held by public entities (i.e. the county, municipal
governments, the state, or other as defined in RCW 84.34.210). Government entities may choose to
'
share the title of a property or easement with a non -profit nature conservancy corporation or association
(as defined in RCW 84.34.250), or a non - profit historic preservation corporation (as defined in RCW
64.04.130).
,
Evaluation Criteria
Once the program principles were established, the Committee developed evaluation criteria to establish '
priorities for future acquisitions, as well as a rating worksheet which provides points and relative weighting
for each of the criteria. The two documents provide a statement about the type of projects the county would
like to fund with the conservation futures program.
The Committee reviewed examples of successful evaluation criteria from other counties. They discussed the I
merits of each and modified several early drafts to better reflect the needs in Jefferson County.
As part of its deliberations about priorities, the Committee discussed whether different types of land (e.g.
'
wetlands, agricultural land, shoreline, scenic vistas, trails and open space corridors, etc.) should be
established as acquisition priorities. After reviewing the status of current preservation activities, some
Committee members felt that the conservation futures program should target particular land types as a way
,
to complement existing programs. Others felt that all land types should receive equal weight and compete
against one another for funding. An exercise was conducted during the September meeting to determine if
there was consensus about acquisition priorities. Twenty -six different types of land were described and
'
Committee members were asked to rank each as high, medium and low priorities for acquisition.
✓A consensus emerged around the top five priority land types. The highest priority was land identified as
'
critical salmon habitat. Most Committee members felt that conservation futures funds should be used to
preserve lands identified by current planning activities as crucial to protecting salmon spawning and rearing
areas. The Committee also identified estuaries & tidal marshes, fish & wildlife habitat areas, streams, and
'
agricultural land as high priorities. These acquisition priorities were reflected in the evaluation criteria and
rating system.
'
Ci
' The rating worksheet provides the relative priority among the nine criteria. After considerable discussion,
the Committee felt that some criteria should receive more weight than others. For example, the Committee
recommends that applications that demonstrate the ability to leverage other matching funds, and the
' commitment to long -term stewardship of a property (the first two criteria) should receive the highest number
of points. Similarly, they recommend that whether a project has localized or broad county benefit, and
' whether a project provides educational benefits (the last two criteria) should receive the fewest number of
points. The rating worksheet will be used to rank project applications. It can also be a helpful tool for
explanations to successful and unsuccessful applicants about the relative merits of each project.
' As mentioned in the statement of principles, the Committee believes that land conservation P riorities in
Jefferson County will change overtime and the evaluation criteria should be updated periodically to reflect
' those changes.
1
1
I
I
U
9
CONSERVATION FUTURES EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following criteria are designed to aid decision- makers during the application review process for
allocation of Conservation Future Tax funds. The application review process should take into consideration
all of the information and documentation provided in the application by the project sponsor, as well as site
visits.
1. To what degree does the project leverage additional acquisition funds or resources?
Highest consideration will be awarded to project proposals which include matching fund support for
acquisitions and which, as a result, reduce the need to utilize Conservation Futures Program funds.
Scoring will reflect the percentage of total project acquisition costs provided by outside resources
(including grant funds, land or easement donations, etc.). Sponsoring agencies should document that
matching funds are committed or that funding is likely. If a project has been selected for funding by the
!county, and matching contributions fall through, the sponsor will be given up to twelve (12) months to
{
find alternative resources. However, a six month review of the project will occur and if progress is not
being made to replace the matching funds, the county may reprogram the Conservation Futures funds.
No Conservation Futures Program resources will be expended prior to contractual provision of matching
fund resources.
2. To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long -term stewardship for the
proposed project?
Maximum consideration will be awarded to a proposal which guarantees, through a contractual
agreement, long -term maintenance and upkeep of the project site. Sponsors should detail their
stewardship program, including their readiness to implement the program, who will carry out the
stewardship, and how the stewardship will be done. Non -profit agencies can have arrangements with
local government or some other agency for long -term care of the project site. Alternatively, government
agencies can contract with community -based organizations to provide stewardship services.
A sponsor who can demonstrate commitments to implement a long -term, comprehensive stewardship
plan will receive the most points. Sponsors who guarantee only short-term stewardship, or merely have
a stewardship plan will receive fewer points.
3. To what degree is the acquisition feasible?
Can the property or property right be acquired in a timely fashion with available resources? Higher
ranking should be awarded to properties that have financial and stewardship commitments in place, clear
indication of a willing seller, and all participating parties are in agreement on the terms of purchase and
other considerations.
4. To what degree does the project enhance or complement an adopted open space, conservation or
resource preservation program, plan or on -going community conservation effort?
Maximum consideration will be awarded to those proposals for which sponsors clearly demonstrate a
relationship between the project and an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation
program or plan. These plans and programs may be those of the sponsoring agency or a jurisdiction
10
F
Ij
I'.
1
1
I
b. Sites where the habitat contains a variety of native flora and fauna is preferred over sites dominated
by a single species.
c. Sites where the habitat is part of a wildlife corridor or migration route will receive more points than
isolated habitat.
7. To what degree does the project preserve farmland for long -term agricultural use?
Consideration will be given to those properties that have the following characteristics:
a. Properties that are participating in other agricultural land conservation programs, such as the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), will receive more points. Projects that
document an intent to participate in other land conservation programs (i.e.-pending applications), but
have not yet been accepted, will receive fewer points:
b. Properties that are designated farmland and are likely to maintain an active agricultural use will
receive the most points.
8. To what degree does the project serve a significant community benefit area?
Priority will be given to projects that provide benefit to the broadest geographical service area within
Jefferson County. The project will be rated based on its ability to demonstrate broad county or multi -
jurisdictional benefit or localized benefit. The following definitions and standards will be used as
guidelines in the evaluation process.
Broad County benefit: (Highest Priority) These sites must provide benefit to large geographic areas
within Jefferson County, which may encompass several towns, cities, and/or unincorporated
communities, with benefit to a significantly large population.
Localized benefit: (Lower Priority) These sites will provide benefit to single, small communities, with
benefit to relatively few citizens.
9. To what degree does the acquisition provide educational or interpretive opportunities?
Consideration will be given to those properties that provide opportunities to enhance the public's
knowledge of conservation efforts. Properties that will have public access, unique and important natural
assets and a plan for use of areas where educational/interpretive materials can be displayed will be given
the highest ranking. Properties with plans for little or no public access, but may provide educational
signage, will receive fewer points. Remote sites with no plans for public education will receive the
fewest points.
12
which has oversight regarding the property in question. Alternatively, the project may have been
identified through the works of community conservation efforts.
Points will be awarded on the following basis:
Project site is referenced in documented preservation program or plan: The most points will be
awarded when a sponsor provides documentation to demonstrate that the proposed project builds upon
an existing adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation plan or program which includes
the project site.
Project complements ongoing program or plan, without reference to specific site: Fewer points will
be awarded when the sponsor demonstrates that the proposed project will fill a need documented by an
existing adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation plan or program, but the specific site
is not identified for preservation.
Stand -alone project: The fewest points will be awarded when the sponsor does not demonstrate a
relationship between the project proposal and any existing adopted open space, conservation, or resource
preservation plan or program.
5. To what degree is the property threatened?
Points will be awarded relative to the following conditions:
• The site proposed for acquisition is threatened with respect to its natural/physical characteristics.
• The site proposed for acquisition is threatened as a result of man-made changes to the surrounding
areas.
Maximum consideration will be awarded to projects that are immediately threatened by development,
and have truly unique characteristics which represent a preservation opportunity that may be lost. The
following guidelines should assist in the rating process:
Significantly threatened: Because of development, or the unique physical features of the site, this is
the last opportunity, or one of the last opportunities, to acquire a property of this variety.
Moderately threatened: Other opportunities to acquire property of this variety exist, but this type of
site or sites with these physical features is in fairly short supply.
Slightly threatened: This variety of property is reasonably common and available today, but may be
threatened in the future.
6. To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna?
Points will be awarded for three habitat characteristics.
a. Projects that can document that the site serves as habitat for endangered, threatened or sensitive
species will receive a higher number of points. Habitat for species that are not endangered,
threatened or sensitive will receive the fewest points.
11
SON
1 ti CONSERVATION FUTURES RATING WORKSHEET
,G'�o�
1 N
ADJUSTED ADJUSTED
CRITERIA SCORE X WEIGHT = SCORE
1. To what degree does the project leverage contributions —
for acquisition from groups, agencies or individuals? X 10
(Points awarded based on the following
1 level of contribution)
• Over 75% = 5 points
• 50% - 74% = 4 points
• 25% - 49 % = 3 point bt�L`t
• 5% - 24% = 2 points
' • 1% - 4% o = 1 points
• No matching funds = 0 points
' 2. To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide —
long -term stewardship for the proposed project? X 10
• Stewardship plan with guaranteed long -term stewardship = 5 points
1 • Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points
• Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point
3. To what degree is the acquisition feasible? X 8 =
• Highly feasible = 5 points
• Moderately feasible = 3 points
i • Slightly feasible = 1 point
1
4. 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 =
• Part of documented open space or conservation plan, site identified = 5 points
• Complements adopted open space or conservation plan, site not identified = 3 points
• Stand -alone project = 1 point
5. To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna?
(Points awarded in part based on level of documentation)
1
• Endangered or threatened native species = 0-3 points X
4
• Variety of native flora & fauna = 0-3 points X
4
• Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0-3 points X
4 =
'
6. To what degree does the project conserve
opportunities which are otherwise lost of threatened? X
6 =
1
• Significantly threatened = 5 points
• Moderately threatened = 3 points
• Slightly threatened = 1 point
• Not threatened = 0
points
1
13
7. To what degree does the project preserve farmland
for aggicultural use?
• Participates in other conservation programs = 0-3 points X 4
• Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0 -3 points X 4
8. To what degree does the project serve a significant
benefit area? X 4
• Broad county benefit = 5 points
• Localized benefit = 3 points
9. To what degree does the acquisition provide
educational or interpretive opportunities? X 4
• Public access, with plan for educational/interpretive displays and materials = 5 points
• Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points
• Remote location = 1 point
• No access = 0 points
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
1
Project Application
' The Committee spent time reviewing a proposed project application form. The first page of the application
describes the basic eligibility requirements for all applicants (Eligibility Checklist) and the attachments that
each applicant will need to submit along with the application (Attachments Checklist). The application
form closely matches the criteria and rating worksheet. It requests information from a project sponsor that
will allow reviewers to assess the strength of each application.
1
1
LI
I.�
15
I�
CONSERVATION FUTURES ACQUISITION APPLICATION I
ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST
Project applications 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 with the following criteria:
_ The property, or property right, must be eligible for
purchase as defined by state law, RCW 84,34.210 (i.e.
"...protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, limit
the future use of or otherwise conserve, selected open
space land, farm and agricultural land, and timber
land... ').
_ Conservation Futures funds can only be used to
acquire property or a property right, or related costs
associated with appraisal, risk assessment, and legal
fees related to the preparation of acquisition
documents.
_ Conservation Futures funds cannot 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).
_ Conservation Futures funds cannot 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.
_ Eligible applicants include the county, municipalities,
park districts, state or federa agencies, private non-
profit corporations or associations based in Jefferson
County, and private individuals.
__All applicants must have a local sponsor. Eligible
sponsors include the county, municipalities, park
districts, or private non-profit corporations based in
Jefferson County.
Applicants must have a stewardship plan that
describes how the property, or property right, will be
maintained over time.
.Proposed acquisitions must have a willing seller.
.Estimated land or easement values must be based
upon either an independent appraisal, an opinion of
value from a qualified representative of the real estate
industry, or recent valuation from the Jefferson
County Assessor's Office.
16
ATTACHMENTS CHECKLIST
All requested materials must accompany the application
upon submission to the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners.
_ 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: See Eligibility Checklist for
acceptable basis for estimates.
_ 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.
I
_ Project Boundary Map: On a 114- section map or ,
other map of sufficiently large scale, identify the
boundaries of the proposed project.
_ Color Slides: Provide six (6) 35mm color slides of the
property proposed for acquisition. The slides should
show flora, terrain, waterfront, man -made features,
access roads, wetlands, unique characteristics, etc.
Please include 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.
Cl
1
l l
0
ri
I�
J
APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED SITE ACQUISITION
Please complete the following application in its entirety. Each question must be answered completely
within the space provided. Incomplete applications will not be accepted for consideration.
1. PROJECT TITLE or SITE NAME:
2. AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUESTED:
3. APPLICANT Name:
Contact:
Title:
Address:
Phone: ( ) - , ext. Fax: ext.
Email:
4. APPLICANT Sponsor: (if different than applicant)
Contact:
Title:
Address:
Phone: L_) - , ext. Fax: () - , ext.
Email:
This application was approved by the sponsor's legally responsible body (e.g., board,
council, etc.) in public meeting on ,200
5. SITE LOCATION
Address/Description :
Section: Township:
6. EXISTING CONDITIONS
New Site:
Addition to Existing Site:
Current Zoning:
Current Use:
Waterfront (name of body of water):
Shoreline (linear feet):
Owner Tidelands /Shorelands:
1 17
Range:
Number of Parcels:
Total Acres:
Existing Structures /Facilities:
7. Current Property Owner is _is not a willing seller.
8. Please describe the physical characteristics of the site that is proposed for acquisition with
Conservation Futures Program funds including: vegetation, topography, surrounding land use,
and relationship to parks, trails, or open space.
9. Please indicate the type of interest contemplated in the acquisition process.
_ Warranty Deed _ Easement _ Other (Please describe below)
10. Please describe below the proposed acquisition site, including: the purpose, use planned for the
site, any development plans after acquisition, characteristics of the site which demonstrate that it
is well- suited to the proposed use, and plans for any occupied structures currently on the site.
11 a. Proposed acquisition site and any subsequent planned passive development (as described above)
_is _is not part of a larger project.
b. If applicable, please describe below how the site relates to the larger project, and whether the
project has a plan, schedule and funding dedicated to its completion.
12. Please estimate below the total site acquisition costs below, including the cost for the entire
property or property right, even if Conservation Futures funds will only cover a portion of that
total cost.
Estimated Acquisition Cost:
Estimated Acquisition- related Cost (see Eligibility Checklist):
F,
i
0
Estimated Total Project Acquisition Cost: ,
Basis for Estimate:
18 ,
C
F i
I I
13a. Sponsor or other organizations will will not contribute to acquisition of the proposed site.
b. If applicable, please describe below how contributions from groups or agencies will reduce the
need to use Conservation Futures program funds.
c. Matching Fund Estimate Amount
Conservation Futures Funds Requested $
Matching Funds/Resources
Total Project Acquisition Cost $
Percentage
100%
d. Source of matching Amount of Contribution If not, Contribution If not,
funds /resources contribution approved? when? available now? when?
$ Yes _No _Yes _No
$ Yes No Yes No
$ Yes No Yes No
$ Yes _No _Yes _No
NOTE: Matching funds are strongly recommended and a higher rating will be assigned to those
projects that can guarantee additional resources for acquisition. Donation of property or a
property right will be considered as a matching resource. Donation of resources for on -going
maintenance or stewardship will not be considered as a match.
14a.Sponsoring agency _is _is not prepared to provide long -term stewardship (maintenance, up-
keep, etc.) for the proposed project site.
b. If applicable, please describe below any existing programs or future plans for stewardship of the
property, including the nature and extent of the commitment of resources to carry out the
stewardship plan.
15a. Property _can _cannot feasibly be acquired in a timely fashion with available resources.
b. Necessary commitments and agreements _are _are not in place.
c. All parties _are _are not in agreement on the cost of acquisition.
If "not " to any of the above, please explain below.
19
Il
16. The proposed acquisition _is specifically identified in an adopted open space, conservation, or
resource preservation program or plan, or community conservation
effort. Please describe below, including the site's importance to the plan.
_complements an adopted open space or conservation plan, but is not
specifically identified. Please describe below, and document how the
proposed acquisition is consistent with the plan.
_is a stand -alone project.
17. CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY OR THREAT
a. The proposed acquisition site _does _does not provide a conservation or preservation
opportunity which would otherwise be lost or threatened.
b. If applicable, please carefully describe the nature and immediacy of the opportunity or threat,
and any unique qualities about the site.
18. The proposed acquisition _ provides habitat for State of Washington Priority Habitat or Federal
Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species
_ provides habitat for a variety of native flora or fauna species.
_ contributes to an existing or future wildlife corridor or migration
route.
If affirmative in any of the above, please describe below, and cite or provide documentation of species'
use.
20
' 19. a. Please describe below the extent and nature of current and planned agricultural use of the
proposed acquisition, including any anticipated changes to that use once the property, or property
right, is acquired with Conservation Futures funds.
J
b. Please describe below any participation by current property owner in any other agricultural
land conservation programs, including the program and nature of the involvement.
20. Please describe below how the proposed acquisition benefits primarily a _local area broad
county area including the area served, the nature of the benefit, the jurisdictions involved, and the
' populations served.
11,
21. Please describe below the educational or interpretive opportunities that exist for providing public
' access, educational or interpretive displays (signage, kiosks, etc.) on the proposed site, including
any plans to provide those improvements and any plans for public accessibility.
1 21
ti PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
95 ING�O
At its October meeting, the Conservation Futures Advisory Committee developed recommendations
regarding the conservation futures application review process. The Committee reviewed and discussed
several alternatives for managing the project selection process (see Appendix). The pros and cons for each
alternative were presented. The options for managing the Conservation Futures program include:
1. No citizen committee, with Jefferson County staff preparing funding recommendations for review and
approval by the County Commissioners;
A selection process that is managed and staffed by a local non - profit conservation organization;
3 Creation of one citizen advisory committee, which would receive County staff support and make
recommendations to the Commissioners; or
4) Creation of two citizen committees (technical and advisory) who would forward recommendations to the
Commissioners.
Option three, creation of a citizen advisory committee, is recommended. The Committee felt that the
involvement of a citizen committee was important to help create a project selection process that is perceived
as fair, impartial and inclusive of numerous perspectives from around the county. The Committee also ,
believes it is important for the Commissioners to be the ultimate decision makers about the use of
conservation futures funds, so Committee's funding recommendations would be advisory to the
Commissioners.
The following are specific recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners,
along with the recommended program documents.
Board Structure and Representation ,
The Advisory Committee believes there is great value in having the current Committee members continue
their role through for at least the first year of program implementation. Committee members now have a
good understanding of the proposed program objectives. '
The Committee recommends that the current membership should be increased from nine to 13, with added
representation from the Jefferson County Parks Board and other interests. '
Staffing for the Citizen Advisory Committee
County staff will be needed to serve as a resource and point of contact for the public regarding the new '
conservation futures program. They will need to distribute applications and answer questions for interested
parties, and process applications when they are submitted. The staff will also need to provide support for ,
the citizen advisory committee. They can facilitate the committee's review of applications and help the
committee carry their recommendations forward to the County Commissioners. They will also need to help
the advisory committee monitor the progress of previously funded projects to ensure that funds are being '
spent in a timely fashion. The Committee believes the need for staff support will be part-time and
intermittent in nature.
22 1
Meeting Schedule
The Advisory Committee recommends that the citizen advisory committee meet quarterly. This would
allow the committee to. monitor the progress of funded projects and prepare for the upcoming application
cycle.
Application Schedule
The Advisory Committee recommends an annual grant cycle, with the following suggested schedule:
November - Notice to interested parties sent out
January 15 - Applications ready to send out
April 30 - Applications due
May 30 - Recommendations to Commissioners
June 30 - Recommendations adopted by Commissioners
Public Hearing
The Advisory Committee suggests that any public hearing on its proposed recommendations should be
' addressed by the Board of County Commissioners. The Committee suggests that public comment could be
taken at a regular commission meeting, and that a special hearing may not be necessary.
Outreach Efforts
The Advisory Committee agreed that the availability of Conservation Futures funds should be promoted to
interested parties in Jefferson County. Information and applications could be posted on the Jefferson
County web site and letters sent to all those organizations currently involved in conservation efforts in
Jefferson County. Once the program is implemented, the citizen advisory committee may consider
additional forms of outreach.
23
CONCLUSION
The new Jefferson County Conservation Futures program represents a wonderful opportunity to use local
resources to preserve and protect critical open space lands within the county. Twelve other counties in
Washington have taken advantage of the authority provide by state law to levy a conservation futures tax for
this purpose. Hundreds of thousands of acres have been protected through this program, and each
transaction has included a willing seller (as it must, by law).
In Jefferson County the annual revenue from the tax will be modest, approximately $150,000 annually.
However, as described in this report, the Conservation Futures Advisory Committee sees a tremendous
opportunity to use these funds to leverage other public and private funds to preserve land. The Committee
has also learned from the experiences of other counties with regard to the ongoing stewardship of lands
acquired through this program. This report recommends that applicants should not be eligible for the
program unless they have a stewardship plan, and that a project should receive a much higher ranking if the
staff and monetary resources to carry out that stewardship are identified.
This report represents four months of work by a dedicated group of citizens. The Committee chair and
members are eager to discuss these recommendations with the Board of County Commissioners.
24
J
n
0
0
n
APPENDIX
PAGE
DraftScope of Work ................................................................................................ ............................... 26
Glossary.................................................................................................................. ............................... 27
Summary of RCW 84.34 Sections Pertaining to Conservation Futures Program ..... ............................... 31
Chapter 84.34 RCW OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURAL, TIMBER LANDS — CURRENT
USE-- CONSERVATION FUTURES .................................................................... ............................... 33
JeffersonCounty Resolution 44- 99 .......................................................................... ............................... 58
Conservation Futures Tax County -by- County Overview July 2000 .......................... ............................... 59
Follow -Up Answers to Questions About Other County Programs ............................ ............................... 66
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan — Open Space, Parks & Recreation, and Historic
PreservationElement ........................................................................................... ............................... 68
Jefferson County Conservation District .................................................................... ............................... 89
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program ........................................................ ............................... 90
Wild Olympic Salmon, A Salmon Recovery Newsletter ............................................ ............................... 91
JeffersonLand Trust........... ................................................................................... ............................... 101
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund ....................................................... ...............................
MEMORANDUM Alternatives for the Project Selection Process ........................... ...............................
MeetingSummary July 26, 2001 ........................................................................... ...............................
Meeting Summary August 15, 2001 ....................................................................... ...............................
MeetingSummary September 5, 2001 .................................................................. ...............................
MeetingSummary September 19, 2001 ................................................................ ...............................
MeetingSummary October 9, 2001 ...................................... ............................... ...............................
1 25
108
109
111
114
118
121
124
July
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
Draft Scope of Work
Review purpose of committee (the charge from the Board of County Commissioners) and schedule
Review legal framework (state law) for Conservation Futures program
Review use of Conservation Futures funds by other counties
Review status of Jefferson County open space or farmland preservation initiatives
Review revenue forecast, assuming annual revenues and bonding capacity
August
Review and discuss principles to guide development of program
Discuss potential uses for Jefferson County Conservation Futures funds
Review and discuss revenue options (i.e. annual revenue stream or bonding); other funding sources
September (two meetings)
Review and discuss draft criteria for potential acquisitions
Review and discuss process for project selection
Review and discuss rating system for selection of projects
October
Discussion and review of draft recommendations
Possible public hearing
November
Make final presentation to the Board of County Commissioners
26
0
n
J
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
Glossary
Aquifer Recharge Areas means land areas where the prevailing geologic conditions allow infiltration rates,
which create a high potential for contamination of groundwater resources or contribute to the replenishment
of groundwater
Board means the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners
Committee means Conservation Futures Program Citizens' Advisory Committee.
Contiguous means land adjoining or touching other property held by the same ownership. Land divided by
a public road, but otherwise an integral part of the same land ownership will be considered "contiguous" for
these purposes.
Conservation Easement means a property restriction in perpetuity on the use of the property. It is a
recorded deed restriction, or covenant, and the enforcement of the restriction is most often given to a Land -
Trust or a government agency. A conservation easement will prevent future real estate development,
industrial or commercial use. The easement may allow continued current use, for example, residential and
recreational use, agriculture, forestry, or ranching. However, most often a conservation easement restricts
both the current as well as the future uses of the land to some important conservation quality of the land,
such as habitat, open space, or scenic views. A conservation easement or restrictive covenant must be
recorded.
Critical Salmon Habitat means the specific areas within the geographical area accordance with the
provisions of Section 4 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features:
Essential to the conservation of the species; and Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, upon a determination by
the national Secretary on the Interior and/or Commerce that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species.
Eminent domain process means the legal process of condemnation of privately held land for a public
purpose.
Fee Simple Acquisition means buying a property outright.
Farm Land means agricultural lands.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas means those areas identified as being of critical importance to
maintenance of fish and wildlife species including: areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species have a primary association; habitats and species of local importance; commercial and recreational
shellfish areas; kelp and eelgrass beds; herring and smelt spawning areas; naturally occurring ponds under
twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; state natural area
preserves and natural resource conservation areas.
27
Flood Hazard Areas means land in a floodplain within Jefferson County subject to a 0.2 percent or greater
chance of flooding in any given year (500 -year floodplain).
General public access means that anyone can get to and be on the property by means of a road or other
conveyance that is open and available for public use.
Historic Landmark Sites means locations strongly associated with significant prehistoric or historic events
or patterns of events and well documented through scholarly research. Historic landmark sites may include
archeological sites.
Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation (IAC Matching Funds) makes recommendations for
State of Washington funding of city, county and state agency park and conservation projects. Counties can
use these matching funds as part of their conservation futures acquisition program.
Lakes means all freshwater impoundment's 20 acres or greater in size and their undeveloped shoreline
areas.
Landlocked means a lot, parcel or tract of land that can not be accessed without trespassing across an
adjoining property.
Legal lot of record means an area of land designated as a lot, tract or parcel within a subdivision, plat, or as
otherwise permitted by law that can be used, developed or built upon as a unit and is recorded or registered
pursuant to statute with the Jefferson County Auditor.
Landslide Hazard Areas (Steep Slopes) means areas potentially subject to risk of mass movement due to a
combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors.
Letter of Opinion means a restricted limited or complete report completed in accordance with Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice by a Washington State licensed real property appraiser as to the
present value of the proposed property or rights to be acquired.
Leverage means the ability to use these funds to secure dollars available through other funding sources.
The source of these funds may include State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC), the
Salmon Recovery Funding Board, private donations, in -kind community donations (i.e. volunteer
stewardship donations).
Marine Waters means Puget Sound and its associated undeveloped shoreline areas.
Non - Profit Receiving Agency means anon -profit historic preservation corporation, nature conservancy
corporation, or a non -profit land trust as those terms are defined in RCW 64.04.130.
Open Space means a landscape, which is primarily unimproved. Open space areas may include: critical
areas, wooded areas, parks, trails, privately owned nature reserves, abandoned railroad lines, utility
corridors, and other vacant rights -of -way. Permanent dedication, designation, or reservation of open space
for public or private use may occur in accordance with Comprehensive Plan policies.
Other Environmental Goals means policies identified in adopted city, town, county, state or federal goals,
objectives, policies, or regulations that address environmental issues. These documents may specifically
address air and water quality, fish and animal habitat, natural resource protection, and conservation of land.
Owner means the party or parties having fee interest in the land, except that where the land is subject to a
real estate contract, "owner" shall mean the contract vendee.
28
' Passive Recreation Areas means open space or conservation areas where the public use is limited to trails,
scenic vistas, of other passive use. The lands may also be used as habitat for a variety of bird, animal or fish
species.
Private Parks and Private Golf Courses with Developed Facilities means a private park or golf course
designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are also encouraged.
' Private Trails and Corridors means private trails and corridors that are used for hiking, biking, walking,
horseback riding, and jogging. The trails may vary in scale and surfacing and may also be used as a means
' of non - motorized transportation connecting one destination point to another. Potentially, trails may include
areas providing linkages between trails, abandoned rail lines, utility corridors, vacant rights -of -way, and
road endings.
Privately Owned and Operated Recreational Facilities means profit or non - profit recreation which is
open for recreational sporting activities.
' Property means the fee simple or any lesser interest in land that meets the requirements for consideration
under the Conservation Futures program. In this instance, a lesser interest in land includes development
right, easement, covenant or other contractual right necessary to protect, preserve, maintain, improve,
restore, limit the future use of or otherwise conserve open space lands.
Public Receiving Agency means a Municipal Corporation, political subdivision, park and recreation
district, metropolitan park and recreation district, or a state or local governmental agency empowered to hold
on behalf the public fee simple or other interests in land.
' Receiving Agency Affidavit means a signed affidavit by a Public Receiving Agency or a Non - Profit
Receiving Agency agreeing to accept the conveyance of the property rights.
Scenic Corridors means an area of adjoining parcels which individually may be less than one acre but
which, when combined, total at least one acre. and create a view corridor critical to maintaining a view of a
scenic resource visible from a federally- or state - designated scenic highway which is visually significant to
the aesthetic character of the county.
Scenic View Point means property adjacent to a federally- or state - designated scenic highway or other
officially designated view point that provides a view of an area which is visually significant to the aesthetic
' character of the county and which provides unlimited public access identified by a permanent sign readily
visible from the road. Viewpoints may be officially designated by the State of Washington, Jefferson
' County, or a city or town.
Sponsor means a representative of a municipal district, metropolitan park and recreation district,
Washington State or local governmental agency including a Jefferson County city, town, or county agency
,non -profit historic preservation corporation, nature conservancy corporation, or a non -profit land trust or
any Jefferson County resident other than the person who has an interest in the property.
' Sponsor Affidavit means a signed affidavit by a Sponsor indicating that the sponsor has informed the
owner of the property that the sponsor is nominating the owners property for potential purchase.
' Streams means a flow of water conveyed in a channel or course either continuously or intermittently, and
the water's associated buffer.
' Threatened means that within the next five years the property will likely not be available in its current open
space condition. Evidence of threat may include but is not limited to the following: 1) there is development
' 29
activity adjacent to or within the vicinity of the property which will likely over time impact the open space
condition of the property; 2) the property is currently listed for sale; 3) development permits have been
submitted on the property.
Wetlands, Estuaries, and Tidal Marshes means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency sufficient to support vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions, and associated buffer areas. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
areas.
Document courtesy of Pierce County, with modifications.
30
L
II
iJ
CI'
iJ
t
O
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
IN
Summary of RCW 84.34
Sections Pertaining to Conservation Futures Program
♦ Counties have the authority to levy property tax for the purpose of acquiring land or the rights to future
development. The County levy may not exceed six and one - quarter cents per thousand dollars of
assessed valuation on all taxable property within the county.
♦ Counties can acquire open space, wetlands, habitat areas, farm and agricultural land (see Definition on
pp. 1-3 of RCW excerpt provided), or timber land (p. 3). Acquisitions can be the land itself or certain
rights associated with the land. Rights may be leased, gifted, granted or given as part of a bequest. The i
seller of the property may retain limited use of the property rights as part of the sale.
Conservation Futures funds can be used for fee simple acquisitions, purchase of conservation easements
or development rights.
♦ Lands cannot be acquired using eminent domain.
♦ Open space is defined as any land area that will:
• Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; or
• Protect streams or water supply; or
• Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal mars s; or
• Enhance the value to the public of abutting or neigh oring parks, forests, wildlife preserves,
serva ions or sanctuanes� -ot er oven .
• Preserve historic sites; or
• Preserve visual quality along highway, road and street corridors or scenic vistas; or
• Retain in a natural state tracts of land, not less than one acre, located in urban areas; or
• Any land defined as farm and agricultural conservation land (pp. 1 -3); or
• Is designated as open space by adopted comprehensive plan and zoned accordingly; or
• Lands can be acquired by a county, city, town, metropolitan park district, municipal corporation,
nonprofit historic preservation corporation, or a nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or
association.
♦ Lands cannot be acquired for purposes of active recreation use (i.e. ball fields, community centers,
playgrounds, etc.) Tax funds cannot be used for the maintenance of acquired properties.)
31
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 20, 2001
To: Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
From: John Howell & Gaylis Linville
Re: Attached RCW Citations & Excerpts
Attached are a citations list and excerpt of sections of the Revised Code of Washington pertaining to our
work. Please note that those most relevant are:
Citation Section Page No
84.34.020 Definitions ...................................... ............................... .........................[Final Report p. 35]
84.34.200 Acquisition of Open Space, etc., land or rights to future
development by counties, cities, or metropolitan municipal
corporations — Legislative declaration — Purposes .. ............................... [Final Report p. 49]
83.34.210 Acquisition of open space, land, or rights to future development by
certain entities — Authority to acquire — Conveyance or lease back...... [Final Report p. 49]
84.34.240 Acquisition of Open Space, etc., land or rights to future
development by counties, cities, metropolitan municipal
corporations or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation
or association — Legislative declaration — Purposes ............................... [Final Report p. 51 ]
84.34.250 Nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association defined . ....... [Final Report p. 5 1 ]
32
� I
Chapter 84.34 RCW
OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURAL, TIMBER LANDS — CURRENT USE --
CONSERVATION FUTURES
Sections
84.34.010 Legislative declaration.
84.34.020 Definitions.
84.34.030 Applications for current use classification -- Forms -- Fee -- Times for making.
84.34.035 Applications for current use classification -- Approval or denial -- Appeal -- Duties of
assessor upon approval.
84.34.037 Applications for current use classification -- To whom made -- Factors -- Review.
84.34.041
Application for current use classification -- Forms -- Public hearing -- Approval or denial.
84.34.050
Notice of approval or disapproval -- Procedure when approval granted.
84.34.055
Open space priorities -- Open space plan and public benefit rating system.
' 84.34.060
Determination of true and fair value of classified land -- Computation of assessed value.
84.34.065
Determination of true and fair value of farm and agricultural land -- Definitions.
84.34.070
Withdrawal from classification.
�I
F
t
F
84.34.080 Change in use.
84.34.090 Extension of additional tax and penalties on tax roll -- Lien.
84.34.100 Payment of additional tax, penalties, and/or interest.
84.34.108 Removal of classification -- Factors -- Notice of continuance -- Additional tax -- Lien --
Delinquencies -- Exemptions.
84.34.111 Remedies available to owner liable for additional tax.
84.34.121 Information required.
84.34.131 Valuation of timber not affected.
84.34.141 Rules and regulations.
84.34.145 Advisory committee.
84.34.150 Reclassification of land classified under prior law which meets definition of farm and
agricultural land.
84.34.155 Reclassification of land classified as timber land which meets definition of forest land under
chapter 84.33 RCW.
84.34.160 Information on current use classification -- Publication and dissemination.
84.34.200 Acquisition of open space, etc., land or rights to future development by counties, cities, or
metropolitan municipal corporations -- Legislative declaration -- Purposes.
84.34.210 Acquisition of open space, land, or rights to future development by certain entities --
Authority to acquire -- Conveyance or lease back.
84.34.220 Acquisition of open space, land, or rights to future development by certain entities --
Developmental rights -- "Conservation futures" -- Acquisition -- Restrictions.
84.34.230 Acquisition of open space, etc., land or rights to future development by counties, cities,
metropolitan municipal corporations or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or
association -- Additional property tax levy authorized.
84.34.240 Acquisition of open space, etc., land or rights to future development by counties, cities,
metropolitan municipal corporations or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or
association -- Conservation futures fund.
84.34.250 Nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association defined.
84.34.300 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land -- Legislative
findings -- Purpose.
33
84.34.310 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land -- Definitions.
84.34.320 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land -- Exemption from
assessment -- Procedures relating to exemption -- Constructive notice of potential liability --
Waiver of exemption.
84.34.330 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land -- Withdrawal from
classification or change in use -- Liability -- Amount -- Due date -- Lien.
84.34.340 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land -- Withdrawal or
removal from classification -- Notice to local government -- Statement to owner of amounts
payable -- Delinquency date -- Enforcement procedures.
84.34.350 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land -- Use of payments collected.
84.34.360 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land -- Rules to
implement RCW 84.34.300 through 84.34.380. 1
84.34.370 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land -- Assessments due
on land withdrawn or changed.
84.34.380 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land Application of
exemption to rights and interests preventing nonagricultural or nonforest uses.
84.34.39 Application -- Chapter 79.44 RCW -- Assessments against public lands.
84.34.900 Severability -- 1970 ex.s. c 87.
84.34.910 Effective date -- 1970 ex.s. c 87.
84.34.920 Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 243.
84.34.921 Severability -- 1973 1st ex.s. c 212.
84.34.922 Severability -- 1979 c 84.
84.34.923 Effective date -- 1992 c 69.
NOTES:
Conservation futures on agricultural land -- Property tax exemption: RCW 84.36.260, 84.36.500.
34
Chapter 84.34
OPEN SPACE, AGRICULTURAL, AND TIMBER LANDS - CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT -
CONSERVATION FUTURES
84.344.010 Legislative declaration. The legislature hereby declares that it is in the best interest of the state
to maintain, preserve, conserve and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands for the
production of food, fiber and forest crops, and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and
scenic beauty for the economic and social well -being of the state and its citizens. The legislature further
declares that assessment practices must be so designed as to permit the continued availability of open space
lands for these purposes, and it is the intent of this chapter so to provide. The legislature further declares its
intent that farm and agricultural lands shall be valued on the basis of their value for use as authorized by
section 11 of Article VII of the Constitution of the state of Washington. I
[1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 1; 1970 ex.s. c 87 § 1.]
RCW 84.34.020 efinition . As used in this chapter, unless a different meaning is required by the context:
(1) "Open sp eland" ans (a) any land area so designated by an official comprehensive land use plan
adopted by any cit ounty and zoned accordingly, or (b) any land area, the preservation of which in its
present use would (i) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources, or (ii) protect streams or water
supply, or (iii) promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes, or (iv) enhance the value
to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries
or other open space, or (v) enhance recreation opportunities, or (vi) preserve historic sites, or (vii) preserve
visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas, or (viii) retain in its natural state
tracts of land not less than one acre situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as
may be reasonably required by the legislative body granting the
open space classification, or (c) any land meeting the definition of farm and agricultural conservation land
under subsection (8) of this section. As a condition of granting open space classification, the legislative body
may not require public access on land classified under (b)(iii) of this subsection for
the purpose of promoting conservation of wetlands.
(2) "Farm and agricultural land" means:
(a) Any parcel of land that is twenty or more acres or multiple parcels of land that are contiguous and
total twenty or more acres:
(i) Devoted primarily to the production of livestock or agricultural commodities for commercial
purposes;
(ii) Enrolled in the federal conservation reserve program or its successor administered by the United
States department of agriculture; or
(iii) Other similar commercial activities as may be established by rule;
(b) Any parcel of land that is five acres or more but less than twenty acres devoted primarily to
agricultural uses, which has produced a gross income from agricultural uses equivalent to, as of January 1,
1993:
35
(i) One hundred dollars or more per acre per year for three of the five calendar years preceding the date of
application for classification under this chapter for all parcels of land that are classified under this subsection
or all parcels of land for which an application for classification under this subsection is made with the
granting authority prior to January 1, 1993; and
(ii) On or, after January 1, 1993, two hundred dollars or more per acre per year for three of the five
calendar years preceding the date of application for classification under this chapter;
(c) Any parcel of land of less than five acres devoted primarily to agricultural uses which has produced a
gross income as of January 1, 1993, of-
(i) One thousand dollars or more per year for three of the five calendar years preceding the date of
application for classification under this chapter for all parcels of land that are classified under this subsection
or all parcels of land for which an application for classification under this subsection is
made with the granting authority prior to January 1, 1993; and
(ii) On or after January 1, 1993, fifteen hundred dollars or more per year for three of the five calendar
years preceding the date of application for classification under this chapter.
Parcels of land described in (b)(i) and (c)(i) of this subsection shall, upon any transfer of the property
excluding a transfer to a surviving spouse, be subject to the limits of (b)(ii) and (c)(ii) of this subsection.
Agricultural lands shall also include such incidental uses as are compatible with agricultural purposes,
including wetlands preservation, provided such incidental use does not exceed twenty percent of
the classified land and the land on which appurtenances necessary to the production, preparation, or sale of
the agricultural products exist in conjunction with the lands producing such products. Agricultural lands
shall also include any parcel of land of one to five acres, which is not contiguous, but which
otherwise constitutes an integral part of farming operations being conducted on land qualifying under this
section as "farm and agricultural lands "; or
(d) The land on which housing for employees and the principal place of residence of the farm operator or
owner of land classified pursuant to (a) of this subsection is sited if: The housing or residence is on or
contiguous to the classified parcel; and the use of the housing or the residence is integral to the use of the
classified land for agricultural purposes.
(3) "Timber land" means any parcel of land that is five or more acres or multiple parcels of land that are
contiguous and total five or more acres which is or are devoted primarily to the growth and harvest of forest
crops for commercial purposes. A timber management plan shall be filed with the county legislative
authority at the time (a) an application is made for classification as timber land pursuant to this chapter or
(b) when a sale or transfer of timber land occurs and a notice of classification continuance is signed. Timber
land means the land only.
(4) "Current" or "currently" means as of the date on which property is to be listed and valued by the
assessor.
(5) "Owner" means the party or parties having the fee interest in land, except that where land is subject to
real estate contract "owner" shall mean the contract vendee.
36
(6) "Contiguous" means land adjoining and touching other property held by the same ownership. Land
divided by a public road, but otherwise an integral part of a farming operation, shall be considered
contiguous.
(7) "Granting authority" means the appropriate agency or official who acts on an application for
classification of land pursuant to this chapter.
(8) "Farm and agricultural conservation land" means either:
(a) Land that was previously classified under subsection (2) of this section, that no longer meets the
criteria of subsection (2) of this section, and that is reclassified under subsection (1) of this section; or
(b) Land that is traditional farmland that is not classified under chapter 84.33 or 84.34 RCW, that has not
been irrevocably. devoted to a use inconsistent with agricultural uses, and that has a high potential for
returning to commercial agriculture.
[1998 c 320 § 7; 1997 c 429 § 31; 1992 c 69 § 4; 1988 c 253 § 3; 1983 c 3 § 227; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 2;
1970 ex.s. c 87 §
2.]
NOTES:
Severability -- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
RCW 84.34.030 Applications for current use classification -- Forms -- Fee -- Times for making. An
' owner of agricultural land desiring current use classification under subsection (2) of RCW 84.34.020 shall
make application to the county assessor upon forms prepared by the state department of revenue and
supplied by the county assessor. An owner of open space or timber land desiring current use classification
' under subsections (1) and (3) of RCW 84.34.020 shall make application to the county legislative authority
upon forms prepared by the state department of revenue and supplied by the county assessor. The
application shall be accompanied by a reasonable processing fee if such processing fee is established by the
' city or county legislative authority. Said application shall require only such information reasonably
necessary to properly classify an area of land under this chapter with a notarized verification of the truth
thereof and shall include a statement that the applicant is aware of the potential tax liability involved when
such land ceases to be designated as open space, farm and agricultural or timber land. Applications must be
made during the calendar year preceding that in which such classification is to begin. The assessor shall
make necessary information, including copies of this chapter and applicable regulations, readily available to
' interested parties, and shall render reasonable assistance to such parties upon request.
[1989 c 378 § 10; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 3; 1970 ex.s. c 87 § 3.]
RCW 84.34.035
' Applications for current use classification -- Approval or denial -- Appeal -- Duties of assessor upon
approval. The assessor shall act upon the application for current use classification of farm and agricultural
lands
' under RCW 84.34.020(2), with due regard to all relevant evidence. The application shall be deemed to have
been approved unless, prior to the first day of May of the year after such application was mailed or delivered
1 37
to the assessor, the assessor shall notify the applicant in writing of the extent to which the application is
denied. An owner who receives notice that his or her application has been denied may appeal such denial to
the board of equalization in the county where the property is located. The appeal shall be
filed in accordance with RCW 84.40.038, within thirty days after the mailing of the notice of denial. Within
ten days following approval of the application, the assessor shall submit notification of such approval to the
county auditor for recording in the place and manner provided for the public recording of
state tax liens on real property. The assessor shall retain a copy of all applications.
The assessor shall, as to any such land, make a notation each year on the assessment list and the tax roll
of the assessed value of such land for the use for which it is classified in addition to the assessed value of
such land were it not so classified.
[1992 c 69 § 5; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 4.]
RCW 84.34.037 Applications for current use classification -- To whom made -- Factors -- Review.
(1) Applications for classification or reclassification under RCW 84.34.020(1) shall be made to the county
legislative authority. An application made for classification or reclassification of land under RCW
84.34.020(1) (b) and (c) which is in an area subject to a comprehensive plan shall be acted upon in the same
manner in which an amendment to the comprehensive plan is processed. Application made for classification
of land which is in an area not subject to a comprehensive plan shall be acted upon after a public hearing and
after notice of the hearing shall have been given by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
the area at least ten days before the hearing: PROVIDED, That applications for classification of land in an
incorporated area shall be acted upon by a granting authority composed of three members of the county
legislative body and three members of the city legislative body in which the land is located.
(2) In determining whether an application made for classification or reclassification under RCW
84.34.020(1) (b) and (c) should be approved or disapproved, the granting authority may take cognizance of
the benefits to the general welfare of preserving the current use of the property which is the subject of
application, and shall consider:
(a) The resulting revenue loss or tax shift;
(b) Whether granting the application for land applying under RCW 84.34.020(1)(b) will (i) conserve or
enhance natural, cultural, or scenic resources, (ii) protect streams, stream corridors, wetlands, natural
shorelines and aquifers, (iii) protect soil resources and unique or critical wildlife and native plant habitat,
(iv) promote conservation principles by example or by offering educational opportunities, (v) enhance the
value of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations,
sanctuaries, or other open spaces, (vi) enhance recreation opportunities, (vii) preserve historic and
archaeological sites, (viii) preserve visual quality along highway, road, and street corridors or scenic vistas,
(ix) affect any other factors relevant in weighing benefits to the general welfare of preserving the current use
of the property; and
(c) Whether granting the application for land applying under RCW 84.34.020(1)(c) will (i) either
preserve land previously classified under RCW 84.34.020(2) or preserve land that is traditional farmland
and not classified under chapter 84.33 or 84.34 RCW, (ii) preserve land with a potential for returning to
commercial agriculture, and (iii) affect any other factors relevant in weighing benefits to the general welfare
of preserving the current use of property.
38
(3) If a public benefit rating system is adopted under RCW 84.34.055, the county legislative authority
shall rate property for which application for classification has been made under RCW 84.34.020(1) (b) and
(c) according to the public benefit rating system in determining whether an application should be approved
or disapproved, but when such a system is adopted, open space properties then classified under this chapter
which do not qualify under the system shall not be removed from classification but may be rated according
to the public benefit rating system.
(4) The granting authority may approve the application with respect to only part of the land which is the
subject of the application. If any part of the application is denied, the applicant may withdraw the entire
application. The granting authority in approving in part or whole an application for land
classified or reclassified pursuant to RCW 84.34.020(1) may also require that certain conditions be met,
including but not limited to the granting of easements. As a condition of granting open space classification,
the legislative body may not require public access on land classified under RCW 84.34.020(l)(b)(iii) for the
purpose of promoting conservation of wetlands.
(5) The granting or denial of the application for current use classification or reclassification is a
legislative determination and shall be reviewable only for arbitrary and capricious actions.
[1992 c 69 § 6; 1985 c 393 § 1; 1984 c 111 § 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 5.]
RCW 84.34.041 Application for current use classification -- Forms -- Public hearing -- Approval or
denial. An application for current use classification under RCW 84.34.020(3) shall be made to the county
legislative authority.
(1) The application shall be made upon forms prepared by the department of revenue and supplied by the
granting authority and shall include the following:
(a) A legal description of, or assessor's parcel numbers for, all land the applicant desires to be classified
as timber land;
(b) The date or dates of acquisition of the land;
(c) A brief description of the timber on the land, or if the timber has been harvested, the owner's plan for
restocking;
(d) Whether there is a forest management plan for the land;
(e) If so, the nature and extent of implementation of the plan;
(f) Whether the land is used for grazing;
(g) Whether the land has been subdivided or a plat filed with respect to the land;
(h) Whether the land and the applicant are in compliance with the restocking, forest management, fire
protection, insect and disease control, weed control, and forest debris provisions of Title 76 RCW or
applicable rules under Title 76 RCW;
39
(i) Whether the land is subject to forest fire protection assessments pursuant to RCW 76.04.610;
0) Whether the land is subject to a lease, option, or other right that permits it to be used for a purpose
other than growing and harvesting timber;
(k) A summary of the past experience and activity of the applicant in growing and harvesting timber;
(1) A summary of current and continuing activity of the applicant in growing and harvesting timber;
(m) A statement that the applicant is aware of the potential tax liability involved when the land ceases to
be classified as timber land.
(2) An application made for classification of land under RCW 84.34.020(3) shall be acted upon after a
public hearing and after notice of the hearing is given by one publication in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area at least ten days before the hearing. Application for classification of land in an
incorporated area shall be acted upon by a granting authority composed of three members of the county
legislative body and three members of the city legislative body in which the land is located.
(3) The granting authority shall act upon the application with due regard to all relevant evidence and
without any one or more items of evidence necessarily being determinative, except that the application may
be denied for one of the following reasons, without regard to other items:
(a) The land does not contain a stand of timber as defined in chapter 76.09 RCW and applicable rules,
except this reason shall not alone be sufficient to deny the application (i) if the land has been recently
harvested or supports a growth of brush or noncommercial type timber, and the application includes a plan
for restocking within three years or the longer period necessitated by unavailability of seed or seedings
[seedlings], or (ii) if only isolated areas within the land do not meet minimum standards due to rock
outcroppings, swamps, unproductive soil, or other natural conditions;
(b) The applicant, with respect to the land, has failed to comply with a final administrative or judicial
order with respect to a violation of the restocking, forest management, fire protection, insect and disease
control, weed control, and forest debris provisions of Title 76 RCW or applicable rules under Title 76 RCW;
(c) The land abuts a body of salt water and lies between the line of ordinary high tide and a line
paralleling the ordinary high tide line and two hundred feet horizontally landward from the high tide line.
The granting authority may approve the application with respect to only part of the land that is described
in the application, and if any part of the application is denied, the applicant may withdraw the entire
application. The granting authority, in approving in part or whole an application for land
classified pursuant to RCW 84.34.020(3), may also require that certain conditions be met.
Granting or denial of an application for current use classification is a legislative determination and shall
be reviewable only for arbitrary and capricious actions. The granting authority may not require the granting
of easements for land classified pursuant to RCW 84.34.020(3).
40
The granting authority shall approve or disapprove an application made under this sec
months following the date the application is received.
[1992 c 69 § 20.]
' RCW 84.34.050 Notice of approval or disapproval -- Procedure when approval granted.
(1) The granting authority shall immediately notify the assessor and the applicant of its approval or
disapproval which shall in no event be more than six months from the receipt of said application. No land
other than farm and agricultural land shall be classified under this chapter until an application in
' regard thereto has been approved by the appropriate legislative authority.
(2) When the granting authority classifies land under this chapter, it shall file notice of the same with the
assessor within ten days. The assessor shall, as to any such land, make a notation each year on the
assessment list and the tax roll of the assessed value of such land for the use for which it is classified in
' addition to the assessed value of such land were it not so classified.
(3) Within ten days following receipt of the notice from the granting authority of classification of such
land under this chapter, the assessor shall submit such notice to the county auditor for recording in the place
and manner provided for the public recording of state tax liens on real property.
[1992 c 69 § 7; 1973 lst ex.s. c 212 § 6; 1970 ex.s. c 87 § 5.]
RCW 84.34.055 Open space priorities -- Open space plan and public benefit rating system.
(1) The county legislative authority may direct the county planning commission to set open space priorities
and adopt, after a public hearing, an open space plan and public benefit rating system for the county. The
plan shall consist of criteria for determining eligibility of lands, the process for establishing a public benefit
rating system, and an assessed valuation schedule. The assessed valuation schedule shall be developed by
the county assessor and shall be a percentage of market value based upon the public benefit rating system.
The open space plan, the public benefit rating system, and the assessed valuations schedule shall not be
effective until approved by the county legislative authority after at least one public hearing: PROVIDED,
That any county which has complied with the procedural requisites of chapter 393, Laws of 1985, prior to
July 28, 1985, need not repeat those procedures in order to adopt an open space plan pursuant to chapter
393, Laws of 1985.
' (2) In adopting an open space plan, recognized sources shall be used unless the county does its own
survey of important open space priorities or features, or both. Recognized sources include but are not limited
to the natural heritage data base; the state office of historic preservation; the interagency
' committee for outdoor recreation inventory of dry accretion beach and shoreline features; state, national,
county, or city registers of historic places; the shoreline master program; or studies by the parks and
recreation commission and by the departments of fish and wildlife and natural resources. Features and sites
' may be verified by an outside expert in the field and approved by the appropriate state or local agency to be
sent to the county legislative authority for final approval as open space.
' (3) When the county open space plan is adopted, owners of open space lands then classified under this
chapter shall be notified in the same manner as is provided in RCW 84.40.045 of their new assessed value.
These lands may be removed from classification, upon request of owner, without penalty within thirty
daysof notification of value.
(4) The open space plan and public benefit rating system under this section may be adopted for taxes
payable in 1986 and thereafter.
[1994 c 264 § 76; 1988 c 36 § 62; 1985 c 393 § 3.]
RCW 84.34.060 Determination of true and fair value of classified land -- Computation of assessed
value. In determining the true and fair value of open space land and timber land, which has been classified
as such under the provisions of this chapter, the assessor shall consider only the use to which such property
and improvements is currently applied and shall not consider potential uses of such property. The assessed
valuation of open space land shall not be less than the minimum value per acre of-classified farm and
agricultural land except that the assessed valuation of open space land may be valued based on the public
benefit rating system adopted under RCW 84.34.055: PROVIDED FURTHER, That timber land shall be
valued according to chapter 84.33 RCW. In valuing any tract or parcel of real property designated and zoned
under a comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW as agricultural, forest, or open space land,
the appraisal shall not be based on similar sales of parcels that have been converted to nonagricultural,
nonforest, or nonopen -space uses within five years after the sale.
[1997 c 429 § 32; 1992 c 69 § 8; 1985 c 393 § 2; 1981 c 148 § 10; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 7; 1970 ex.s. c 87 §
6.]
NOTES:
Severability -- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Purpose -- Severability -- Effective dates -- 1981 c 148: See notes following RCW 84.33.110.
RCW 84.34.065 Determination of true and fair value of farm and agricultural land -- Definitions.
The true and fair value of farm and agricultural land shall be determined by consideration of the earning or
productive capacity of comparable lands from crops grown most typically in the area averaged over not less
than five years, capitalized at indicative rates. The earning or productive capacity of farm and agricultural
lands shall be the "net cash rental ", capitalized at a "rate of interest" charged on long term loans secured by a
mortgage on farm or agricultural land plus a component for property taxes. The current use value of land
under RCW 84.34.020(2)(d) shall be established as: The prior year's average value of open space farm and
agricultural land used in the county plus the value of land improvements such
as septic, water, and power used to serve the residence. This shall not be interpreted to require the assessor
to list improvements to the land with the value of the land.
For the purposes of the above computation:
(1) The term "net cash rental" shall mean the average rental paid on an annual basis, in cash, for the land
being appraised and other farm and agricultural land of similar quality and similarly situated that is available
for lease for a period of at least three years to any reliable person without
unreasonable restrictions on its use for production of agricultural crops. There shall be allowed as a
deduction from the rental received or computed any costs of crop production charged against the landlord if
the costs are such as are customarily paid by a landlord. If "net cash rental' data is not available,
42
' the earning or productive capacity of farm and agricultural lands shall be determined by the cash value of
typical or usual crops grown on land of similar quality and similarly situated averaged over not less than five
years. Standard costs of production shall be allowed as a deduction from the cash value of the crops.
The current "net cash rental' or "earning capacity" shall be determined by the assessor with the advice of
the advisory committee as provided in RCW 84.34.145, and through a continuing internal study, assisted by
studies of the department of revenue. This net cash rental figure as it applies to any farm
and agricultural land may be challenged before the same boards or authorities as would be the case with
regard to assessed values on general property.
(2) The term "rate of interest" shall mean the rate of interest charged by the farm credit administration
and other large financial institutions regularly making loans secured by farm and agricultural lands through
mortgages or similar legal instruments, averaged over the immediate past five years.
' The "rate of interest" shall be determined annually by a rule adopted by the department of revenue and
such rule shall be published in the state register not later than January 1 of each year for use inthat
assessment year. The department of revenue determination may be appealed to the state board of tax
appeals within thirty days after the date of publication by any owner of farm or agricultural land or
theassessor of any county containing farm and agricultural land.
(3) The "component for property taxes" shall be a figure obtained by dividing the assessed value of all
property in the county into the property taxes levied within the county in the year preceding the assessment
and multiplying the quotient obtained by one hundred.
[2000 c 103 § 23; 1998 c 320 § 8; 1997 c 429 § 33; 1992 c 69 § 9; 1989 c 378 § 11; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 §
10.]
NOTES:
Severability -- 1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
RCW 84.34.070 Withdrawal from classification.
(1) When land has once been classified under this chapter, it shall remain under such classification and shall
not be applied to other use except as provided by subsection (2) of this section for at least ten years from the
date of classification and shall continue under such classification until and unless
withdrawn from classification after notice of request for withdrawal shall be made by the owner. During any
year after eight years of the initial ten -year classification period have elapsed, notice of request for
withdrawal of all or a portion of the land may be given by the owner to the assessor or assessors of
the county or counties in which such land is situated. In the event that a portion of a parcel is removed from
classification, the remaining portion must meet the same requirements as did the entire parcel when such
land was originally granted classification pursuant to this chapter unless the remaining parcel has
different income criteria. Within seven days the assessor shall transmit one copy of such notice to the
legislative body which originally approved the application. The assessor or assessors, as the case may be,
shall, when two assessment years have elapsed following the date of receipt of such notice, withdraw such
land from such classification and the land shall be subject to the additional tax and applicable interest due
under RCW 84.34.108. Agreement to tax according to use shall not be considered to be a contract and can
be abrogated at any time by the legislature in which event no additional tax or penalty shall be
imposed.
43
(2) The following reclassifications are not considered withdrawals or removals and are not subject to
additional tax under RCW 84.34.108:
(a) Reclassification between lands under RCW 84.34.020 (2) and (3);
(b) Reclassification of land classified under RCW 84.34.020 (2) or (3) or chapter 84.33 RCW to open
space land under RCW 84.34.020(1);
(c) Reclassification of land classified under RCW 84.34.020 (2) or (3) to forest land classified under
chapter 84.33 RCW; and
(d) Reclassification of land classified as open space land under RCW 84.34.020(1)(c) and reclassified to
farm and agricultural land under RCW 84.34.020(2) if the land had been previously classified as farm and
agricultural land under RCW 84.34.020(2).
(3) Applications for reclassification shall be subject to applicable provisions of RCW 84.34.037,
84.34.035, 84.34.041, and chapter 84.33 RCW.
(4) The income criteria for land classified under RCW 84.34.020(2) (b) and (c) may be deferred for land
being reclassified from land classified under RCW 84.34.020 (1)(c) or (3), or chapter 84.33 RCW into RCW
84.34.020(2) (b) or (c) for a period of up to five years from the date of reclassification.
[1992 c 69 § 10; 1984 c 111 § 2; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 8; 1970 ex.s. c 87 § 7.]
RCW 84.34.080 Change in use. When land which has been classified under this chapter as open space
land, farm and agricultural land, or timber land is applied to some other use, except through compliance with
RCW 84.34.070, or except as a result solely from any one of the conditions listed in RCW 84.34.108(6), the
owner shall within sixty days notify the county assessor of such change in use and additional real property
tax shall be imposed upon
such land in an amount equal to the sum of the following:
(1) The total amount of the additional tax and applicable interest due under RCW 84.34.108; plus
(2) A penalty amounting to twenty percent of the amount determined in subsection (1) of this section.
[1999 sp.s. c 4 § 705; 1992 c 69 § 11; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 9; 1970 ex.s. c 87 § 8.]
NOTES:
Part headings not law -- 1999 sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW 77.85.180
RCW 84.34.090 Extension of additional tax and penalties on tax roll -- Lien. The additional tax and
penalties, if any, provided by RCW 84.34.070 and 84.34.080 shall be extended on the tax roll and shall be,
together with the interest thereon, alien on the land to which such tax applies as of January 1 st of the year
for which such additional tax is imposed. Such lien shall have priority as provided in chapter 84.60 RCW:
PROVIDED, That for purposes of all periods of limitation of actions specified in Title 84 RCW, the year in
which the tax became payable shall be as specified in RCW
44
1
' 84.34.100.
[1970 ex.s. c 87 § 9.]
RCW 84.34. 100 Payment of additional tax, penalties, and/or interest. The additional tax, penalties,
and/or interest provided by RCW 84.34.070 and 84.34.080 shall be payable in full thirty days after the date
which the treasurer's statement therefore is rendered. Such additional tax when collected shall be distributed
' by the county treasurer in the same manner in which current taxes applicable to the subject land are
distributed.
' [1980 c 134 § 4; 1970 ex.s. c 87 § 10.]
RCW 84.34.108 Removal of classification -- Factors -- Notice of continuance -- Additional tax -- Lien
' — Delinquencies -- Exemptions.
1) When land has once been classified under this chapter, a notation of such classification shall be made
each year upon the assessment and tax rolls and such land shall be valued pursuant to RCW 84.34.060 or
84.34.065 until removal of all or a portion of such classification by the assessor upon occurrence of any of
the following:
(a) Receipt of notice from the owner to remove all or a portion of such classification;
(b) Sale or transfer to an ownership, except a transfer that resulted from a default in loan payments made
to or secured by a governmental agency that intends to or is required by law or regulation to resell the
property for the same use as before, making all or a portion of such land exempt from ad valorem
taxation;
(c) Sale or transfer of all or a portion of such land to a new owner, unless the new owner has signed a
notice of classification continuance, except transfer to an owner who is an heir or devisee of a deceased
owner shall not, by itself, result in removal of classification. The notice of continuance shall be on a form
prepared by the department of revenue. If the notice of continuance is not signed by the new owner and
attached to the real estate excise tax affidavit, all additional taxes calculated pursuant to subsection (4) of
this section shall become due and payable by the seller or transferor at time of sale.
The county auditor shall not accept an instrument of conveyance of classified land for filing or recording
unless the new owner has signed the notice of continuance or the additional tax has been paid, as evidenced
by the real estate excise tax stamp affixed thereto by the treasurer. The seller, transferor, or
new owner may appeal the new assessed valuation calculated under subsection (4) of this section to the
county board of equalization. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on the county board of equalization to hear
these appeals;
(d) Determination by the assessor, after giving the owner written notice and an opportunity to be heard,
that all or a portion of such land no longer meets the criteria for classification under this chapter. The criteria
for classification pursuant to this chapter continue to apply after classification
has been granted.
45
The granting authority, upon request of an assessor, shall provide reasonable assistance to the assessor in
making a determination whether such land continues to meet the qualifications of RCW 84.34.020 (1) or (3).
The assistance shall be provided within thirty days of receipt of the request.
(2) Land may not be removed from classification because of:
(a) The creation, sale, or transfer of forestry riparian easements under RCW 76.13.120; or
(b) The creation, sale, or transfer of a fee interest or a conservation easement for the riparian open space
program under RCW 76.09.040.
(3) Within thirty days after such removal of all or a portion of such land from current use classification,
the assessor shall notify the owner in writing, setting forth the reasons for such removal. The seller,
transferor, or owner may appeal such removal to the county board of equalization.
(4) Unless the removal is reversed on appeal, the assessor shall revalue the affected land with reference to
full market value on the date of removal from classification. Both the assessed valuation before and after the
removal of classification shall be listed and taxes shall be allocated according to
that part of the year to which each assessed valuation applies. Except as provided in subsection (6) of this
section, an additional tax, applicable interest, and penalty shall be imposed which shall be due and payable
to the county treasurer thirty days after the owner is notified of the amount of the additional
tax. As soon as possible, the assessor shall compute the amount of such an additional tax, applicable interest,
and penalty and the treasurer shall mail notice to the owner of the amount thereof and the date on which
payment is due. The amount of such additional tax, applicable interest, and penalty shall be
determined as follows:
(a) The amount of additional tax shall be equal to the difference between the property tax paid as "open
space land ", "farm and agricultural land ", or "timber land" and the amount of property tax otherwise due and
payable for the seven years last past had the land not been so classified;
(b) The amount of applicable interest shall be equal to the interest upon the amounts of such additional
tax paid at the same statutory rate charged on delinquent property taxes from the dates on which such
additional tax could have been paid without penalty if the land had been assessed at a value
without regard to this chapter;
(c) The amount of the penalty shall be as provided in RCW 84.34.080. The penalty shall not be imposed
if the removal satisfies the conditions of RCW 84.34.070.
(5) Additional tax, applicable interest, and penalty, shall become a lien on such land which shall attach at
the time such land is removed from classification under this chapter and shall have priority to and shall be
fully paid and satisfied before any recognizance, mortgage, judgment, debt, obligation or responsibility to or
with which such land may become. charged or liable. Such lien may be foreclosed upon expiration of the
same period after delinquency and in the same manner provided by law for foreclosure of liens for
delinquent real property taxes as provided in RCW 84.64.050 now or as hereafter amended. Any additional
tax unpaid on its due date shall thereupon become delinquent. From the date of delinquency until paid,
interest shall be charged at the same rate applied by law to delinquent ad valorem property taxes.
46
(6) The additional tax, applicable interest, and penalty specified in subsection (4) of this section shall not
be imposed if the removal of classification pursuant to subsection (1) of this section resulted solely from:
(a) Transfer to a government entity in exchange for other land located within the state of Washington;
(b)(i) A taking through the exercise of the power of eminent domain, or (ii) sale or transfer to an entity
having the power of eminent domain in anticipation of the exercise of such power, said entity having
manifested its intent in writing or by other official action;
(c) A natural disaster such as a flood, windstorm, earthquake, or other such calamity rather than by virtue
of the act of the landowner changing the use of such property;
(d) Official action by an agency of the state of Washington or by the county or city within which the land
is located which disallows the present use of such land;
(e) Transfer of land to a church when such land would qualify for exemption pursuant to RCW
84.36.020;
(f) Acquisition of property interests by state agencies or agencies or organizations qualified under RCW
84.34.210 and 64.04.130 for the purposes enumerated in those sections: PROVIDED, That at such time as
these property interests are not used for the purposes enumerated in RCW 84.34.210 and 64.04.130 the
additional tax specified in subsection (4) of this section shall be imposed;
(g) Removal of land classified as farm and agricultural land under RCW 84.34.020(2)(d);
(h) Removal of land from classification after enactment of a statutory exemption that qualifies the land
for exemption and receipt of notice from the owner to remove the land from classification;
(i) The creation, sale, or transfer of forestry riparian easements under RCW 76.13.120; or
0) The creation, sale, or transfer of a fee interest or a conservation easement for the riparian open space
program under RCW 76.09.040.
[1999 sp.s. c 4 § 706; 1999 c 233 § 22; 1999 c 139 § 2; 1992 c 69 § 12; 1989 c 378 § 35; 1985 c 319 § 1;
' 1983 c 41 § 1; 1980
c 134 § 5; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 12.]
' NOTES:
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1999 c 233 § 22 and by 1999 sp.s. c 4 § 706, each without
' reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW
1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1):
Part headings not law -- 1999 sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW 77.85.180.
Effective date -- 1999 c 233: See note following RCW 4.28.320.
RCW 84.34.111 Remedies available to owner liable for additional tax. The owner of any land as to
which additional tax is imposed as provided in this chapter shall have with respect to valuation of the land
and imposition of the additional tax all remedies provided by this title.
[1998 c 311 § 14; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 13.]
RCW 84.34.121 Information required. The assessor may require owners of land classified under this
chapter to submit pertinent data regarding the use of the land, productivity of typical crops, and such similar
information pertinent to continued classification and appraisal of the land.
[1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 14.]
RCW 84.34.131 Valuation of timber not affected. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as in any
manner affecting the method for valuation of timber standing on timber land which has been classified under
this chapter.
[1998 c 311 § 15; 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 16.]
RCW 84.34.141 Rules and regulations. The department of revenue of the state of Washington shall make
such rules and regulations consistent
with this chapter as shall be necessary or desirable to permit its effective administration.
[1998 c 311 § 16; 1973 lst ex.s. c 212 § 17.]
RCW 84.34.145 Advisory committee. The county legislative authority shall appoint a five member
committee representing the active farming community within the county to serve in an advisory capacity to
the assessor in implementing assessment guidelines as established by the department of revenue for the
assessment of open space, farms and agricultural lands, and timber lands classified under this chapter.
[1998 c 311 § 17; 1992 c 69 § 13; 1973 lst ex.s. c 212 § 11.]
RCW 84.34.150 Reclassification of land classified under prior law which meets definition of farm and
agricultural land. Land classified under the provisions of chapter 84.34 RCW prior to July 16, 1973 which
meets the criteria for classification under this chapter, is hereby reclassified under this chapter. This change
in classification shall be made without additional tax, applicable interest, penalty, or other requirements, but
subsequent to such reclassification, the land shall be fully subject to this chapter. A condition imposed by a
granting authority prior to July 16, 1973, upon land classified pursuant to RCW 84.34.020 (1) or (3) shall
remain in effect during the period of classification.
[1998 c 311 § 18; 1992 c 69 § 14; 1973 lst ex.s. c 212 § 15.]
RCW 84.34.155 Reclassification of land classified as timber land which meets definition of forest land
under chapter 84.33 RCW. Land classified under the provisions of RCW 84.34.020 (2) or (3) which
meets the definition of forest land under the provisions of chapter 84.33 RCW, upon request for such change
made by the owner to the granting authority, shall be reclassified by the assessor under the provisions of
chapter 84.33 RCW.
48
This change in classification shall be made without additional tax, applicable interest, penalty, or other
requirements set forth in chapter 84.34 RCW: PROVIDED, That subsequent to such reclassification, the
land shall be fully subject to the provisions of chapter 84.33 RCW, as now or hereafter amended.
' 1992 c 69 15- 1973 1st ex.s. c 212 § 19.
' RCW 84.34.160 Information on current use classification — Publication and dissemination. The
department of revenue and each granting authority is hereby directed to publicize the qualifications and
manner of making applications for classification. Notice of the qualifications, method of making
applications, and availability of further information on current use classification shall be included with every
notice of change in valuation.
' [1992 c 69 § 16; 1973 lst ex.s. c 212 § 18.]
' RCW 84.34.200 Acquisition of open space, etc., land or rights to future development by counties,
cities, or metropolitan municipal corporations -- Legislative declaration -- Purposes. The legislature
finds that the haphazard growth and spread of urban development is encroaching upon, or eliminating,
' numerous open areas and spaces of varied size and character, including many devoted to agriculture, the
cultivation of timber, and other productive activities, and many others having significant recreational, social,
scenic, or esthetic values. Such areas and spaces, if preserved and maintained in their present open state,
' would constitute important assets to existing and impending urban and metropolitan development, at the
same time that they would continue to contribute to the
welfare and well -being of the citizens of the state as a whole. The acquisition of interests or rights in real
property for the preservation of such open spaces and areas constitutes a public purpose for which public
funds may properly be expended or advanced.
[1971 ex.s. c 243 § 1.]
RCW 84.34.210 Acquisition of open space, land, or rights to future development by certain entities --
Authority to acquire -- Conveyance or lease back. Any county, city, town, metropolitan park district,
metropolitan municipal corporation, nonprofit historic preservation corporation as defined in RCW
64.04.130, or nonprofit nature conservancy
corporation or association, as such are defined in RCW 84.34.250, may acquire by purchase, gift, grant,
bequest, devise, lease, or otherwise, except by eminent domain, the fee simple or any lesser interest,
development right, easement, covenant, or other contractual right necessary to protect, preserve, maintain,
improve, restore, limit the future use of, or otherwise conserve, selected open space land, farm and
agricultural land, and timber land as such are defined in chapter 84.34 RCW for public use or enjoyment.
Among interests that may be so acquired are mineral rights. Any county, city, town, metropolitan park
district, metropolitan municipal corporation, nonprofit historic preservation corporation as defined in RCW
64.04.130, or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association, as such are defined in RCW
84.34.250, may acquire such property for the purpose of conveying or leasing the property back to its
original owner or other person under such covenants or other contractual arrangements as will limit the
future use of the property in accordance with the purposes of chapter
243, Laws of 1971 ex. sess.
[1993 c 248 § 1; 1987 c 341 § 2; 1975 -76 2nd ex.s. c 22 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 243 § 2.]
49
NOTES:
Acquisition of interests in land for conservation, protection, preservation, or open space purposes by certain
entities: RCW 64.04.130.Property tax exemption for conservation futures on agricultural land:
RCW 84.36.500.
I RCW 84.34.220
Acquisition of open space, land, or rights to future development by certain entities -- Developmental
rights -- "Conservation futures" -- Acquisition -- Restrictions. In accordance with the authority granted
in RCW 84.34.210, a county, city, town, metropolitan park district, metropolitan municipal corporation,
nonprofit historic preservation corporation as defined in
RCW 64.04.130, or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association, as such are defined in RCW
84.34.250, may specifically purchase or otherwise acquire, except by eminent domain, rights in perpetuity to
future development of any open space land, farm and agricultural land, and timber land which are so
designated under the provisions of chapter 84.34 RCW and taxed at current use assessment as provided by
that chapter. For the purposes of chapter 243, Laws of 1971 ex. sess., such developmental rights shall be
termed "conservation futures ". The private owner may retain the right to continue any existing open space
use of the land, and to develop any other open space use, but, under the terms of purchase of conservation
futures, the county, city, town, metropolitan park district, metropolitan municipal corporation, nonprofit
historic preservation corporation as defined in RCW 64.04.130, or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation
or association, as such are defined in RCW 84.34.250, may
forbid or restrict building thereon, or may require that improvements cannot be made without county, city,
town, metropolitan park district, metropolitan municipal corporation, nonprofit historic preservation
corporation as defined in RCW 64.04.130, or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association, as
such are defined in RCW 84.34.250, permission. The land may be alienated or sold and used as formerly by
the new owner, subject to the terms of the agreement made by the county, city, town, metropolitan park
district, metropolitan municipal corporation, nonprofit historic preservation
corporation as defined in RCW 64.04.130, or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association, as
such are defined in RCW 84.34.250, with the original owner.
[1993 c 248 § 2; 1987 c 341 § 3; 1975 -76 2nd ex.s. c 22 § 2; 1971 ex.s. c 243 § 3.]
RCW 84.34.230
Acquisition of open space, etc., land or rights to future development by counties, cities, metropolitan
municipal corporations or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association -- Additional
Property tax levy authorized. For the purpose of acquiring conservation futures as well as other rights and
interests in real property pursuant to RCW 84.34.2 10 and 84.34.220, a county may levy an amount not to
exceed six and one - quarter cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation against the assessed valuation of
all taxable property within the county. The limitations in RCW 84.52.043 shall not apply to the tax levy
authorized in this section.
[1995 c 318 § 8; 1994 c 301 § 33; 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 94; 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 145; 1971 ex.s. c 243 §
4.]
NOTES:
Effective date -- 1995 c 318: See note following RCW 82.04.030.
50
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates -- Construction -- 1973 lst ex.s. c 195: See notes
following RCW 84.52.043.
JRCW 84.34.240 Acquisition of open space, etc., land or rights to future development by counties,
cities, metropolitan municipal corporations or nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or
association -- Conservation futures fund. Any board of county commissioners may establish by
resolution a special fund which may be termed a conservation futures fund to which it may credit all taxes
levied pursuant to RCW 84.34.230. Amounts placed in this fund may be used solely for the purpose of
acquiring rights and interests in real property pursuant to the terms of RCW 84.34.210 and 84.34.220.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting in any manner methods and funds otherwise available
to a county for financing the acquisition of such rights and interests in real property.
[1971 ex.s. c 243 § 5.]
RCW 84.34.250 Nonprofit nature conservancy corporation or association defined. As used in RCW
84.34.210, as now or hereafter amended, and RCW 84.34.220, as now or hereafter amended, "nonprofit
nature conservancy corporation or association" means an organization which qualifies as being tax exempt
under 26 U.S.C. section 501(c) (of the Internal Revenue Code) as it exists on June 25, 1976 and one which
has as one of its principal purposes the conducting or facilitating of scientific research; the conserving of
natural resources, including but not limited to biological resources, for the general public; or the conserving
of open spaces, including but not limited to wildlife habitat to be utilized as public access areas, for the use
and enjoyment of the general public.
[1975 -76 2nd ex.s. c 22 § 4.]
RCW 84.34.300 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land --
Legislative findings --
Purpose. The legislature finds that farming, timber production, and the related agricultural and forest
industries have historically been and currently are central factors in the economic and social lifeblood of the
state; that it is a fundamental policy of the state to protect agricultural and timber lands as a
major natural resource in order to maintain a source to supply a wide range of agricultural and forest
products; and that the public interest in the protection and stimulation of farming, timber production, and the
agricultural and forest industries is a basic element of enhancing the economic viability of this state. The
legislature further finds that farm land and timber land in urbanizing areas are often subjected to high levels
of property taxation and benefit assessment, and that such levels of taxation and assessment encourage and
even force the removal of such lands from agricultural and forest uses. The legislature further finds that
because of this level of taxation and assessment, such farm land and
timber land in urbanizing areas are either converted to nonagricultural and nonforest uses when significant
amounts of nearby nonagricultural and nonforest area could be suitably used for such nonagricultural and
nonforest uses, or, much of this farm land and timber land is left in an unused state. The legislature further
finds that with the approval by the voters of the Fifty -third Amendment to the state Constitution, and with
the enactment of chapter 84.34 RCW, the owners of farm lands and timber lands were provided with an
opportunity to have such land valued on the basis of its current use and not its "highest and best use" and
that such current use valuation is one mechanism to protect agricultural and timber lands. The legislature
further finds that despite this potential property tax reduction, farm lands and timber lands in urbanized
areas are still subject to high levels of benefit assessments and continue to be removed from farm and forest
uses.
51
It is therefore the purpose of the legislature to establish, with the enactment of RCW 84.34.300 through
84.34.380, another mechanism to protect agricultural and timber land which creates an analogous system of
relief from certain benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land and timber land. It is
the intent of the legislature that special benefit assessments not be imposed for the availability of sanitary
and/or storm sewerage service, or domestic water service, or for road construction and/or improvement
purposes on farm and agricultural lands and timber lands which have been designated for current use
classification as farm and agricultural lands or timber lands until such lands are withdrawn or removed from
such classification or unless such lands benefit from or cause the need for the local improvement district.
The legislature finds, and it is the intent of RCW 84.34.300 through 84.34.380 and 84.34.922, that
special benefit assessments for the improvement or construction of sanitary and/or storm sewerage service,
or domestic water service, I or certain road construction do not generally benefit land which has
been classified as open space farm and agricultural land or timber land under the open space act, chapter
84.34 RCW, until such land is withdrawn from such classification or such land is used for a more intense
and nonagricultural use, or the land is no longer used as timber land. The purpose of RCW 84.34.300
through 84.34.380 and 84.34.922 is to provide an exemption from certain special benefit assessments which
do not benefit timber land or open space farm and agricultural land, and to provide the means for local
governmental entities to recover such assessments in current dollar value in the event such land is no longer
devoted to farming or timber production under chapter 84.34 RCW. Where the owner of such land chooses
to make limited use of improvements related to special benefit assessments, RCW 84.34.300 through
84.34.380 provides the means for the partial assessment on open space timber and farm land to the extent
the land is directly benefited by the improvement.
[1992 c 52 § 14; 1979 c 84 § 1.]
RCW 84.34.310 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land --
Definitions. As used in RCW 84.34.300 through 84.34.380, unless a different meaning is required, the
words defined in this section shall have the meanings indicated.
(1) "Farm and agricultural land" shall mean the same as defined in RCW 84.34.020(2).
(2) "Timber land" shall mean the same as defined in RCW 84.34.020(3).
(3) 'Local government" shall mean any city, town, county, water -sewer district, public utility district,
port district, irrigation district, flood control district, or any other municipal corporation, quasi - municipal
corporation, or other political subdivision authorized to levy special benefit assessments for sanitary and/or
storm sewerage systems, domestic water supply and/or distribution systems, or road construction or
improvement purposes.
(4) 'Local improvement district" shall mean any local improvement district, utility local improvement
district, local utility district, road improvement district, or any similar unit created by a local government for
the purpose of levying special benefit assessments against property specially benefited by improvements
relating to such districts.
(5) "Owner" shall mean the same as defined in RCW 84.34.020(5) or the applicable statutes relating to
special benefit assessments.
52
(6) The term "average rate of inflation" shall mean the annual rate of inflation as determined by the
department of revenue averaged over the period of time as provided in RCW 84.34.330 (1) and (2). Such
determination shall be published not later than January 1 of each year for use in that assessment
year.
(7) "Special benefit assessments" shall mean special assessments levied or capable of being levied in any
local improvement district or otherwise levied or capable of being levied by a local government to pay for
all or part of the costs of a local improvement and which may be levied only for the special
benefits to be realized by property by reason of that local improvement.
[1999 c 153 § 71; 1992 c 52 § 15; 1979 c 84 § 2.]
NOTES:
Part headings not law -- 1999 c 153: See note following RCW 57.04.050.
RCW 84.34.320 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land --
Exemption from assessment
-- Procedures relating to exemption -- Constructive notice of potential liability -- Waiver of
exemption. Any land classified as farm and agricultural land or timber land pursuant to chapter 84.34 RCW
at the
earlier of the times the legislative authority of a local government adopts a resolution, ordinance, or
legislative act (1) to create a local improvement district, in which such land is included or would have been
included but for such classification, or (2) to approve or confirm a final special benefit assessment roll
relating to a sanitary and/or storm sewerage system, domestic water supply and/or distribution system, or
road construction and/or improvement, which roll would have included such land but for such classification,
shall be exempt from special benefit assessments or charges in lieu of assessment for such purposes as long
as that land remains in such classification, except as otherwise
provided in RCW 84.34.360.
Whenever a local government creates a local improvement district, the levying, collection and
enforcement of assessments shall be in the manner and subject to the same procedures and limitations as are
provided pursuant to the law concerning the initiation and formation of local improvement districts for the
particular local government. Notice of the creation of a local improvement district that includes farm and
agricultural land or timber land shall be filed with the county assessor and the legislative authority of the
county in which such land is located. The assessor, upon receiving notice of the creation of such a local
improvement district, shall send a notice to the owner of the farm and
agricultural land or timber land listed on the tax rolls of the applicable county treasurer of. (1) The creation
' of the local improvement district; (2) the exemption of that land from special benefit assessments; (3) the
fact that the farm and agricultural land or timber land may become subject to the special benefit assessments
if the owner waives the exemption by filing a notarized document with the governing body of the local
' government creating the local improvement district before the confirmation of the final special benefit
assessment roll; and (4) the potential liability, pursuant to RCW 84.34.330, if the exemption is not waived
and the land is subsequently removed from the farm and agricultural land or timber land status. When a
' local government approves and confirms a special benefit assessment roll, from which farm and agricultural
land or timber land has been exempted pursuant to this section, it shall file a notice of such action with the
' 53
assessor and the legislative authority of the county in which such land is located and with the treasurer of
that local government, which notice shall describe the action taken, the type of improvement involved, the
land exempted, and the amount of the special benefit assessment which would have been levied against the
land if it had not been exempted. The filing of such notice with the assessor and the treasurer of that local
government shall constitute constructive notice to a purchaser or encumbrancer of the affected land, and
every person whose conveyance or encumbrance is subsequently executed or subsequently recorded, that
such exempt land is subject to the charges provided in RCW 84.34.330 and 84.34.340 if such land is
withdrawn or removed from its current use classification as farm and agricultural land or timber land.
The owner of the land exempted from special benefit assessments pursuant to this section may waive that
exemption by filing a notarized document to that effect with the legislative authority of the local government
upon receiving notice from said local government concerning the assessment roll nearing and before the ,
local government confirms the final special benefit assessment roll. A copy of that waiver shall be filed by
the local government with the assessor, but the failure of such filing shall not affect the waiver.
Except to the extent provided in RCW 84.34.360, the local government shall have no duty to furnish
service from the improvement financed by the special benefit assessment to such exempted land.
[1992 c 69 § 17; 1992 c 52 § 16; 1979 c 84 § 3.]
NOTES:
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1992 c 52 § 16 and by 1992 c 69 § 17, each without
reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section pursuant to CW
1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
RCW 84.34.330 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land --
Withdrawal from classification or change in use -- Liability -- Amount -- Due date -- Lien. Whenever
farm and agricultural land or timber land has once been exempted from special benefit assessments pursuant
to RCW 84.34.320, any withdrawal from classification or change in use from farm and agricultural land or
timber land under chapter 84.34 RCW shall result in the following:
(1) If the bonds used to fund the improvement in the local improvement district have not been completely
retired, such land shall immediately become liable for: (a) The amount of the special benefit assessment '
listed in the notice provided for in RCW 84.34.320; plus (b) interest on the amount determined in (1)(a) of
this section, compounded annually at a rate equal to the average rate of inflation from the time the initial
notice is filed by the governmental entity which created the local improvement district as provided in RCW '
84.34.320 to the time the owner withdraws such land from the exemption category provided by this chapter;
or
(2) If the bonds used to fund the improvement in the local improvement district have been completely
retired, such land shall immediately become liable for: (a) The amount of the special benefit assessment
listed in the notice provided for in RCW 84.34.320; plus (b) interest on the amount determined in (2)(a) of
this section compounded annually at a rate equal to the average rate of .
inflation from the time the initial notice is filed by the governmental entity which created the local
improvement district as provided in RCW 84.34.320, to the time the bonds used to fund the improvement
have been retired; plus (c) interest on the total amount determined in (2)(a) and (b) of this section at a simple
54
tper annum rate equal to the average rate of inflation from the time the bonds used to fund the improvement
have been retired to the time the owner withdraws such lands from the exemption category provided by this
' chapter.
(3) The amount payable pursuant to this section shall become due on the date such land is withdrawn or
' removed from its current use or timber land classification and shall be a lien on the land prior and superior
to any other lien whatsoever except for the lien for general taxes, and shall be enforceable in
the same manner as the collection of special benefit assessments are enforced by that local government.
[1992 c 52 § 17; 1979 c 84 § 4.]
RCW 84.34.340 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land --
Withdrawal or removal from
classification -- Notice to local government -- Statement to owner of amounts payable -- Delinquency
' date — Enforcement procedures. Whenever farm and agricultural land or timber land is withdrawn or
removed from its current use classification as farm and agricultural land or timber land, the county assessor
of the county in which such land is located shall forthwith give written notice of such withdrawal or removal
' to the local government or its successor which had filed with the assessor the notice required by RCW
4.34.320. Upon receipt of the notice from the assessor, the local government shall mail a written statement
' to the owner of such land for the amounts payable as provided in RCW 84.34.330. Such amounts due shall
be delinquent if not paid within one hundred and eighty days after the date of mailing of the statement, and
shall be subject to the same interest, penalties, lien priority, and enforcement procedures that are applicable
' to delinquent assessments on the assessment roll from which that land had been exempted, except that the
rate of interest charged shall not exceed the rate provided in RCW 84.34.330.
[1992 c 52 § 18; 1979 c 84 § 5.]
RCW 84.34.350 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land -- Use of payments
collected. Payments collected pursuant to RCW 84.34.330 and 84.34.340, or by enforcement procedures
referred to therein, after the payment of the expenses of their collection, shall first be applied to the payment
of general or special debt incurred to finance the improvements related to the special benefit assessments,
' and, if such debt is retired, then into the maintenance fund or general fund of the governmental entity which
created the local improvement district, or its successor, for any of the following purposes: (1) Redemption or
' servicing of outstanding obligations of the district; (2) maintenance expenses of the district; or (3)
construction or acquisition of any facilities necessary to carry out the purpose of the district.
1 [1979c84 §6.]
RCW 84.34.360 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land -- Rules to
implement RCW 84.34.300 through 84.34.380. The department of revenue shall adopt rules it shall deem
necessary to implement RCW 84.34.300 through
84.34.380 which shall include, but not be limited to, procedures to determine the extent to which a portion
of the land otherwise exempt may be subject to a special benefit assessment for the actual connection to the
domestic water system or sewerage facilities, and further to determine the extent to which all or a portion of
such land may be subject to a special benefit assessment for access to the road improvement in relation to
' its value as farm and agricultural land or timber land as distinguished from its value under more intensive
uses. The provision for limited special benefit assessments shall not relieve such land from liability for the
' 55
amounts provided in RCW 84.34.330 and 84.34.340 when such land is withdrawn or removed from its
current use classification as farm and agricultural land or timber land.
[1992 c 69 § 18; 1992 c 52 § 19; 1979 c 84 § 7.]
NOTES:
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1992 c 52 § 19 and by 1992 c 69 § 18, each without
reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section pursuant to RCW
1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
RCW 84.34.370 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land --
Assessments due on land withdrawn or changed. Whenever a portion of a parcel of land which was
classified as farm and agricultural or timber land pursuant to this chapter is withdrawn from classification or
there is a change in use, and such land has
been exempted from any benefit assessments pursuant to RCW 84.34.320, the previously exempt benefit
assessments shall become due on only that portion of the land which is withdrawn or changed.
[1992 c 52 § 20; 1979 c 84 § 8.]
RCW 84.34.380 Special benefit assessments for farm and agricultural land or timber land --
Application of exemption to rights and interests preventing nonagricultural or nonforest uses.
Farm and agricultural land or timber land on which the right to future development has been acquired by any
local government, the state of Washington, or the United States government shall be exempt from
special benefit assessments in lieu of assessment for such purposes in the same manner, and under the same
liabilities for payment and interest, as land classified under this chapter as farm and agricultural land or
timber land, for as long as such classification applies.
Any interest, development right, easement, covenant, or other contractual right which effectively
protects, preserves, maintains, improves, restores, prevents the future nonagricultural or nonforest use of, or
otherwise conserves farm and agricultural land or timber land shall be exempt from special benefit
assessments as long as such development right or other such interest effectively serves to prevent
nonagricultural or nonforest development of such land.
[1992 c 52 § 21; 1979 c 84 § 9.]
RCW 84.34.390 Application -- Chapter 79.44 RCW -- Assessments against public lands. Nothing in
RCW 84.34.300 through 84.34.340 or 84.34.360 through 84.34.380 shall amend the provisions of chapter
79.44 RCW.
[1992 c 52 § 25.]
RCW 84.34.900 Severability -- 1970 ex.s. c 87. If any provision of this act or its application to any person
or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons
or circumstances is not affected.
[1970 ex.s. c 87 § 15.]
56
RCW 84.34.910 Effective date - -1970 ex.s. c 87. The provisions of this act shall take effect on Janu ary 1,
1971.
[1970 ex.s. c 87 § 16.]
' RCW 84.34.920 Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 243. If any provision of this act, or its application to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other
' persons or circumstances is not affected.
[1971 ex.s. c 243 § 9.]
RCW 84.34.921 Severabili - -1973 1st ex.s. c 212. If any provision of this 1973 amendatory act, or its
tY rY
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the
1 provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
[1973 lst ex.s. c 212 § 20.]
' W 4 4.922 Severabili - -1979 c 84. If an provision of this act or its application t
RC 8 .3 ty y p pp o any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or
' circumstances is not affected.
[1979 c 84 § 11.]
RCW 84.34.923 Effective date --1992 c 69. This act shall take effect January 1, 1993.
1 [ 1992 c 69 § 22.]
57
JEFFERSON COUNTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of }
Establishment of a Conservation } RESOLUTION NO. 43 -99
Futures Advisory Board }
WHEREAS, Jefferson County has identified preservation of open space as important for
County residents and visitors; and,
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Washington has provided for the acquisition of
open space land pursuant to Chapter 84.34. RCW; and,
WHEREAS, Chapter 84.34.230 RCW authorizes counties to levy a property tax not to exceed
six and one - quarter cents per thousand for the acquisition of open space;
h'OW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commissioners
declares its consideration to levy a property tax as authorized pursuant to Chapter 84.34.230 RCW
for the purpose of implementing a Conservation Futures Program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, a Conservation Futures Advisory Board shall be established
to develop a recommended Conservation Futures Program to include at a minimum; I )A Conserva-
tion Futures Rating System; 2) Acquisition guidelines; 3) Financial Plans; 4) Criteria for potential
acquisitions. The Conservation Futures Advisory Board shall have membership as follows:
Jefferson County 1 Member of Board of Commissioners
City of Port Townsend 1 Representative
Agriculture Conservation District
Forestry Forest Land Owner
Real Estate Realtor
Citizens (3) 1 from each Commissioner District
Land Trust 1 Representative
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board shall meet regularly and shall report to the
Board of Commissioners on or before November 1, 1999, with its recommended Conservation
Futures Program.
n,
APPROVED AND SIGNED this day of 61 t , 1999.
r
SEAL: J
ATTEST:
Lorna L. Delaney, CMC r
Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Dan Harpole, Ch#3 an
1 �
en Hunting
rd Wojt, Member
58
ON
w a
�' � Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
NP
Conservation Futures Tax
County -by- County Overview
July 2000
Since the Conservation Futures Tax was enacted by the Washington State Legislature in 1970, a dozen
counties have taken advantage of this law that allows them to acquire important open space lands.
Thousands of acres of urban, suburban and rural lands have been preserved across the state. Each county
has developed a program that is unique to its area. While some counties have focused on preservation of
farmlands, others have sought to protect salmon habitat or scenic vistas. Some counties have converted the
tax revenue into bonds to preserve large parcels of land, while others have acquisition programs using
annual revenues. Each has formed valuable partnerships with non - profit conservation groups, state or
federal agencies and private donors.
The counties that have enacted the Conservation Futures Tax are: Clark, Ferry, Island, King, Kitsap, Pierce,
San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston and Whatcom.
The following is a brief summary of eight Western Washington Counties' programs. The overview
includes:
• the year the tax was enacted in the county
• its application process
• approximate revenue for 2000
• information on bonding
• priorities for acquisition
• type of acquisition
' • key acquisitions
• additional funding sources.
ISLAND COUNTY
Lee McFarland
' 360 - 679 -7354
Year Enacted: 1991
I Application & Process: Applications are reviewed and awarded on an annual basis. A technical committee
made up of stakeholders (timber interests, environmentalist, parks & recreation districts, etc.) determines if
the projects are viable and rates them accordingly. Recommendations are then sent to a nine- member citizen
' advisory board. The applicants make presentations to this board and it, in turn, makes recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners who approves the acquisitions.
' 2000 Revenue: $400,000
59
Bonds Issued: The $1 million dollar bond that was issued for Island. County was not a direct conservation
futures bond. Rather, it was a general construction and acquisition bond. Part of the bond funds were used
to acquire the Greenbank Farm. Conservation Futures Tax revenue is used to satisfy that portion of the
bond debt. Additional bonding is not being considered since the commissioners do not want to encumber a
future administration with a long -term commitment. The County enhances the conservation futures funds
by taking out short-term, low- interest loans from other county departments, such as Solid Waste.
Priorities: Open space and beach access
Type of Acquisition: Fee simple
Key Acquisitions: Greenbank Farm, wetland, salmon habitat, beach access, timber lands
Other fund sources: State IAC; private donations
KING COUNTY
David Tieman
206 - 296 -7775
Year Enacted: 1983.
Application Process: King County government and incorporated city governments are the primary
applicants for the funds, but citizen groups and individual citizens can apply after demonstrating the local
jurisdiction is committed to helping acquire the open space. In 1990 the County created a citizen committee
to review project applications and make funding recommendations to the County Council. The committee
made recommendations for both the annual allocation of conservation futures funds, as well as the
allocations for the $60 million bond measure (see below).
2000 Revenue: $10.2 million
Approximately $4 million dollars are used annually for debt service on the 1993 bond.
Bonds Issued: $7 million in 1984
$60 million in 1993
King County has bonded against this revenue source twice. The 1984 bonds have been retired. The 1993
bond will be satisfied in 2020.
Priorities: In 1984 the priority was to complete property acquisitions adjacent to the Cougar Mountain
State Park, near Issaquah. In 1993, the priority was to purchase an important link in the I -90 Greenway
project, the Rattlesnake Ridge property new North Bend. In addition, the bond funds were used to purchase
important open space lands throughout the county.
In March of this year, the Metropolitan King County Council approved new criteria for programs funded by ,
the Conservation Futures Tax. Revenue will be used to acquire open space, agricultural and timber lands.
The eligibility criteria include: "1) If the open space is a wildlife habitat, 2) the threat of the loss of open
space, 3) how the property will be maintained, and 4) if matching funds are available. The priorities for '
60 '
funding projects include salmon habitat, urban open space, endangered species, water access and
connectivity.
Type of Acquisitions: Fee simple. Some development rights have been purchased.
Key Acquisitions: Conservation Futures funds have been used to help acquire the following properties, as
well as many others: Cougar Mountain Completion, Cedar River Basin /Greenway, Bear Creek
Basin/Conservation Area, Lake Desire /Spring Lake, Lake Sawyer, Moss Lake, Rattlesnake Ridge. Section
36 and Three Forks Park at the Snoqualmie River.
Other Funding. Sources: State IAC and Salmon Recovery Funding Board. King County also obtains
funds through the Transferable Development Rights/ Credits programs. In 2000, $6 million was made
Application & Process: Kitsap County's citizen Open Space Council guided the nomination and
acquisition process for the two bonds that were issued. The County Board of Commissioners had final
approval. Currently, a new review process is being developed. (More info to come from county.)
2000 Revenue: $800,000
' Bonds issued: $3 million in 1991
$5 million in 1999
I Priorities: Waterfront, riparian corridors and properties that meet the criteria of a "Heritage Park" -- 300
to 500 acres (or more).
' Type of Acquisition: Fee simple
Key Acquisitions: 30 acres of waterfront at Point No Point ($1.8 mil. valuation); Silverdale waterfront
' ($1.9 mil. valuation); 640 acres of timber property ($1.3 mil. land valuation). Additionally, they have
acquired 350 acres in East Bremerton, 90 -acres at Wick's Lake, the Carpenter Creek Estuary, 10 acres of
riparian corridor at Three Springs, as well as smaller parcels throughout the county. The County is working
with several entities (University of Washington, Tribes, DNR, Land Trust, Trust for Public Lands) on the
Hood Canal Salmon Sanctuary.
Other Funding Sources: The County works with other organizations to obtain additional dollars and/or
land. For example, through the Trust Land Transfer Program it obtained hundreds of acres of forest land.
' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources re- conveys property to counties.) Through a
cooperative agreement with Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, projects have been funded
with State IAC money at 100 %. (Counties receive IAC funding at 50% with matching funds. State
' agencies can receive 100% funding.) Kitsap County has obtained nearly 600 acres of riparian corridors
11 61
available.
KITSAP COUNTY
'
Rick Fackler
360 - 337 -5350
Joseph Coppo
Year Enacted: 1991
Application & Process: Kitsap County's citizen Open Space Council guided the nomination and
acquisition process for the two bonds that were issued. The County Board of Commissioners had final
approval. Currently, a new review process is being developed. (More info to come from county.)
2000 Revenue: $800,000
' Bonds issued: $3 million in 1991
$5 million in 1999
I Priorities: Waterfront, riparian corridors and properties that meet the criteria of a "Heritage Park" -- 300
to 500 acres (or more).
' Type of Acquisition: Fee simple
Key Acquisitions: 30 acres of waterfront at Point No Point ($1.8 mil. valuation); Silverdale waterfront
' ($1.9 mil. valuation); 640 acres of timber property ($1.3 mil. land valuation). Additionally, they have
acquired 350 acres in East Bremerton, 90 -acres at Wick's Lake, the Carpenter Creek Estuary, 10 acres of
riparian corridor at Three Springs, as well as smaller parcels throughout the county. The County is working
with several entities (University of Washington, Tribes, DNR, Land Trust, Trust for Public Lands) on the
Hood Canal Salmon Sanctuary.
Other Funding Sources: The County works with other organizations to obtain additional dollars and/or
land. For example, through the Trust Land Transfer Program it obtained hundreds of acres of forest land.
' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources re- conveys property to counties.) Through a
cooperative agreement with Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, projects have been funded
with State IAC money at 100 %. (Counties receive IAC funding at 50% with matching funds. State
' agencies can receive 100% funding.) Kitsap County has obtained nearly 600 acres of riparian corridors
11 61
through this arrangement. Funding also has been obtained from the Aquatic Land Enhancement Program
and private donors.
PIERCE COUNTY
Grant Griffin
253- 798 -4049
Year Enacted: 1989
Application Process
Applications for sponsorship are excepted annually from individuals, non - profit groups, cities, towns or
Pierce County agencies. The sponsor completes the Property Nomination Form and signs a Sponsor's
Affidavit indicating that the property owner is aware of the nomination. The Receiving Agency also signs
the affidavit. Once the acquisition is complete, the County may convey the land and rights to governmental
agencies or land trusts only. Applications are reviewed by three different entities: The Technical Advisory
Committee, the Citizens Advisory Board and the Pierce County Council.
2000. Revenue: $2.4 million
Bonds Issued:No bonding (The Levy rate was temporarily dropped to 1/2 maximum rate due to exceeding
tax lid. They collected .02 per $1,000 assessed value rather than .06.)
Priorities: High priorities include critical salmon habitat; fish & wildlife habitat areas; marine waters;
streams; wetlands, estuaries and tidal marshes; and wooded areas. Medium priorities include agricultural
lands, aquifer recharge areas, flood hazard areas, lakes, private open space passive recreation areas, privately
owned and operated recreational facilities and private trails and corridors. Low priorities include:
archaeological sites, historic landmark sites, steep slopes, private parks and private golf courses with
developed facilities, scenic viewpoints, seismic and volcanic hazard areas.
Type of Acquisitions: Fee simple
Key Acquisitions: Waterfront along the Tacoma Narrows; old farm lands; wetlands & stream buffers and
community park land.
Other Fund Sources: State IAC; gifts /donations
SAN JUAN COUNTY
Dennis Schaffer
360 - 378 -4402
Year enacted: 1990
Also in 1990, the county approved a I% real estate transfer tax which funds the San Juan County Land
Bank. Its charge is to purchase conservation easements and to obtain land through fee simple acquisition.
The Land Bank established a stewardship investment fund to protect its conservation purchases. The
original land bank program was to sunset after 12 years (in 2002), but in 1999 it was re- authorized to
continue for another 12 years.
62
Application Process: San Juan County adopted an Open Space and Conservation Plan as part of the
Comprehensive Plan. It includes an inventory, classification criteria and prioritized ranking of open space,
including natural areas, water resources, visual resources, administrative resources, agricultural, recreational
and cultural resources. The Open Space Plan also defines the methods for acquisition. The Land Bank
Commission prepares an annual acquisition program for the upcoming year that includes property
recommendations, the cost, the way in which it can be acquired, stewardship costs and a proposed
management plan. The Expenditure & Acquisition Plan is adopted by the Land Bank Commission and is
ratified by the Board of County Commissioners. At least one public hearing is held prior to submitting the
plan to the Commissioners.
2000 Revenue: $190,000
$2.2 million comes from the 1 % real estate transfer tax, $190,000 from the conservation. futures tax and
$176,000 in private donations.
Bonds Issued: The Land Bank has not yet bonded against its tax revenue.
In 1998, the Land Bank took out a three -year $2.6 million commercial loan to acquire two major properties
on Orcas and Lopez Islands.
Priorities: Important scenic or low intensity recreational value, existing or future sources of potable water,
and lands of agricultural, environmental, scientific, historic and cultural importance.
Types of Acquisitions: Fee simple and conservation easements.
Key Acquisitions: The Land Bank has acquired dozens of properties on San Juan, Orcas, Lopez and
Waldron Islands. Some of the acquisitions include: Orcas Island's Crescent Beach, Judd Cove Preserve,
Buck Farm and Fowler's Pond; Lopez Island's land adjacent to the ferry landing, Hummel Lake Preserve,
Iceberg Point and Fisherman's Bay Spit Preserve; Waldron Island's Pt. Disney; and San Juan Island's
Westside Preserve, Deadman Bay Preserve, Limekiln Preserve and Trout Lake.
Other Funding Sources: Some State IAC funding; private donations
SKAGIT COUNTY
Richard Doenges
360 - 336 -93365
Year Enacted: 1996
Application Process: Skagit County formed a seven - member advisory committee to develop a PDR
(purchase of development rights) program to preserve a critical mass of farmland and target farmlands that
are currently under pressure for development. Applications are submitted to program staff for review and
confirmation of eligibility. The Advisory Committee then reviews selected applications and finalizes the
ranking of the sites. Applicants have the opportunity to review and respond to the rating. The Board of
County Commissioners review the recommendations and makes the final selections.
2000 Revenue: $ 479,000 (an additional $310,000 was received last year from grants, interest payments,
and private donors)
63
Bonds Issued: None. Skagit County had planned to issue a $4.5 million dollar bond, but decided against it
since demand for participation in the program was not as high as initially thought. Between 1996 and 1998,
enough tax revenue accrued -- along with a $450,000 Federal Farmland Preservation Grant -- to purchase
desired properties. The county may consider issuing a bond in the near future, however.
Priorities: Farmlands
Type of Acquisition: Conservation easements
Key Acquisitions: 450 acre Triple J Farm north of La Conner; 325 acres in Nookachamps near Mt.
Vernon; 150 acre Vander Kooy dairy between Mt. Vernon and La Conner
Other Funding Sources: State IAC, Federal Farmland Preservation Grant ($450,000), Timber Tax Grants;
Forest Board (DNR) Yield, private donations
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Marc Krandel
425- 388 -6621
Year Enacted: 1989
Application Process: Applications are reviewed and evaluated by the Technical Advisory Committee and
the County Parks Advisory Board. Applicants give brief presentations to the Technical Committee. It, in
turn, makes recommendations and forwards them to the Snohomish County Council who makes the final
decision.
The enabling legislation called for a sharing of the funds between the county and its 17 cities. From 1991 to
1997, applications were reviewed and properties were selected every two years.
2000 Revenue: $2.6 million
Most of this revenue satisfies the debt service on the 1997 bond. However, in 2002, the council may ask for
new applications.
Bonds Issued: $24.5 million in 1997
The following year, approximately $6.5 were made available because it was the tax revenue that had been
accruing since the last application and award process. With this $31 million, the counties and cities
acquired 35 pieces of property.
Priorities: Until the Endangered Species Act became law, the priorities for acquisition in Snohomish
county centered around open space and passive parks. Now, the council has written criteria into the review
process (the county code was not amended) that calls for acquiring critical habitat areas.
Type of Acquisition: Fee simple
The county has purchased some easements, particularly in the North Creek area to preserve riparian
corridors.
64
I]
LI
77
i
Key Acquisitions: Robe Canyon, near Granite Falls ($4 million),. Thrasher's Corner in Bothell ($3 million),
Paradise Valley/Bear Creek, Harborview Park in Everett and Twin River Quarry.
Other fund sources
Snohomish County takes advantage of the re- conveyance opportunities from the State of Washington, but it
is not a significant part of the Conservation Futures' program. The county also cultivates relationships with
the State for grants and other funding and works with other counties (King & Skagit) to enhance its ability
to purchase more property. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board, the Land Conservancy, The Trust for
Public Lands, various non - profits, private donors and corporate partners have all contributed to the
acquisition of properties as part of the conservation futures program.
WHATCOM COUNTY
Roger DeSpain
360 -733 -2900
Year Enacted: 1993
Application Process: Whatcom County does not have an advisory committee nor does it employ a formal
rating system. Instead, the list of properties remains fluid and priority is given to parcels that were identified
by a citizens group that assessed options for salt water, fresh water, foothills and mountain acquisitions. Its
report is known as the "Heritage Plan" and identifies what they have deemed "Gems of the County." This
report is used by the Whatcom County and the Land Trust essentially as the county's open space plan.
Xities are not eligible to apply for funds.
2000 Revenue: $600,000
' Bonds Issued: None.
Instead, they rely on IAC grants, private donations and considerable help from the Whatcom Land Trust.
For example, in 1998, Whatcom County purchased 2,300 acres near Deming that included old growth
timber and a lake. The final negotiated price was $5 million. The Paul Allen Forest Protection Fund"
contributed $2 million, another $1 million came from an anonymous donor through the Whatcom Land
Trust and the rest of the cost was covered by conservation futures tax dollars. The Squires Lake acquisition
(84 acres) is a similar story -- half the purchase price was covered by a private donation. (Note: Part of this
' property lies in Skagit County. Whatcom has an agreement in which maintenance costs are shared.)
Priorities: "Gems of the County," as identified in the Heritage Plan; open space away from urban centers.
Type of Acquisitions: Fee simple
Easements may be considered in the future.
Key Acquisitions: 2000 acres on Chuckanut Mountain, waterfront & lakefront properties, timberland and
greenbelts.
' Other Funding Sources: Whatcom Land Trust, private donations, grants and Washington State DNR
Reconveyance program. Since Conservation Futures money cannot be used for maintenance and
operations, the Land Trust often provides for these expenses!
65
SON c
4r,
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
tG�SH I N G' 00
Follow -Up Answers to Questions
About Other County Programs
Introduction
At the July meeting, the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee asked several follow -
up questions to the paper presented on Conservation Futures' programs in other Washington counties. An e-
mail containing the following four questions was sent to the eight program managers:
1. Once land has been acquired, who is responsible for the stewardship of the property? Who monitors the
land for compliance?
2. In your county, are properties most often identified from the top down (government decides which
properties to target for preservation) or from the bottom up (grass roots efforts, individual
applications, etc.)?
3. Is there an advantage over fee simple acquisitions vs. purchase of development rights vs.
conservation easements?
4. If you could implement your program over again, what would you do differently?
While not all responded to this survey, we can draw some general conclusions based on the comments of
those who did respond, initial interviews and program materials from each of the counties.
The common thread that ran from county to county is that each program is different. The design, priorities
and implementation of the programs are all based on needs unique to a particular county.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STEWARDSHIP OF PROPERTIES?
Stewardship of acquired properties varies from county to county. Since Conservation Futures Tax money
cannot be used towards the maintenance of acquisitions, several counties have relied on partnerships they
have developed with non -profit nature conservancy corporations or non -profit historic preservation
corporations. For example, in San Juan County the Land Bank is responsible for stewardship of fee simple
and easement properties. The Land Bank has a staff person who oversees monitoring and management. In
other counties, the Parks Departments (county or sometimes city) oversee maintenance. (Or there may be
an agreement to share the responsibility with a non - profit entity.) Some counties rely on volunteer efforts,
such as "friends of organizations. If a conservation easement is obtained on a working piece of property
(such as a farm), there is frequently an agreement with the current property owner to continue the
maintenance of the property.
66
How is property identified for acquisition?
The question is whether decisions to acquire properties are made from the top down (government) or from
the bottom up (grass roots). There is frequently no clear delineation between the two. At times, it may
appear that Counties are the driving force behind an effort to acquire a certain piece of land, but it is often a
grass roots organization that has initiated the discussion with county officials. Since the urgency to acquire
threatened lands varies from county to county, the conservation futures programs are structured to meet the
challenges facing that particular county. In all cases, participation in the program must be voluntary.
In the case of San Juan County, acquisition priorities are set by the Land Bank Commission with significant
public participation, including the San Juan County Open Space Plan and the Parks, Recreation and
Preservation Lands Plan. In Snohomish County, properties are identified from the bottom up and top town.
Applications, however, can only be submitted b the coun and cities. The Snohom�rnin Prnc utor
as etermined that on s can ohese properties. Some
counties have an annual application process whereby individual landowan have eir properties
considered for the program. Other counties rely on a more "fluid" approach to acquisition and
recommendations from conservation organizations are key to the process.
Is there an advantage to one of the acquisition strategies (fee simple, conservation easement, or
development rights)?
The answer to this depends on property values in a given county and on the program goals. One county
reported that fee simple acquisition is, in short, simple. They found the price of an easement to be about the
same as fee simple acquisition. They stated that fee simple ^ownership "far easierd safer in the long run."
However, another county suggested that the biggest advantage of less than fee - simple purchases is the cost
savings. They stated that, "both the purchase price and long -term stewardship costs are greater with a fee
simple purchase. But there are cases when less than fee-
usually
when it involves public access."
What would you do differently?
Those responding to the survey were generally satisfied with the way their program was implemented and
would not change it. One county said "it is important that the criteria for the selection of properties can
grow and change to accommodate such changes and new situations, such as the listing of endanger species
(Chinook salmon). " A couple of counties suggested the process doesn't run as smoothly as it could if
politics enters into the picture. Recommendations of an advisory committee may not always be accepted
and projects that have not been reviewed by an advisory committee (but may be a council member's project
may take priority. (This scenario could occur in counties where the Conservation Futures program is in
transition.)
67
OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION, AND
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT
PURPOSE: The purpose of the Open Space, Parks and Recreation component of this element is to
classify, protect, and enhance open space lands and parks and to link them into a County -wide network.
Because open space is essential to the rural character of Jefferson County, the element proposes
strategies and regulations to achieve a balance between open space preservation and land development
and use activities, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Recognizing the
significance of parks and recreation to the quality of life in Jefferson County, the element develops
strategies to meet the demand for these facilities and services, consistent with capital planning goals and
policies.
The purpose of the Historic Preservation component of this element is to encourage the preservation of
historic and prehistoric sites, structures and artifacts through designation criteria and review processes.
WASHINGTON STATE OPEN SPACE ACT
The Washington State Open Space Act (RCW 84.34.020) defines open space as any land area, the
preservation of which, in its present use, would:
• Conserve or enhance natural, cultural or scenic resources;
• Protect streams, stream corridors, wetlands, natural shorelines and aquifers;
• Protect soil resources and unique or critical wildlife and native plant habitat;
• Promote conservation principles by example or by offering educational opportunities;
• Enhance the value of parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations and other open spaces;
• Enhance recreational opportunities; or
• Preserve historic and/or archaeological sites.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN
Because of the complexity of open space, parks, recreational and historic preservation issues, several
other elements of the Plan analyze specific aspects of these issues and propose methods to address them.
In order to avoid redundancy, these other elements are referenced where appropriate throughout the goals
and policies and strategies sections. This supports and enhances the techniques that have been developed
in other elements to create a comprehensive strategy.
The following table summarizes the open space, parks, recreational and historic preservation issues
identified and addressed in other elements of the Plan:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
68
OPEN SPACE
Element
Discussion
1. Land Use/Rural
The majority of land in Jefferson County is open space. Open space
can be a primary land use, in such cases as parks and natural resource
lands. It can also be complementary to other land uses, as in the case
of large -lot residential districts and master planned resorts. Open space
is an important component of the County's rural character. Jefferson
County is made unique by its quiltwork of open space land uses,
including large -lot residential districts, forestry, agriculture, and park
land. Historic sites and structures are also integral components of rural
character of the County and provide a link to the past development of
the region.
2. Environment
Open space is fundamental for environmental protection and
enhancement. New policies are developed for the preservation of the
County's significant environmental features through the use of open
space: critical areas, aquifer recharge areas, flood plains, and wildlife
corridors and habitat.
3. Natural Resource Lands
Forest and agricultural lands are traditional open space land uses that
provide important visual and ecological benefits. New policies are
proposed to maintain and enhance these uses throughout the County.
4. Economic Development
Tourism and recreation are important and growing sectors of the
County's economy. Jefferson County's open space and recreational
opportunities draw thousands of visitors annually and contribute
significantly to the County's economy.
6. Capital Facilities
Parks are public facilities. An appropriate level of service for parks
and recreation must be determined. Based upon the projected
population growth for the County, a plan must be developed to
maintain or achieve this level of service.
7. Transportation
Non - motorized transportation makes use of parks and trail systems as
an alternative to traditional automotive travel and public transit.
OPEN SPACE STRATEGY
Open spaces help conserve natural resources; protect environmentally sensitive areas; provide aesthetic,
scenic and recreational benefits; and preserve cultural and historic resources. Therefore, the preservation
of open space is important for the County's residents and visitors.
The proposed strategy includes the following steps:
1. Open Space Definition and Identification
2. Proposing planning goals and policies designed to:
• Protect and preserve the natural environment including air, water, soil, vegetation and wildlife
habitat, as well as other significant ecosystem elements;
• Integrate adequate open space into rural development projects in order to provide amenities and
help foster community identity;
• Protect and manage natural resources for long -term productive use, including buffering natural
resource lands from adjacent non - resource related land uses; and
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
69
OPEN SPACE
• Create a County-wide system of interconnected open spaces, including forests, farmland, parks,
trails, waterways, meadows and tree stands, critical areas, and natural resource lands both in
public and private ownership.
In order to promote consistency and provide certainty in the application of the planning goals and
policies, the first step in this strategy is to define open space as it pertains to Jefferson County.
Open space is a broad term used to describe different types of lands that have important values and
provide benefits to the public. Generally, open space lands include natural and environmentally critical
areas such as wetlands; aquifer recharge areas; lakes and streams; designated parks and trails; and natural
resource lands, such as agricultural and forest lands. Based upon the characteristics of the land and its
uses, a variety of open space lands are recognized in Jefferson County:
Open Space Lands
Description
1. Pristine Open Space
This category consists of undisturbed open space, with no active land
use or development. These areas may contain significant
environmentally sensitive areas or wildlife habitat. Examples include
old - growth forest or tidal marshes.
2. Resource Open Space
These are open lands that are actively used for natural resource
production, including lands designated as being of long -term
commercial significance. Examples include farms, forests, and
shellfish beds.
3. Low Density Rural
Residential densities throughout the County (i.e., large lot residential
Residential Open Space
zoning) promote a pattern of open space because the lot coverage and
resulting visual impact is minimal in relation to the size of the parcel.
4. Public and Preserved Open
These areas consist of National, State, and County Parks and linkages,
Space
such as greenbelts and conservation easements. This is a multiple use
category of open space, including both active and passive uses.
5. Active Open Space
This is open space designed for higher intensity or active recreational
uses. These lands consist of a wide variety of public and private spaces,
such as trails, marinas, golf courses, playfields, and campgrounds.
Many of these lands are connected within ecological systems that have unique functions and attributes.
Taken together, these areas form the distinctive mosaic of open space found in the County. This "quilt -
work" of open space is integral to the rural character of Jefferson County.
As a result of population growth and associated development in the County, significant areas of open
space have been converted to residential uses. This change in the rural landscape has resulted in the
fragmentation of open space areas and wildlife corridors, and the depletion of important resource lands,
including farms and forests. Conflicts often have been created between residents and resource industries
as residential development has encroached upon previously undeveloped lands. If developed areas
continue to expand in the existing pattern, additional open spaces and natural areas will be converted to
other uses.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998 ,
70
1
OPEN SPACE
To plan adequately for the provision of open space, priority areas need to be identified. The majority of
land that should receive priority attention in terms of open space designation within Jefferson County
includes most environmentally sensitive areas including stream and drainage corridors. Other areas that
should receive priority attention consist of those currently facing development pressure (i.e., actual
building activity or land division).
' The map on Page 6 -11 illustrates some priority areas for open space designation as determined by the
Jefferson Land Trust (identified in light blue). The primary areas consist of: the North Quimper
Peninsula Corridor area connecting the Cape George area to Fort Worden; an open space area extending
from Tibbals Lake south through the valley adjacent to Jacob Miller Road; the Chimacum Creek
watershed; and the headwaters of Discovery, Quilcene and Tarboo Bays.
PARKS AND RECREATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County contains many park and recreational assets (see map on page 6 -13). Approximately
three - fourths of the 1,808 square miles of land area in the County is in public ownership. The two largest
publicly owned areas are the Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest.
' Of the one hundred and seventeen (117) recreational areas found in the County, thirty four (34) are
locally managed: twenty (20) by Jefferson County, seven (7) by the City of Port Townsend, and seven
(7) by the Port of Port Townsend. The Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department conducts
' organized recreational activities and instruction that include baseball, basketball, soccer, volleyball,
hiking, swimming, exercise, bicycling, and sailing.
The demand for County park and recreational facilities comes predominantly from the following groups:
• Jefferson County residents;
• Tourists en route to other recreational areas, including the Olympic National Park and National
Forest, Clallam County recreational facilities, Vancouver Island and other scenic areas in Canada;
and
' • Recreational enthusiasts including hikers, bicyclists, campers, and beachcombers who visit the many
State parks, such as Fort Worden and Fort Flagler, as well as the many County parks.
' The 1995 Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan estimated the need and demand for parks and
recreation areas and facilities in the County. This element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
provides need and location criteria as well as proposes means for eliminating existing deficiencies in the
' County's system of parks and recreation areas. However, because the Growth Management Act defines
recreation facilities as a component of necessary public facilities, the Capital Facilities Element will
reflect the established demand and proposed planning policies in respect to parks and recreation.
The Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan
' The purpose of the 1995 Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan was to identify how park,
recreation and open space needs should be addressed and implemented, for the benefit of both County
residents and visitors alike. In order to achieve this, the Parks Comprehensive Plan defined a set of
policies and proposals adopted by the various local jurisdictions in the County. The goals of the
planning process were as follows:
n
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
1 71
OPEN SPACE
• To reflect the desires and needs of Jefferson County citizens as expressed through community
involvement by survey and public meetings and workshops;
• To define specific projects and project goals;
• To coordinate County programs and services through cooperation with Federal, State, and local
agencies;
• To aid in developing, correlating, and coordinating official regulations and guidelines; and
• To obtain funding for parks and recreational needs and projects.
The Plan addresses the location and available services of all existing park and recreation facilities, the
results of the public survey and public meetings, and specific capital improvement projects. The Plan
also makes recommendations on implementing identified park and recreation goals.
Because the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan is the adopted parks and recreation policy
document for Jefferson County, its conclusions and recommendations were used as a starting point and
prioritization for the goals and policies of this Element. Future revisions of the Jefferson County Parks
Comprehensive Plan will ensure its compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, including the
goals, policies, and strategies of both this element and the Capital Facilities Element.
Two projects responding to the high level of community interest in additional park and recreational
opportunities in Jefferson County are the H.J. Carroll Park and the Larry Scott Memorial Park Trail.
The H.J. Carroll Park is being constructed in Chimacum on a 40 -acre parcel that was the former site of
the Anderson Gravel Pit. The purpose of the park is to provide a regional multi - purpose recreational
facility. Due to its scope, this will be a phased project. The first phase is slated to provide a sports field
for football, baseball and soccer. Trails, restrooms and picnic facilities will also be constructed.
Later phases envision the development of a picnic shelter, aquatic center, playground, environmental
learning center, and facilities for multi- purpose recreational activities including volleyball courts,
basketball courts and a skateboard area.
This ambitious County Park project constitutes one of the largest County Park projects undertaken to
date and is made possible through a partnership of public and private interests. The completion of this
facility will take a number of years, but the end result will provide great benefit to the residents of
Jefferson County for many years to come.
The vision for the Larry Scott Memorial Trail is to provide future generations with a safe, non - motorized
recreation and transportation corridor connecting Port Townsend with rural Jefferson County. As
proposed, the route extends approximately seven miles from the Port of Port Townsend Boat Haven to
Four Corners Road. The long -term vision is to extend the trail to Discovery Bay and eventually to points
further west.
The first phase of this project involves the construction of a two mile segment extending from the Port of
Port Townsend to Mill Road. This initial phase includes the gravel surfacing of the pedestrian trail,
installing regulatory and interpretive signage, fencing, and the construction of a trail terminus area with
seating, an information kiosk, landscaping, and an informal stairway to the beach. Later phases will
extend the trail system to Four Corners.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
72
OPEN SPACE
' This community -based trail project is made possible through the assistance of grants from the
Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation and the federally funded Intermodal
' Surface Transportation Enhancement Act. When completed, the Larry Scott Memorial Trail will provide
the citizens of the County with a safe and viable alternative to motorized transit.
' Jefferson County, in cooperation with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, will evaluate and
attempt to secure sites for motorized off road vehicles that perhaps have been displaced by the
development of the Larry Scott Memorial Trail
Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
' The Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan makes use of the quantitative data developed
in the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan to assess the current level of parks and recreation
services in the County. The existing level of service (LOS) is then compared to the average level of
' parks and recreation services for other Washington local government jurisdictions. The existing level of
service is also compared to the results of the 1991 Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)
survey on parks and recreation services in Washington counties with populations of 18,000 to 70,000.
This level of service analysis is performed for regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks,
trails, and open space assets in Jefferson County.
• Regional Parks: Regional parks range in size from 1 to 350 acres and provide diversified active and
passive uses. The 1996 LOS for regional parks in Jefferson County is 18 acres per 1,000 population.
The LOS recommended in the Capital Facilities Element for regional parks is 11.5 acres per 1,000
population. Although this is a reduction of thirty six percent (36 %) from the 1996 LOS, it greatly
exceeds comparable averages. This reduction reflects a Department of Public Works proposed
policy that supports significant development of, and improvement to, currently County -owned
regional park acreage in lieu of acquisition of additional regional park acreage during the next twenty
years. This will allow construction of the sports fields and recreation facilities that were identified as
priorities by the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan.
• Community Parks: Community parks range in size from less than 1 acre to just over 13 acres and
generally serve two or more neighborhoods. The 1996 LOS for community parks in Jefferson
County was 1.30 acres per 1,000 population. The LOS recommended in the Capital Facilities
Element for community parks is 0.51 acres per 1,000 population. This is a reduction of sixty one
percent (61 %) from the 1996 LOS. This reduction reflects a Department of Public Works proposed
policy that supports significant development of, and improvement to, currently County -owned
community park acreage in lieu of acquisition of additional community park acreage during the next
twenty years. This will allow construction of the sports fields and recreation facilities that were
identified as priorities by the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan.
• Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks range in size from 0.26 acres to 1.9 acres and typically
serve only one neighborhood. The 1996 LOS for neighborhood parks in Jefferson County was 0.24
acres per 1,000 population. The LOS recommended in the Capital Facilities Element for
neighborhood parks is 0.14 acres per 1,000 population. This LOS, although decreased, will allow for
acquisition of additional neighborhood park acreage in response to population growth. As
recommended by the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan, the locations of new
neighborhood parks will correspond with and reflect the patterns of population growth in the County.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
73
OPEN SPACE
• Trails: Trails provide a system of separated cross - country linkages that connect major environmental
assets, park and recreation facilities, community centers, and historical features. The 1996 LOS for
trails in Jefferson County was 0.38 miles per 1,000 population. The LOS recommended in the
Capital Facilities Element for trails is 0.52 miles per 1,000 population. This is a significant increase
from the 1996 LOS. The County's commitment to an expanded trail system reflects the
recommendations of the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan.
• Open Space: The open space category of parks includes areas that are considered to be passive open
space or environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, steep slopes, and wildlife habitat areas.
The 1996 LOS for open space in Jefferson County was 1.9 acres per 1,000 population. The LOS
recommended in the Capital Facilities Element for open space is 1.5 acres per 1,000 population. This
small decrease will continue to allow the County to respond to the need for additional open space.
These recommended levels of service will allow the County to develop appropriate financing plans for
park and recreation facility acquisition and development over the twenty-year comprehensive planning
period.
WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
Wildlife corridors provide a safe habitat for animal and plant life to exist and flourish. Wildlife corridors
maintain or reestablish links between important wildlife habitat areas that may be interrupted due to
development activities. As Jefferson County continues to experience growth and development, important
wildlife areas are being "cut off' from the system of wildlife habitats making it more difficult for
wildlife to pursue natural lifecycle patterns.
In a very simple sense, wildlife corridors provide a protected pathway along which native wildlife
species can move in relative security between the high quality habitats of the area. In many instances it
is best to coordinate the location of these corridors with existing natural drainage corridors which have
naturally served in this capacity. The important functions provided by wildlife corridors include:
providing safe passage for native wildlife; helping to maintain a natural flood water control system;
protecting existing habitat and water quality; enhancing property values; and ensuring that future
generations realize the benefits derived from maintaining a balanced natural system.
Clearly, multiple goals may be accomplished by well planned and located wildlife corridors. Retaining
and protecting drainage corridors along with their associated buffers will become increasingly important
as development progresses (i.e., as impermeable surfaces continue to increase), and the functions of these
areas for water retention, water quality enhancement and aquifer recharge will be diminished without
adequate protection. These areas, in addition to serving important functions to wildlife, are the first and
best element in storm water handling and treatment. Overbuilding near floodplains or reducing the size
of our drainage corridors will result in the need for expensive infrastructure to treat storm water runoff
and to prevent flooding and associated damage. Recent winter storms and subsequent snow melt and
runoff provide dramatic testimony to the need to keep drainage corridors and floodplains open and free
of inappropriate development and densities.
The Jefferson Land Trust, a non - profit organization providing options for landowners wishing to
preserve certain values of their property, is pursuing a system of open spaces, greenbelts and wildlife
corridors throughout the County. Landowners work with the Land Trust when they wish to permanently
protect the ecological, agricultural, scenic, historic or recreational qualities of their land. The most
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
74
OPEN SPACE
common way for a landowner to protect lands for these purposes is through the grantin g a of perpetual
etual
P
conservation easement or outright donation of land to the Land Trust.
' By establishing a cooperative relationship with the Land Trust, Jefferson County will be able to develop
a comprehensive open space program that will help ensure the natural functions of the environment are
' protected while affording wildlife abundant natural areas and protecting the public health, safety and
welfare of the County's residents. It is now widely recognized that development can be compatible with
wildlife when we plan for it.
' HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC CULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION STRATEGY
Introduction
Prior to the arrival of European settlers and explorers, the area that is now Jefferson County was
' inhabited by several Native American groups, including the Chemakum, Hoh, Klallam, Makah, Quileute,
Quinault, and Twana tribes. Permanent village sites and activity areas were concentrated near ocean and
riparian resources for food access and mobility. These groups were hunters and gatherers, using canoes
' to fish, hunt whales and seals, and collect shellfish. They also hunted land mammals and birds, collected
food and medicinal plants, and extensively used forest resources, creating most of their material culture
from wood, other botanical material, and bone.
Evidence of prehistoric occupation and activities can be found in much of Jefferson County, especially in
archaeological sites along the coasts and rivers. Specialized activity sites, such as work camps and cedar
cutting areas can be found inland. Sites of religious importance are known through oral traditions and
' early documents. The primacy of these First People is preserved in place names throughout the County.
The Hoh and Quinault still occupy tribal reservation land in the west end of Jefferson County.
' The Olympic Peninsula coastline was first explored in 1592 by the Greek Apostolos Valerians, who was
sailing for Spain under the name Juan de Fuca. However, two centuries passed before Europeans
returned in earnest.. Spain's Manuel Quimper arrived in 1790, and was followed in 1792 by England's
' George Vancouver. The first settlement was established at Port Townsend in 1851, and Jefferson County
boundaries were established in 1852.
' Port Townsend became the county seat and customs port for Washington Territory. Vast timber tracts
and other natural resources rapidly attracted more settlers. Port Discovery Bay was the site of a large
sawmill, as were the communities of Port Ludlow and Port Hadlock. Shipping, shipbuilding, canneries,
' mining, and farming communities developed. The communities of Irondale, Quilcene, Brinnon, and
Nordland were established by the 1880s.
' Our communities have evolved or declined in response to a century of economic changes and resource
consumption. The tangible evidence of this history still is all around us; in sites both above and below
the ground. However, increasing development pressures threaten to erase many sites. Systematic
' surveys of these cultural resources are almost nonexistent and documentation is very incomplete.
The preservation of Jefferson County's prehistoric and historic cultural resources is important for many
' reasons. These resources help us retain community values; provide for continuity over time; and
contribute to a sense of place. In order to protect our cultural resources for future generations, it is
important now to set goals and policies designed to identify, designate, preserve, and adaptively reuse
' irreplaceable remnants of our past.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
' 75
OPEN SPACE
Process for the Development of the Historic and Prehistoric Preservation Strategy '
The first phase of the Jefferson County Historic and Prehistoric Preservation Strategy is the identification '
and evaluation of historical resources. This four step process involves the following elements:
1. Conduct a systematic survey and establish an inventory of existing cultural resources; '
2. Using existing criteria, evaluate the cultural resources to determine the significance of the resource
and thereby determine its designation;
3. Nominate sites, structures, and artifacts of cultural significance to appropriate national, state, and ,
local registers; and,
4. Establish and maintain a system for periodic assessment and reevaluation of designated cultural
resources to determine current status and to identify changing preservation requirements and '
potential impacts.
The second phase of the Jefferson County Historic and Prehistoric Preservation Strategy is the
development and implementation of a preservation program. There are multiple approaches to this
process, including, but not limited to, the following:
• Develop standards for the design of projects with potential impacts to designated cultural resources
to ensure that new development is compatible;
• Encourage appropriate, adaptive reuse of selected cultural resources, with a variety of financial
incentives, including below market rate loans for rehabilitation and tax incentives for restoration,
rehabilitation, and preservation;
• Establish a method of resolving conflicts that may arise between preservation requirements and
development activities; and,
• Coordinate cooperative efforts of national, state, and local organizations and individuals interested in
promoting cultural resource preservation, heritage tourism, and in developing associated economic
opportunities.
The efficient and effective accomplishment of this strategy requires the regular attention of personnel
and access to resources not currently available to Jefferson County. Currently, there is little coordination
or cooperation among the various entities concerned with historic preservation in the County, and limited
resources are consumed by overlapping efforts. The County should combine efforts with the City of Port
Townsend, Jefferson County Historical Society and other interested groups to meet local historic
preservation goals.
The City of Port Townsend has a Historic Preservation Committee in place. However, the function of
the Committee has been limited to design review for modification of structures in the Historic Districts.
A Comprehensive Preservation Plan has not been developed.
One approach is to take part in the Certified Local Government (CLG) program offered by the
Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. With considerable technical
assistance from the State, a CLG develops and manages its local preservation program and handles many
of its own historic preservation issues, including direct nomination of cultural resources to national and
state registers. In addition, CLG status would qualify the County for historic preservation grants to assist
with the maintenance of the County preservation program.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998 '
76
OPEN SPACE
The City of Port Townsend currently is applying for CLG status. In collaboration with the City and with
the assistance of the Jefferson County Historical Society, the County's participation in this state program
would provide for technical assistance and for state historic preservation grants. Additional funding
sources for programs delineated by a Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan would be available
through grant applications by the Jefferson County Historical Society, a non - profit, charitable
organization.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
77
7,m
1 !I
We"
lot
110 .0
SO 6-31 P= I
AVVIEL
tgie, --
• fUt1111n1u,Nhi►• - • ir.:.r_ • � -pia
1:.111p,1111,r111frN {II /1.� N'..r •.
111111 { {IIII1NhNI1Nf4,N` ,
eon
—
U119U111Pe:r`uuwuu� a'Sx� -!
tt' iLU2'A+P ��= i��,�,nyu_t6ra�q�yy..' v: �_■-:•.�.: 4,
rrr.�p��y.,:,5c�,vp�.ty'�•7�. 4x;t�$i: ,rw`a , ' �F . ,�.e, - M
I�'llx�yr}rl'}A� •� ■ten^ ���f 'Vt . .�..wiDr �LSet��lr: ..
7}""' , ■ s 3 chi ♦ 2 Fhb � _�1 li �" �� 1�ti�;r.�i� �I.�.
!py�y /44.ia uU
A 1
�t:lY >�X.A ircn 8�.��t. Ih� Ls. •.r r 7:Y.;�y61r1
�+..•LJ. 94dYb "��ir4,��py��'� ���If� ` � +s. rMy �, •�a.
4YL a ��.
� ,v �W *aila rGts�' S} T
�j {I 11 Y ! 1 v''7Z� S.`�•..rS � SrSrT�+�' yJ6.Y' �'��
y!7'�+ r�'. 7 4a '1 7 �� �;�� y�`�"H ".R •4<r ,SY.j en ; _�
M.h }y 471Rr1 LL -
a'C'w[{,a,s4ay. 1 u•t 4ri��j 5yj
Q�4�L'�S h'+'�4ii cwt( WA`�- "b `W!�.7�� �- .��'��•
Sit
•ni'y��t,q Ati `� ' r "j''F.� ♦fur ..
fie• s
00
0
C
M
CD
N
0
C
1
1
s
N
e.
.i
i
G
tlQ
G
N
00
m
z
a
m
r r = = r = m = = = = m r mm = = M]
iMtr -w
M11"�1a0.�ilY����'
RON
fig
FOP. WFD:!ULTJDNAL SIM= ONLY
Parks i
m
z
a
m
r r = = r = m = = = = m r mm = = M]
OPEN SPACE
GOALS AND POLICIES
The goals outlined below provide a general direction for the maintenance and enhancement of Jefferson
County's open space lands, parks and recreation facilities, and historic resources. These goals are based
on the requirements of the Growth Management Act, which outlines specific criteria for open space
lands, parks and recreation facilities, and historic resources, and on the issues and opportunities
identified by County residents.
As in all elements of this Plan, the goals are general statements while policies are more specific. Goals
state the general growth management intentions of the County while the policies are the guidelines for
implementation. Strategies identify the specific projects or programs that will be used to implement the
policies.
The Open Space; Parks and. Recreation; and Historic Preservation policies will provide the basis for
revising the development standards contained in the Jefferson County Interim Zoning Ordinance and
other regulations.
OPEN SPACE
OSG 1.0 Preserve and enhance the existing open space lands.
OSP 1.1 Develop and promote a comprehensive strategy of development regulations, incentives,
public /private partnerships, land acquisition programs, and an identification process for
specific open spaces to be preserved or enhanced.
OSP 1.2 Evaluate proposed development projects to preserve and protect the following open
space areas:
a. Corridors linking habitat, wetland and riparian zones;
b. Habitat areas for species of concern;
c. Shoreline areas;
d. Areas containing significant trees;
e. Pastures and farmlands;
f. Forested ridges and hilltops (if they can be viewed from public areas and public
roads off - site);
g. Naturally occurring meadows and open areas;
h. Existing trails and trail systems open to the public; and,
i. Constructed open areas, and other altered natural areas (examples include: clear -cut
timber areas, cleared fields, land formerly used for resource extraction, and
recreational areas).
11 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
81
OPEN SPACE
OSP 1.3 Investigate and consider a variety of techniques to preserve and protect open space
including public acquisition and clustered development.
OSP 1.4 Encourage public enrollment in the current -use or preferential tax assessment (RCW
84.34) for open space lands.
OSP 1.5 Pursue public acquisition of potential parks, critical wildlife areas, and other open space
lands by utilizing a variety of funding mechanisms.
OSP 1.6 Support efforts by the Jefferson Land Trust and other organizations to secure property
for open space, wildlife habitat corridors and a County -wide trail system.
OSG 2.0 Identify and develop an interconnected County -wide network of naturally
occurring and planned open spaces.
POLICIES:
OSP 2.1 Design and site open space areas to aid in the establishment of a County -wide system of
open spaces connected by wildlife habitat corridors and trails.
OSP 2.2 Establish open space network linkages throughout the County which connect UGAs and '
Rural Centers, schools and park or recreation sites.
OSP 2.3 Locate parks or open space so as to provide for a variety of outdoor activities or to take
advantage of natural processes (i.e., wetlands and tidal actions), unique landscape '
features (i.e., cliffs and bluffs), or outstanding natural amenities.
OSP 2.4 Promote the inclusion of open space in development proposals and develop criteria for t
identifying types (and intensity) of open space in development proposals.
OSP 2.5 Ensure that the development of new parks adequately addresses the open space '
objectives of both the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County
Parks Comprehensive Plan.
OSP 2.6 Incorporate the active and proposed trail systems identified in the Jefferson County
Parks Comprehensive Plan as well as those identified in community plans, into the open
space network. ,
OSP 2.7 Identify and improve existing and proposed recreation and scenic bicycle, equestrian,
and walking routes.
OSP 2.8 Consider acquisition of out -of -use railroad rights -of -way to preserve these resources as
future transportation corridors such as bikeways, pedestrian or equestrian trials, and I
roadways.
OSP 2.9 Pursue and encourage public involvement in open space planning through a variety of
methods including advisory boards, workshops, and news releases.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998 '
82
OPEN SPACE
OSP 2.10 Coordinate efforts with the City of Port Townsend and the Jefferson Land Trust to
designate open space and trail connections through the unincorporated portion of the
potential FUGA (i.e., consistent with Chapter 36.70A.160 RCW).
OSG 3.0 Encourage the multiple use of open spaces and wildlife corridors
POLICIES:
OSP 3.1 Protect environmentally critical open spaces, such as drainage corridors or floodplains,
by associating them with appropriate recreational uses.
OSP 3.2 Review development proposals to evaluate opportunities for multiple use of proposed
open space. The open space should be of a quality, quantity, and configuration which
ensures that a suitable portion of the site is designated for conservation, passive
recreation, and, where appropriate, active recreation. "Open space" refers to either the
formal designation of areas as "open space" or the retention of areas within lots or
parcels that will be managed under private ownership as "open" or undeveloped uses.
OSP 3.3 Jefferson County, based on information developed and provided by organizations
involved in the preservation of natural wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors, has
identified areas throughout the County which will be prioritized as areas targeted to be
preserved and maintained as wildlife habitats and corridors. These areas are identified
and illustrated on the Open Space and recreation map contained in this Plan.
PARKS AND RECREATION
OSG 4.0 Develop and maintain park and recreational facilities that are responsive to the
needs and interests of Jefferson County residents and visitors.
FOR-09M
OSP 4.1 Ensure that the natural features of proposed parks and recreation areas are utilized.
OSP 4.2 Develop recreational opportunities such that:
a. Existing recreational areas and facilities are not overburdened;
b. Recreational facilities are planned to support areas designated for future residential
development; and
c. Adequate infrastructure is available.
OSP 4.3 Ensure that the location, type and amount of park and recreation facilities are consistent
with the needs and desires of citizens in the area, and that they accommodate a diversity
of age, interest and ability groups.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
83
OPEN SPACE
OSP 4.4 Pursue and encourage public involvement in parks and recreation planning through
advisory boards, workshops, and news releases.
OSP 4.5 Establish guidelines to anticipate future demand in the acquisition and development of
parks, recreational land and facilities.
OSP 4.6 Ensure that parks and recreation facilities along marine shores, lakes and streams are
compatible with the goals, policies, and performance standards of the Jefferson County
Shoreline Management Master Program.
OSP 4.7 Require developers of new residential subdivisions to provide land, facilities, or in -lieu-
of payments for neighborhood parks and recreation, when appropriate.
OSP 4.8 Encourage the provision of public parks and private parks concurrent with development.
OSP 4.9 Promote cooperative efforts, joint project development, and long range planning with
other public agencies and the private sector to create and maintain open space, parks and
recreational areas.
OSP 4.10 Ensure that the Park and Recreation Plan recommends feasible funding levels for
acquisition, maintenance and operations within an equitable framework of taxation, and
reflects prudent fiscal management.
OSG 5.0 Establish and maintain a public County -wide trail system that meets the population
needs and open space objectives of Jefferson County.
10104M
OSP 5.1 Coordinate the county trails system with other existing or planned public and/or private
trail systems, and vehicular and pedestrian systems.
OSP 5.2 Establish trails based upon a variety of criteria, including relation to population centers
and proximity to demand, and ensure that they represent local interests in terms of
location and trail uses.
OSP 5.3 Establish trails based upon location of recreational resources and, where possible,
connect parks, playgrounds, open space, schools, areas of natural, cultural and/or
historical interest and Rural Centers.
OSP 5.4 Develop a budget for a comprehensive trails system which recommends feasible funding
levels for acquisition, maintenance and operations within an equitable framework of
taxation, and which reflects prudent fiscal management.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998 '
84
OPEN SPACE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
GOAL:
OSG 6.0 Identify and preserve historic and prehistoric sites, structures, and artifacts that
have value as significant cultural resources.
POLICIES:
OSP 6.1 Support the efforts of the Jefferson County Historical Society and other interested
groups, to:
a. Identify, evaluate and designate historic and prehistoric sites, structures, and artifacts
of cultural significance for inclusion on appropriate national, state, and/or local
registers;
b. Develop and implement a preservation program for the on -going protection and
preservation of designated cultural resources;
c. Develop and implement an education program to increase awareness, appreciation,
and voluntary preservation of cultural resources; and
d. Develop methods to link cultural resource preservation with tourism and local
economic development strategies.
OSP 6.2 Ensure that new development located adjacent to structures and sites of archeological
and/or historical significance is compatible with the character of the site.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
85
OPEN SPACE
STRATEGIES
A. OPEN SPACE STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for the management of open spaces focuses on identifying, preserving,
acquiring and linking open spaces in order to provide a wide variety of multiple -use opportunities to both
residents and visitors.
Action Items
1. Develop streamlined procedures for replatting and reviewing plats and short plats where the lots
in the original plat are aggregated and replatted in order to achieve better design and meet the
goals of this plan. Consider vacating unimproved plats created prior to 1937 and requiring they
be replatted to meet current allowed densities. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
2. A partnership with the Jefferson Land Trust should be developed for the preservation of open space
through fee - simple purchase and conservation easements. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
3. As a means of preserving open space, the County shall develop a Flexible Lot Design Subdivision
process which would permit cluster development, and provide specific open space guidelines and
standards. The Flexible Lot Design Subdivision shall consider and include as appropriate:
• Consideration for dedication of open space for public use;
• Protection of critical areas;
• Preservation of significant trees;
• Creative site design including placement of structures, circulation systems, and utilities that
minimize land alteration (i.e., a variety of lot sizes, building types, scale and design to reduce
the bulk of structures);
• Pedestrian orientation, including trails and walking paths;
• Adequate provision of public facilities and amenities;
• Preservation of natural features;
• Preservation or creation of farmland;
• Limited impervious surface /area of site disturbance;
• Public waterfront access and/or view;
• Establishment of perimeter buffers: from building site to building site, and from the
proposed project to adjacent land uses or roadways;
• Use of the most suitable soils for individual, on -site septic systems;
• Preservation of scenic views;
• Interconnection, where possible, with open space areas located on adjacent properties; and,
• Sharing of a single community well or water system (if feasible).
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998 '
86
OPEN SPACE
4. Criteria for the designation of open space areas in developments should consider providing
connections with adjoining open space areas, offering visual relief for on and off -site, enhancing
habitat values, and, where appropriate, allowing for recreational opportunities.
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
5. Implementing ordinances (Critical Areas, Subdivision, Parks & Recreation) should promote multiple
use of open space and wildlife corridors. (Corresponding Goal: 3.0)
6. Include provisions for a variety of innovative techniques to preserve open space and protect
environmentally critical areas and water resources. These techniques shall include, but not be
limited to:
• Open space tax incentives;
• Cluster development
• Transfer and purchase of development rights;
• Limiting the amount of lot coverage;
• Conservation easements;
• Landowner compacts;
• Trail systems, and
• Streamlining the application process for current use assessment
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
7. Promote and encourage the preservation of undeveloped open space through the acquisition of
property by local agencies or land trusts, trades with private or governmental landowners, and
incentives for developers. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0)
8. Develop a strategy utilizing a number of funding mechanisms to acquire open space lands, including,
but not limited to:
• Property tax levies;
• General obligation bonds and limited general obligation bonds;
• Intergovernmental funds (i.e., state grants);
• Foundation moneys;
• A 1/4 percent tax for capital facilities (RCW 82.46.010);
• Second 1/4 percent tax for capital facilities (RCW 82.46.035);
• "Tree tax" of up to one percent for acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas (RCW
82.46.070);
• Creation of Parks and Recreation Districts (RCW 36.69);
• Conservation futures funding (RCW 84.34)
• Fee - simple purchase;
• Less than fee - simple purchase (i.e., purchase of development rights and conservation
easements);
• Voluntary donations with tax incentives;
• Land transfers or exchanges; and
• Real estate excise tax.
(Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0)
I' Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998
87
OPEN SPACE
9. Continue to implement the Open Space Tax Program and associated Public Benefit Rating System
and consider establishing a Land Acquisition Rating System for open space. A special program
for the acquisition and development of marine waterfront properties (boat launch facilities and
waterfront trail and interpretive systems should be included.
(Corresponding Goal: 1.0)
B. PARKS AND RECREATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County remains committed to providing quality recreational facilities and opportunities to both
residents and visitors through the identification, provision and upkeep of recreational facilities and trail
systems.
Action Items
1. Develop a budget for park and recreation facilities which recommends feasible funding levels for
acquisition, maintenance and operations within an equitable framework of taxation, and which
reflects prudent fiscal management. (Corresponding Goal: 4.0)
2. Develop a Jefferson County Comprehensive Trails Plan with standards for design, construction and
maintenance of the County's trail system. (Corresponding Goal: 5.0)
C. HISTORIC PRESERVATION STRATEGY
Jefferson County's strategy for historic preservation is to support and promote its rich history and culture
by developing a historic preservation plan and working to receive Certified Local Government (CLG)
status.
Action Items
1. Develop a Jefferson County Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan in partnership with the
Jefferson County Historical Society. This plan is to include programs to inventory, evaluate,
preserve and protect the integrity of significant resources, to mitigate impacts and resolve
conflicts with incompatible development activities, and to promote the integration of these
resources into educational, tourism, and economic development strategies.
(Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
2. Support a Historic Preservation Plan that recommends feasible funding levels for the necessary
programs within an equitable framework of taxation and which reflects prudent fiscal
management. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
3. Obtain Certified Local Government (CLG) status through the Washington State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. (Corresponding Goal: 6.0)
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan August 28, 1998 ,
88
F",
jl
U
J
JEFFERSON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT
205 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock, WA 98339 - Phone (360) 385 -4105 FAX (360) 385 -4823
jccd @olypen.com
SOURCES- -
LANDOWNER ASSISTANCE FOR SALMON RECOVERY AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT
*'CONSERVATION DISTRICTS: Provide technical assistance to landowners for conservation
of natural resources. Assistance available depends on local district programs and usually
covers fish & wildlife habitat enhancement, water quality improvements for farming operations
and forest management.
• Administers the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) which rents and
plants stream buffers on agricultural land. Pays for rent, planting and maintenance.
"NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS): A branch of the US Dept.
of Agriculture which provides technical support to Conservation Districts and administers the
following programs: (Port Angeles office: 360- 457 -5091)
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP): A voluntary program that funds the restoration and
protection of wetlands on agricultural land. WRP purchases conservation easements on
marginal agricultural land and provides cost -share funding for wetland restoration.
* Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): Offers annual rental payments and cost -share
assistance to establish approved cover along streams on marginal pasture land.
• Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP): Provides technical assistance and cost -
share payments to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat an private. land.
**DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR): Administers the Forestry Incentive Program
(FIP), Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) and the Forestry Riparian Easement Program
(FREP), FiP provides funds for tree planting and forest stand improvement; SIP provides
cost -share funds for fish & wildlife habitat improvements on forest land; FREP partially
compensates small forest landowners for the value of trees they leave unharvested in riparian
areas in accordance with the forest practices rules. DNR also provides forest management
technical assistance through their Service Foresters and Forest Stewardship Coordinators.
Call DNR Regional Offices for more information (1 -800- 527 - 3305).
*"SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUPS: A community based program, partially funded by
Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, which provides funding, guidance and technical assistance for salmon
habitat restoration and enhancement projects. (North Olympic Salmon Enhancement
Coalition 360- 379 -8051; Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group 360 - 275 -3575)
'LAND TRUSTS: Provides a means whereby landowners can protect their property through
conservation easements and realize reductions in estate, property and income taxes. The
landowner can selectively remove development rights from the land are donated, to the Land
Trust for safekeeping. The terms of conservation easements become a permanent part of the
title to the property. (Jefferson Land Trust 360- 379 -9501)
89
CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM'
The Conservaticn Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a voluntary program to establish forested buffers
along streams in agricultural areas where riparian habitat is a significant limiting factor for salmon recovery. In
addition to providing habitat, the buffers improve water quality and increase stream stability,
Land enrolled in CREP is removed from production and grazing, under 10 -15 year contracts. in return,
landowners receive annual rental, incentive, and maintenance payments.
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is part of the USDA Farm Service Agency's
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), The Washington CREP is a Federal -State partnership to provide
incentives to restore and improve salmon and steelhead habitat on private lard.
Recent Irn rovements
Improvements to CREP approved in July, 2000 substantially increases! the payments that can be eamed under
the program. Rental payments were increased and 100% of the planting and maintenance costs are now
covered.
Annual Rental Payments
Annual rental payments are based on the FSA established rental rate for the soils in the offered acreage. The
rental payments on most riparian soils in E. Jefferson Co. will be around $2o01acrelyear. 'A one -time
signing incentive of $100 - $1501acre based on the length of contract will also be paid. In addition, 100° of the
costs of establishing the riparian buffer and maintaining it for up to 5 years will be paid.
Program Flexibility
CREP recognizes site variability. Buffer widths vary based on the soils enrolled and the native tree heights for the
area. The buffer boundary can be moved toward or away from the stream at different locations to meet
landowner needs, as long as the average meets the buffer. They can enroll one or both sides of:the stream, and
all or a portion of the eligible streams on their land. The applicant can choose a 10 to 15 year contract.
Qaible Land
Eligible land must be able to support trees and shrubs, be parallel and adjacent to an eligible stream and capable
of functioning as pasture.
There is no minimum or maximum acreage to enroll. However, the minimum buffer width is 50' feet, and the
maximum width is 180 feet
Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers must be planted to native trees and shrubs suitable to the site. Grasses will .also..be included if
necessary:' n y native species bf trees and shtub44111 be used,
The minimum buffer width is based on 75% of the mature height of the dominant native tree for the site. This
estimated tree height is based on the soils in the offered acreage. In no case can the buffer be less than 50 feet
wide,
The maximum average buffer width is 180 feet. If the specified minimum is less than 180 feet, as is usually the
case, ine landowner can still enroll up to a 180 -foot wide buffer,
'Technical assistance to design and install the buffer is provided by Natural Resources Conservation Service and
.Lcal Conservation Districts. If you are interested utilizing this program call the Jererson County GQnservation
D,strict Office at 385 -4105.
90
WILD OLYMPIC
' Working Towards Salmon Recovery on the Olympic Peninsula
A Salmon Recovery Newsletter
205A West Patison Street
Port Hadlock WA 98339 Winter/Spring
380 - 385~9329 p
wos@clympus.net 2001 de4dicd to. d6ficaft 4 aired valown
www.ollympus.nettedu/wos/
and elfeia.
WOS UP?
Since the last newsletter
arrived at your door some time
ago, this one presents a good
opportunity to bring all our chums
up to date on the state of WOS -
what's happening and what's
not - and reconnect with our
members and supporters not
involved in the day to day goings
on.
For one, we're back to our
roots as a totally volunteer
organization with no paid staff
(due to lack of funding) for the
first time in several years. This
means that the Board members
and active volunteers are taking
care of business and that there
are many opportunities for others
to become actively involved. The
current board is Jim Hackman -
Pres.; Ron Garton - Restoration
chair; Barb Nightingale -
everything!; Al Latham -
Treasurer_ They are doing the
bookkeeping, answering phone
messages and emails, keeping
track of Fin, etc. On the board's
wish list is someone to spend a
few hours a week keeping the
office organized - If you're
interested in helping out with day -
to-day organizational stuff come
on downl
The RESTORATION
committee is currently the most
active of the WOS activities. The
summer chum supplementation/
reintroduction projects on Salmon
and Chimacum Creeks are
moving right along, as you will
see in the other articles in this
newsletter. The
committee has
f u n- f i l l e d
meetings the
second Tuesday
of each month at
7PM in the
Conservation
District meeting
room (Thanks
CDI) downstairs
from our office at Shold Business
Plaza ( "Chum Plaza" to some).
To get on the RESTORATION
committee email list contact Ron
Garton (ronea golympus.nd).
WOS no longer
administers the DNR "Jobs for the
Environment" grant that employed
displaced natural resource
workers to do salmon habitat
restoration projects. We really
miss that capability of getting
some big projects done on the
ground and in the streams.
The EDUCATION and
CELEBRATION committees are
not as active as they have been in
the past. Folks who are
interested in reviving these
committees are encouraged to do
so.
There is plenty to do, especially
since this is the year of the next
Salmon Festival
FIN, our 25 foot traveling
salmon, has not been traveling
much lately. FIN has been
91
FIN & chums at NJ Carroll Park
hanging out at HJ Carroll park
quite a bit, watching over the fall
chum and coho redds in the creek
near the WOS shelter_ We would
like to revive an environmental
education program that would
have FIN visiting schools,
festivals, fairs and parades on a
regular basis. There is an
opportunity here for folks who
want to do environmental
education in company with a 25'
salmon to create a great program.
If you're interested talk with Al
Latham (732 - 4607).
The WOS shelter at HJ
Carroll Park also needs some
folks to continue the process of
turning it into an environmental
(Continued un page 2)
(continued from pg 1)
learning center. Linda Landkamer
has taken on the planning and
organization of the landscaping and is
looking for helpers, If you're interested
in fund raising,pianning and building
the improvements to the shelter
contact Jim Hackman (oak @olypen.
corm).
The WOS office has moved to
205A W. Pattison St. (Shold Business
Plaza). This is a convenient location for
the office as many of our partners
(North Olympic Salmon Coalition,
Jefferson Co. Conservation District,
Jefferson Land Trust, WSIJ Cooperative
Extension) are in the same complex,
not to mention Tom Jay's statue of the
chum leaping out of the parking lot.
So, there's lots happening with
WOS and more that could. One way to
help out and keep Wild Olympic Salmon
a viable organization is through your
continued financial support — we're
trying to do a better job of keeping you
posted on when your memberships are
up for renewal. And rest assured, the
WOS flame continues to burn as bright
as the bonfire at the Salmon Festival!
The Chimacum Watershed by Barb mgmingaie
The Chimacum Creek Watershed, draining 37
square miles of land with 29-1; mules of low gradient streams,
is the largest basin on the Quimper Peninsula. Once a system
of thickly forested streams meandering through swamps, wet
prairies, and beaver ponds, it supported abundant native salmon
populations of coho, cutthroat, steelhead, and summer -run
chum. Cumulative land -use impacts from logging, agricultural,
and residential Iand -uses have significantly compromised the
stream's ability to support these once robust salmonid
populations. In response to the 1988 extirpation of summer
chum in the lower creek, and out of an understanding of the
extent of habitat loss in the upper watershed, this community
has been actively working towards reversing habitat loss
throughout the creek system and building long -term sustainable
salmon runs in Salmon and Chimacum Creeks.
Patterns of Fish Use
Historically, Chimacurn Creek supported native coho,
cutthroat, and steelhead salmon in the upper watershed and
summer chum in the lower watershed below the Irondalc
Culvert. Although variations can occur, coho, cutthroat, and
steelhead populations tend to spawn and rear as juveniles in the
upper watershed of Chimacum Valley. The gravels near
Irondale Culvert and in the upper watershed are the spawning
gravels for coho, while the gravels in the very lowest region,
just above the marsh and estuary, are the spawning gravels of
the summer chum.
Summer Chum Loss
Due to a number of factors (habitat impacts, harvest,
ocean conditions, etc.) the summer chum became extirpated by
1988. A critical habitat impact for this run was the loss of viable
spawning grounds. Storm events in the 1980's triggered two
dramatic road failures in both the upper and lower watersheds.
Thcso events released immense fine sediment loads into the
creek causing a cementation of the spawning gavels and
making it impossible for returning spawners to dig redds.
Historical changes to channel geomorphology and
riparian vegetation throughout the watershed through
channelization, riparian and wetland losses, and the loss of
beaver dams have made it difficult for the stream to absorb the
2001 SALMON FES77VALI
It's Salmon Festival time
again. Planning for this year's
festival "Spawning: Community ties -
Celebrating Partnerships" is on. We
want to focus this years event on the
unique partnerships that make
salmon recovery so dynamic in our
community. We invite all our
"partners in salmon" to join us in
October at HJ Carroll Park. 111 be a
potluck in the park, with envinamental
booths, children's activities, music
and a bonfire. And of course,
volunteers are needed.
energy and water volume of episodic and chronic storm events
without catastrophic landscape changes and further habitat
losses. These changes and the subsequent simplification of the
stream's geomorphology, with reduced stream meandering and
reduced large woody debris input, have increased the movement
of fine sediments to the lower summer chum spawning beds.
Fine Sediments and Habitat Loss
Chum females prefer spawning sites near upwellings or
immediately above turbulent areas to insure adequate oxygen
for egg survival. Upon selecting her site, she digs her nest and
sweeps it clean of fine sediments that may limit oxygen to the
eggs and suffocate her young. Following spawning, the female
will bury the eggs and guard to her death against their
disturbance. Both the eggs and the alevins require oxygen while
they incubate in stream gravels. During this period, they are
highly susceptible to any deposition of fine sediments.
Subsequent removal of vegetation and ensuing land erosion into
the streambed can significantly reduce their chances of survival.
When upstream road failures and chronic strearosidc erosion
combine, a dangerously high level of fuze sediments becomes
deposited in the lower strcambed. These fine sediments smother
the spawning beds by filling in the spaces between the gravels
and limiting the flow of oxygenated water to the incubating eggs
and alevins in the gravels.
1
1
92 1
I
WOS
+
volunteers
capturing
chum fry at
�y
Chimacum
hatchery
for
intro lion
tttt.
b ,rte
1i1�.7
into
G'bltnru:um
1
1
92 1
Summer Chum Recovery Efforts
Both the Chimacum Creek and Salmon Creek summer chum runs are part of the Hood Canal/Straits
of Juan de Fuca summer chum Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). In 1999, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) determined the dwindling status of these populations serious enough to warrant a listing as
"threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. (ESA). The geographic boundaries of this ESU include
Hood Canal, the entire Jefferson County shoreline along Puget Sound, Port Townsend. Bay, Admiralty Inlet,
and west to include the Dungeness River. The Point No Point Treaty Tribes and Washington State
Department of fish and Wildlife developed an implementation plan to recover summer chum in this ESU. This
plan identified the following factors for the decline of summer chum in Chimacum:
•high percentage of fine sediments in spawning gravels,
•loss of beaver ponds, wetlands, and forested bogs to decrease the magnitude of winter flows and maintain
adequate summer flows,
*low flow during the summer spawning period,
•water quality impairment, and
•lack of riparian forests.
WOS CHUM RECOVERY EFFORTS - NATIVE
SUMMER CHUM SUPPLEMENTATION
In the early 1990's WOS volunteers began working
with WDFW staff to develop a plan for increasing the number
of summer chum returning to Salmon Creek_ The idea was
that after the returns reached a certain number that some of
the salmon creek eggs would be raised in the Chimacum
watershed to reintroduce summer chum there. By 1996 the
I'll ogram at Salmon Creek was successful enough that the
first eggs were shipped across the ridge to Chimacum Creek. The success of this program to date is due to
many hours of labor by dedicated WOS volunteers with a surprisingly small amount of funding. Following are
reports on the projects by some of the volunteers who make it happen.
Salmon Creek and Chimacum Creek Hatcheries by Dick schneider
WOS has been operating two small hatcheries to provide young fish for restoring the extinct run of summer
chum salmon in Chimacum Creek. A hatchery on Salmon Creek has been going for over eight years and has
increased the run in that stream from about 100 fish returning per year to over 700. Some of these fish then
provide eggs for a hatchery on a tributary of Chimacum Creek. Starting in early November, we incubate the
eggs and newly hatched alevins in trays that have water flowing through them constantly. In February and
Mar&, the fish use their stored yolk and develop the ability to swim and feed. They are then held in tanks of
fresh water or net pens in sea water and fed until they are about two inches long. They are
usually released near the end of April. The fish return as adults in three or four years to spawn in either
Chimacum or Salmon Creeks, depending upon in which creek waters they were reared. The first returns to
Chimacum Creek were, as expected, in September of 1999 when we counted 55 aults and another 52 came
back in 2000. Each hatchery requires the work of eight volunteers for six months of the year.
Salmon Creek Hatchery Report by Cheri Scarf
2000 was a good year for Salmon Creek summer chum. Last September and October 846 wild fish returned
to the creek to spawn. Eggs from 65 of the females (about 165,000) were divided between the Chimacum
Creek and Salmon Creek programs. Ninety -one thousand of them have hatched into alevin (sack fry) and
are incubating at the Salmon Creek hatchery. They'll be released from salt water net pens into Discovery
Bay this coming April-Long time volunteers Tom Jay, Robbie Robinson, Bruce Marston, Cheri Scalf, Bob
Marett, Noreen McCarron, and Clif Crandell make up the crew. WDFW'sThom Johnson, Fish Biologist,
Ginna Correa, Habitat Biologist, and the Dungeness Fish Hatchery staff give direction and technical support.
Fending for operations and otolith analysis are provided by the North Olympic Salmon Coalition.The
following chart shows the recent history of the return to this tributary of Discovery Ray. The project was
initiated in 1992. Summer chum salmon from this program returned as adults beginning in 1995. Otolith
marking was not distinct enough until 1997 to differentiate natural from program fish.
See chart on next page for illustration of Salmon Creek chum escapement numbers.
93
3500
3000
Jfi 2500
$ 2000
M 1500
= 1000
Z 500
0
Salmon Crook Summer Chum Escapement
(1974-1999)
CJ C� N �A �A P ftl Cfl O r N M st t[7 t0 A OD 07 d
1► 1� A A A M i0 0� cO D O m Q3 Of Of O7 Of O 0.1 Qf O
Vi 01 rn of r. V- o- c, U O — — — — - a, W — —
.r .r r r r r r r r r r r r r r � �- � � .- .-
Jimmycomelately Report
by Cheri Scalf
It's the second year of this
intervention to restore the unique stock
of Jimmycomelately Crock summer
chum salmon. JCL Creek flows into
Sequirn Bay at Blyn. Coho, steelhead,
cutthroat trout and summer chum use the
creek.
Years ago the lower section of
the creek was relocated. Now we can
see that those habitat changes have
contributed to the scouring (tearing
apart) and burying of redds (egg nests)
with high stream flows. 1996 and 1997
had particularly dramatic storm events.
In the lower reaches, where chum spawn,
gravel and other sediment has built up to
where the creek is only a shallow
shadow of it's former self. Not many fry
are snaking it out and in 1999 only 7
adults trade it back. This past season
had a return of 55.
The Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe, Clallam County, Washington
Departments of Fish and Wildlife,
Transportation, and Ecology, U.S_ Fish
and Wildlife Service, and others have
been working together for the past few
years to orchestrate the return of the
estuary to it's historic sinuous channel.
It's a monumental undertaking requiring
several property parcel purchases, road
obliteration, and bridging Highway 101
in order to recreate a more functional
estuary that will provide stable habitat
for the chum and many other species as
.rc11.
Habitat restoration will give the
runs a future. Wild Olympic Salmon is
Year
joining the WDFW and the North
Olympic Salmon Coalition to help
increase the survival rate of the returning
adult's progeny as those habitat changes
are being trade. Keeping the gene pool
as broad as possible and giving overall
numbers a boost over three chum
generations (9 to 12 years), will give the
JCL summer chum a good chance to
return to a self-sustaining level_
The project runs from late
August on into April. Wild summer
chum adults are intercepted and
artificially spawned at a temporary trap
near the creek mouth. The eggs are
fertilized and incubated at the WDFW
Iiurd Creek hatchery near Sequim until
they're eyed up and close to hatching.
Some of the eggs are then wttuned to a
remote incubation and rearing site on a
small spring fed tributary to JCL Creek.
The remaining eggs stay at Hurd Creek
until they're through with the incubation
phase, then they're transferred back to
the site as fry to grow more and irngrint
on the JCL watershed prior to release.
The fish are released into the creek near
the mouth in April where they continue
their journey out to the estuary and
beyond. Last year we incubated 4,100
eyed up eggs and released 3,900 fry_
This year we're incubating 26,000.
Cheri Scalf, WDFW, is the
project leader for the remote site
operation. Al Davis, Jack Smith, Rudy
Putz, Ted Shanks, Dave Bailey,
Wolfgang Born, and Don LaGuardia
make up the core volunteer crew - This is
an extremely hardworking and vigilant
crew, they've helped with setting up and
■ Supplementation
0 Natural
Note: 2000 data i5
total return - data
not analyzed yet.
taking down the temporary adult trap,
monitoring the creek for spawners,
spawning and biologic sampling,
constructing and monitoring the remote
rearing site, transferring fish in, and
releasing fish. Many others have helped
along the way and some extra help will
be most welcome in spring when it
conies time to pack buckets of fry down
and up the trail. Contact Cheri at 360-
765 -3979 or salalQnlj=us.nct if you'd
like to know snore.
Free at last! .Summer chrvn fry are
released into the lower reach of
Chimacum Creek by WOS
volunteers.
J
1
I I
94 1
Pacific Salmon in Eastern Jefferson County by Barb Nightingale
Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) depend upon a wide range of habitats throughout their life cycle. Eastern
Jefferson County has at least sixteen salmon- bearing streams draining into the marine and estuarine waters in Hood
Canal, Oak Bay, Port Ludlow Bay, and Discovery Bay. Seven of these streams support Hood Canal summer churn.
presently listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as "threatened" and four support runs of ESA - listed Puget
Sound chinook . These listed species, along with pinks, return to their Hood Canal streams to spawn in September and
October. Their fry emerge from the gravels in early spring of the following year for spring and summer outmigration to
the open ocean as fry and fingerlings. The pinks and summer chum outmigrate as fry, 35 mm, while the chinooks
outmigrate to the marine waters of Hood Canal and Puget Sound as fingerlings, (60- 90mm). All these streams appear to
support cutthroat trout with at least seven streams supporting steelhead. Coho and fall chum have a slightly different
cycle with their return being between October and January. With some exceptions, the coho species in this region tend to
rear in their natal stream for one to two years. The spring and summer outmigration of fry and fingerlings places them in
the Puget Sound estuary during its peak period of primary production. The following table identifies salmon populations
supported by Eastern Jefferson County streams draining into Hood Canal, and Port Ludlow, Port Townsend, and
Discovery Bays.
Marine Nearshore Habitat
Springs increased sunlight and primary production fuel the juvenile salmonid food web. In marine and estuarine waters,
juveniles prey upon the small copepods, such as the harpaetieoids, that feed upon diatoms and other microbial colonizers
associated with plant material. Eelgrass beds have been found to support five to eight times the abundance of these
copepods compared to other nearshore habitats. This is due to the rich prey resources available to the copepods in the
brown epiphytic felt accumulating on eelgrass shoots. Studies of migrating juvenile chum in Hood Canal suggest links
between the availability of harpacticoid crops, migration speed, and fish size. Smaller crops of harpacticoids appeared to
be linked with faster migration speeds and smaller fish size. This period of estuarine residence is one of critical growth
and high mortality risks. The stresses they encounter upon entering estuarine waters are immense:. Their entry into
saltwater triggers a series of hormonal and rapid physiologic change, that coupled with their small size increase the risks
of predation. Eelgrass shoots also provide them with protection from predators during this vulnerable period. Given the
juvenile chum reliance on nearshore estuarine habitat, they are particularly susceptible to productivity changes in
nearshore habitats. It is important to remember that land -use practices around marine waters also impact salmon habitat.
Alterations to nearshorc substrate type, light availability, and wave energy alter the basic mechanisms supporting these
nearshore marine ecosystems that support juvenile fish during their vulnerable growth period.
95
Present Eastern Jefferson Coon Salmon Po ulations
-:i ..�:
,..: ._ .: .::�:.:. �...?• :,.:;:.'.::, :;
�•�:'�:'.'
':... <2
.,:........,..,:...
Fl 1i�
s�u:w r!il..
�n.1 , �'M•�.:
ij wRRy ..
.gip{. 1.
_ iii^,^_
eii� �/�r.;�G��nwt
w' wr.:
.4
.n:'V.' �M..
X
/per',' yt
!��i,�
1 ' rl.! t ir' CI'
f`r`•
X
Vl"iri
1
.1j....il`
X
Big it
X
X
X
X
Little Quil
X
X
Chimacurn
X
X
X
X
X
C:ontraLtor's
X
X
Dosewalli s
X
X
X
X
X
X
Duckabush
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ea We Greek
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
unk
Jackson
X
X
Ludlow
X
X
X
Salmon
X
X
X
X
Shine
X
Snow
X
-
X
X
X
5 er
X
X
Tarboo
X
X
X
X
Thornd ke
X
X
X
Wolcott
X
X
Marine Nearshore Habitat
Springs increased sunlight and primary production fuel the juvenile salmonid food web. In marine and estuarine waters,
juveniles prey upon the small copepods, such as the harpaetieoids, that feed upon diatoms and other microbial colonizers
associated with plant material. Eelgrass beds have been found to support five to eight times the abundance of these
copepods compared to other nearshore habitats. This is due to the rich prey resources available to the copepods in the
brown epiphytic felt accumulating on eelgrass shoots. Studies of migrating juvenile chum in Hood Canal suggest links
between the availability of harpacticoid crops, migration speed, and fish size. Smaller crops of harpacticoids appeared to
be linked with faster migration speeds and smaller fish size. This period of estuarine residence is one of critical growth
and high mortality risks. The stresses they encounter upon entering estuarine waters are immense:. Their entry into
saltwater triggers a series of hormonal and rapid physiologic change, that coupled with their small size increase the risks
of predation. Eelgrass shoots also provide them with protection from predators during this vulnerable period. Given the
juvenile chum reliance on nearshore estuarine habitat, they are particularly susceptible to productivity changes in
nearshore habitats. It is important to remember that land -use practices around marine waters also impact salmon habitat.
Alterations to nearshorc substrate type, light availability, and wave energy alter the basic mechanisms supporting these
nearshore marine ecosystems that support juvenile fish during their vulnerable growth period.
95
Local Salmon Restoration ActivitleS by Al Latham
Jefferson County residents, community groups, and
agencies have been active in salmon restoration activities
since the mid 1980's. The "Four Creeks Association'
organized several projects to provide fish access to road
culverts on Tarboo, Chimacum and Naylors Creeks in the
mid 80's. These efforts evolved into the creation of Wild
Olympic Salmon (WOS) in 1988. Jefferson County
Conservation District, with assistance from the USDA Soil
Conservation Service, became more active in water
quality and salmon habitat issues at about the same time.
The Conservation District began working with landowners
and WOS to fence livestock out of streams, plant trees in
riparian zones, and provide technical assistance for
salmon habitat related projects to landowners, WOS and
other agencies. Funding for these projects came from
volunteers and community donations and the USDA cost -
sharing programs. In 1990, the state formed and began
funding Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups
(RFEG's) made up of local volunteers. North Olympic
Salmon Coalition (NOCS) is the group formed to cover
the northern Jefferson and Clallam County's salmon area.
Their counterpart, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement
Group, covers the southern part of Jefferson County.
Since it's formation, NOSC has been a key funding
source for Wild Olympic Salmon and Conservation District
restoration projects_ In addition to the above WOS has
also been partnering with Jefferson Land Trust and
WDFW for acquisition of salmon habitat through
conservation easements and land purchases.
Until 1993 all the fencing, restoration and culvert
projects were done either by volunteers or the
Washington Conservation Corps. In 1993 the legislature
appropriated funding for DNR to start the "Jobs for the
Environment" (JFE) grant program which provided
funding to hire displaced timber workers to do salmon
habitat restoration work. Wild Olympic Salmon, Olympic
Peninsula Foundation, NOSC, local WDFW staff, and the
Conservation District worked together to obtain one of
these grants in 1993 and continued to get JFE grants
through 1999. WOS did the project management initially
and eventually took over the grant administration also.
Having a skilled crew with funding for equipment and
materials led to an expansion of the salmon habitat
restoration efforts.
Some of the salmon restoration projects that Wild
Olympic Salmon volunteers have taken the lead on over
the years include:
• Salmon / Chimacum Creek Summer Chum
Reintroduction Project: To reintroduce summer chum
to Chimacum Creek WOS volunteers have
undertaken a long term project (6.12 years) where
WOS volunteers have built up the numbers of
summer chum in Salmon Creek to a level high
enough to move some of the cggs over to Chimacum
Crk. The first return of spawning adults to Chimacum
Crk. occurred in 1999.
• Eelgrass planting project to increase the eelgrass
density in the nearshore environment at the mouth of
the Chimacum creek.
• Conducting a habitat survey of the lower reach of
Chi mecum Creek_
• Tree planting along various creeks.
• Construct fences to restrict livestock access to
streams.
• Constructing log weirs to improve habitat and allow
passage of fish through barrier culverts.
•A coho supplementation project on Chimacum Creek.
*Remote Site Incubators (RSI's) to reintroduce chum to
Thomdyke and Tarboo creeks.
*Sediment analysis of Chimacum and Salmon Creeks.
•Intragravel dissolved oxygen monitoring in Chimacum
Creek,
*Gravel cleaning in Chimacum Creek.
The Jobs For The Environment crews run by
WOS and working closely with the Conservation District
and NOSC, have constructed approximately 20 miles of
stream fencing, replaced fish barrier culverts, stabilized
streambanks and have done major habitat restoration
work on over 25,000 ft_ of streams.
Presently, the main focus of the WOS Restoration
Committee includes the Salmon /Chimacum Creek
reintroduction project and the Chimacum Creek habitat
survey. Many WOS members do "double duty" as
members of NOSC, also participating in spawning
surveys and the Snow Creek coho supplementation
project. The Restoration Committee is also doing
strategic planning for salmon recovery on Chimacum
Creek and looking for opportunities to work on other
streams in Jefferson County. When you step back and
took at all WOS has accomplished over the years, it adds
up to a pretty impressive body of work.
96
Sediment — Greatest Threat to Salmon Habitat? by Glenn Gately
(Reprinted fron Jeff. Co. Conservation District. newsletter)
In a 1996 survey of 47 states managing
coldwater fisheries, "habitat degradation" was ranked
the greatest obstacle (38 states) to maintaining self -
sustaining trout populations. Within this broader
category, "erosion or sediments" topped the list in 34
states. The results of this survey confirmed my own
long -held belief that sediment is one of the biggest, if
not the biggest, threat to trout and salmon habitat.
The problem with sediment (i.e., fines) is that
it clogs the spaces within the gravel on the stream
bottom. This is harmful in two ways: first, it reduces
the habitat of mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and
other invertebrates, which are food to trout and
juvenile salmon; second, it reduces or completely
stops intragravel water flow, which carries needed
oxygen to developing salmon eggs, sac -fry, and
invertebrates.
That the intragravel dissolved oxygen (IGDO)
level can be much lower than that of the surface
water was made apparent by a study conducted in
lower Chimacum Creek by Wild Olympic Salmon
(especially Mike Kennedy) and the Conservation
District. During the 1999 -2000 chum salmon egg
incubation period, dissolved oxygen was measured
in surface and intragravel water every 3 weeks. As
Figure 1 shows, IGDO levels were often substantially
less than that of that of the surface water. Much
variation in DO concentration occurred from one date
to the next at some sites, and much variation
occurred among different sites sampled on the same
date. Apparently, the situation within the gravel is a
dynamic one. EPA lists 3 ppm as the critical level
below which acute mortality occurs and 8 ppm as the
level above which no impairment occurs. Obviously,
it does a sac -fry little good to have the DO level re
cover after it experiences an acutely low period.
Back to the cause of the problem --- sediment.
What can we do about it? The answer is "anything
that will keep it out of the creek." We certainly need
to look farther away than the immediate banks of the
creek, although that is a good place to begin.
Sediment is perhaps the best example of nonpoint
pollution. Sediment comes from a variety of places,
a variety of sources, and at a - variety of times. It is
the accumulative impact of sediment that can be
deadly to salmon. Sediment comes from erasion —
the force of moving stream water on its banks or that
of rain hitting bare soil and carving it to the creek.
The best defense against erosion is vegetation- -from
grass to shrubs to trees. Both, roots and foliage
provide protection.
In the 1980's summer chum salmon went
extinct in Chimacum Creek. This occurred within a
few years of a culvert blowout on Irondale Road,
which contributed tons of sediment to lower
Chimacum Creek where the chum traditionally
spawned. Recently, through the efforts of Wild
Olympic Salmon and others, summer chum are
being reestablished. The IGDO results show that
there are some places where salmon may survive in
the gravel and other places where they may not. We
hope that the spawning salmon are able to select the
best places. In any event, let's do what we can to
increase their chances in Chimacum Creek and in all
our salmon streams. We all live in some watershed.
Take a look around where you live. Is there
something you can do to lessen the amount of
sediment entering our streams?
Figure 1. Comparison of the dissolved oxygen level in the surface water to levels in the gravel of six simulated redds (G1-
' G8) at three locations in Chimacum Creek. Chart included to demonstrate variability - contact Glenn at Jeff. Co.
Conservation Dist. (385 -4105) for larger scale version.
97
a��or�riaa
a#i orsar +•
�iir�s��•
ea
otzr�nsra
017120 t90
C17r2a1:0
=S Ja /0
M 313 10 0
w91s a too
2 .v
i 0.e
a
�
a.o
m
�
a.0
�s
4 .0
s
o
t.o
o.o
97
a��or�riaa
a#i orsar +•
�iir�s��•
ea
otzr�nsra
017120 t90
C17r2a1:0
=S Ja /0
M 313 10 0
w91s a too
A special THANK YOU to:
The Northwest Fund for the Environment for the grant funding given to WOS that funded the last
Salmon Festival, this newsletter and the new WOS brochure that should be out soon.
♦ And to all those faithful WOS supporters who have renewed their memberships and donated
funds to WOS. Most memberships expired on April 1 so if it has been awhile since you paid your
membership it has probably expired!
YOU CAN SUPPORT WILD OLYMPIC SALMON BY BECOMING A MEMBER,
DONATING FUNDS AND /OR VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME.
Here is a handy membership form to send in with
your donation, new membership or membership Yearly Dues
renewal.
Please make your tax deductible check payable to:
Wild Olympic Salmon
205 A W. Patison St.
Port Hadlock WA 98339
Naive:
Address:
City, State, Zip
Wild Olympic Salmon
205A W. Patison St.
Port Hadlock WA 98339
>r�
Alevin (studeuttlow income) .... $15
'Fry ( individual ) ................. „......$25
Smolt ( family ) ..........................$50
Spawner (contributing).........$100
Tyee (over 100) ..............over $100
NON- PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Chimacum, WA
98325
Permit #7
u
98 1
CrHI :MACULA CREEK WATERSHED
e E
Selman Recovery a
Activities ti •` :: '!(
Wild Olympic Salmon and t , .
our chums have been -t
o Vem
worlung nn salmon recovrry w. 'f
Mr over 12 years. In this r (',p /tq(�
hmc,.we have eccompliahed ` rid18H'16�Ar
the f211owhtq in Ibis
e 7 mdea of stream fencing '' S~n »•'•�'�
e 8100 fret a stream t• _`':„
�F; a
reslnrelron � Prat ,'�.�;,.ir• C + • i
Had
0 20 acres cil ciao plantings
along sveurmt; ° i ` ~I
s 130 acres of habitat
protected through
:onservaflon catemdntli ! / �� , ••:
tlnd arrlur diflnnA
y Andsr Lake
�7y
Y; ' intlacmu
c
1�` cl�ia _ a ,
elanty I eke () r
ke �eusitsl_ �.. .
Lake
_ r
_x
l
11 �11
Chimaaatn Creek ;
Watershed
This watershed is the largest
basin on the Quimper
Penmsula It drains 37 sq
miles of Innd lHough 28.5
mdea of low, gradient
streams. Taiboo ■ \ i .�
11 •i'' 'i���\ f
Summer (burn use o
watorahad. gist up from Part i T•� t
town 11-1 say: far
sphwning Cohn, swelhead yi�t1dI01M
and cutthroat utilized most -..;p LIIlO0.
of the rest of the watershed
lot upawning Ana rronng. I
Fins Sediments i Okfrwwesre crook Bekssra The t2ktmeeisra Cmiak Watembsd
FA AIR salmon prefer to lay their epos near turbulent areas of up and This watorahad we. once a systom of thickly forested etreene meamlattnq
domnwallmgs. These are known as riffles. This lurbultlabo parcalates through swamps, wet prairies, and beaver ponds lhal euppocod Abundant natlw
oxygen through the gravels and provkfAS the yovne with the oxygen they salmomds such as colic, atealhadd. CuttheoAt, and Summer chum. Cumuiafrve,
aaad far rtevelapninnt. Upon 'alacting is good nesting site redd with high impacts from t000fno• aoncultwraf. and residential land-uses have coniprorm itc
mygen poionnal, the female digs het neat and sweeps it clean of the fine the v+atoeshad's ability to "pport theme once robust sii populations. in
sediments Shn then lays her eg;is and guordin them to her A*Alh. Aflar response to the loss of summer chum In Chmtacum Crack, the community has
her death. fall and winter storm flows can transport time sediments from bean b -sy recavenng the run and restoring but halntat tlguu0hou4 lI.q water•
upstream sources and deposit them sit kh*oo nests The degree to which shad. Changes to Channel shape And Rho team of surrounding vegetation,
No sodrAionts Are deposited on these masts is determined by the area'a at of a. and beaver ponds have reduced the stream'* ability to ehmorh iho
geology the stream's shape. and the amount of fine sadlat*nti last wa anargy and water volume of bolh epieodle and ChrcolC storm events. This has
allow to enter the creek. WO can hafp thee* small salmon survive their resulted in Increased fine sediments being deposited to the summer chum
Incubation period by Iskirtg stops to provtint floe sedimnts from entering apawnlAO bOAS in the lower watershed and reduced roaring and spaw,00
the creek ui thit fast WK4 habitat for enho In the upper wateraned-
sir►aw'ew.vwsrw rrm.iw v,rw ice. n.,t
99
STREAMS AND WATERSHEDS VAW ftyuric sitgl.S611
OF
E=ASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY lk
WASHINGTON
a
t of WO
'l'his map illustrates the a :Ieosive network of streanns ... dedlmte t to the haalM � �,-,
that make up the isndacape in & Jefferson County, saknon and theh chunts..-
The smaller streams eombbte with each other as they
flow down frlrat the mountains and bills to the sea. i • '`
i'hough each stream sat meat is it's own small a :
water xited the combination of all the drainages
entering altwater to ethorare l
g g tiroupe.l into major _ J �-
w;ttonheds,
Aulmon unfits a surprising number of even the
smalicst drainages as long as seem is not blocked by NH
mate r2l or man-made obstractioos.. r
�~! �� � i1 I � � 1.��y •..111 y�. /)I =} /r
r -r U J j
4 lhr Vhf ,� •'� t i.' +
�D •KArt}i
Z/
Taila:s qe JOM Afnn Co1mN IDMS eM IM
Wnu� 17 pWnnYroq ,s,q for help wdh me:n
t
LECt:Na
Wttrrultd any
aoeda
SALMON IN'I'RE WATERSHEDS
allhg: All watersheds
Cophr6at. All watersheiJY
If. Summer Chum; Salmon/Snow. Ch:macum> Big & 1.1111e Ouilcene:,
lq ,' Dosewallip, Puckabush
Fall Chum: Salmon/Snow, C:himoctim, Tarhoo, Big &.1•ildo Quiluene,
Dabobflitomdyke, Dosc%,414TA, T)uck4bush
Stoolhi —k: Salmon/Snew, Chimacum, Rig & t.igdc clv.O m, lloscwallip.,
Duckabush
Chinook: Duekabush, Da.wwallips, Big C2uacene
Plak: Duckal"-,h, i)osawallips —
100
Jefferson Land Trust
' P.O. Box 1610 Phone: (380) 379-9501
Port Townsend, WA 98388 E -mail: saveland.org
'
Jefferson Land Trust is a non - profit organization whose mission is to work with the community to preserve
open space and habitat forever. The Land Trust was founded in 1989 to serge the conservation needs of east
Jefferson County and has had a steady increase in community support, operating budget and successful land
' transactions ever since. We offer a means of permanent protection to landowners and provide education and
outreach to the community through special events, programs, newsletters and other literature. We work
closely with other state, county, city and local organizations and agencies involved in land conservation in east
Jefferson County,
Land Protection Activities
Jefferson Land Trust currently protects almost 800 acres of important lands in east Jefferson County, mostly
through conservation easements with 25 different landowners. Protected properties range from a half lot urban
park next to an historic fountain in Port Townsend to 190 acres of working farm and foresdand in the foothills of
the Olympic Mountains. In addition to easements, the Land Trust has been working on several important
projects in east Jefferson County.
Bulls Forest Preserve
In 1995, Erica Bulis donated 130 acres of mostly forested land to Jefferson Land Trust. Located next to Old
Fort Townsend State Park, it offers some unique features and ongoing opportunities.
• Andrew's Meadow. A five -acre meadow in the center of the forest still has two old log cabins and
apple orchard in place, which we are working to preserve.
• 5martWood Forest. Though the majority of the forest is meant to remain undisturbed, 30 acres are
available for harvesting of forest products. We completed SmartWood Certification, and last year this
portion was thinned by horse logging.
• Pet Memorial Garden. This garden was a specific request of Mrs. Bulls as part of the donation and
serves as an opportunity for the community to enjoy the preserve and appreciate native plants.
Chimacum Creek
The Land Trust has been working with several organizations and agencies involved in protecting vital salmon
habitat along Chimacum Creek, the salmon stream being restored and protected close to port Townsend.
• Land Protection. During the past year, we purchased over $500,000 worth of conservation easements
along Chimacum Creek, These funds came from State grants and Federal monies. We currently hold 5
easements on Chimacum Creek, protecting approbmately 80 acres.
• Chumsordum. The Land Trust coordinates a salmon habitat protection partnership that includes the
county, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wild Olympic Salmon, North Olympic Salmon
Coalition, Jefferson County Conservation District and Trout Unlimited.
Quimper Wildlife Corridor,
Jefferson Land Trust has been proactively working to protect a three -mile greenbelt of native vegetation that
links a string of wetlands in the City of Port Townsend's largest natural storm water drainage.
Capital Campaign. The Land Trust just completed a successful $400,000 capital campaign for land
acquisition in the Quimper Wildlife Corridor, with 80% of the funding from local donors. Community
support for this project also generated an additional $41,000 worth of land donations.
• Acquisitions. The Land Trust has acquired over 134 platted lots in the key connective portions of the
corridor, and is working to acquire remaining parcels to complete the greenbelti.
101
JEFFERSON LAND TRUST 2001 PROTECTED PROPERTIES
O. Kilham )_aria Conses #v lion Fasemertt.1992
Conservation Easements held: 612 acres
Jefferson Land Trust owned: 148 acres
Protected Property Descriptions
A. Middleooint Land Conservanoy's Consarvallon
Easement. 1992
The 40 acres of the Middlepoint Land Conservancy were
subdiv fed into "Iva. acre. lots with access and utilities
by private roadway. Within each lot there is a designated
area (approximately one acre) for residential use. The
conservation easement creates no restrictions on
development within the homesites. The remainder of
each lot is subject to extensive restrictions to protect the
habitat provided by the shoreline bluffs and forested
uplands, which have been documented to be important
to the bird and wildlife species of the area and Is
considered part of the Qytmper Wildlife Corridor.
!?ti Q.ftperWildlifeCorridor
Jefferson Land Trust has bean working to prottt e
ribbon of green across the North Quimper Peninsula for
several years. The Land Trust has acquired over 100
platted lots in the wildlife condor that provide key
forested and wetland connections between the
Middlepoint Land Conservancy easement and Fort
Worden State Park. The ribbon of green follows the
natural drainage basin and provides important habitat
for over 100 native bird species, frogs, newts, and small
mammals. The wetlands of the corridor are also
important as part of the pion begun by the City of Port
Townsend for storm water storage, filtration end hwt-
ment. Acquisition of lands began in 1997 and continues.
J - = • _S
Jefferson Land Trust owns a full, one -acre block of
forested land in the Baker;Addition plat to the west of the
fairgrounds and in an area known as "Cappy's Trails ".
This land was purchased from Andy and Erica Thurston
through a 'bargain sale.' The difference between the
appraised fair market value and the actual selling price
was treated by the IRS as; a tax deductible donation from
the Thurstons to Jefferson Land Trost.
Frank and Onda Kilham owned mote than 60 platted lots plus some unplatted land (about 15 acres total) inside Port Townsend city
limits, which they operated as a farm for years. The property is adjacent to the Port Townsend Business Park and several recently
developed residential neighborhoods. The Kilhams wanted to assure the land would remain intact and be reserved for agricultural uses
into the future. The conservation easement they donated to Jefferson Land Trust restricts further residential development, and limits the
property to agricultural use.
E. Wastarmsn Piet EM Conservation Easement 1993
Shelia Westerman is the owner of two lots in the heart of the commercial district of Port Townsend. The property has a 3 -level office
building on the westerly 42 feet. The conservation easement prohibits any buildings or cutting of trees on the remainder of the property,
preserving an open space area adjacent to the Haller Fountain,
Holly Manor is an historic residence bttik by J. C. Saunders in 1895. Located on Sims Way just to the west of Manresa Castle, this scenic
mew Is the first of the Yctorian Homes one sees when entering Port Townsend from the west. The conservation easement placed on
the platted - lots -frombV -the residence prevent further residential development, and ensure retention of open space and scenic views of
the mansion by limiting the height of vegetation and outbuildings.
G_ Janifil Bub fcrest Preserve, 199T
Janis and Erika Buffs purchased and built a residence on 130 acres of forested land adjacent to Old Fort Townsend State Park. Most of
the trees are second growth, with a small area of old- growth forest and wetlands near the SE comer. Following Mr. Bulis' death in 1998,
Mrs. Bulls donated the property to Jefferson Land Trust, reserving a life estate for herself on 5 acres around the residence. Approximately
90 acres of the forest. The Janis Bulls Forest Preserve, will be maintained in perpetuity in its natural state. An additional 25 acres will be
used as a Smartwood Certified, managed productive forest, to provide financial support to steward the Preserve. As per Mrs. Bulls'
wishes, the Land Trust has created a one -acre Pet Memorial Garden in the northwest comer of the property.
K Baron Pond Conservation Easement 1996
Heron Pond Ranch is a 60 + acre, non - commercial equestrian park development located on Discovery Road northwest of Chevy Chase
Golf Course. Eleven residential parcels located on the margins of the properly share the central open space pastures, which are pro-
tected by a conservation easement. The protected area can be used for trails and pasture, although horses will be restricted from the
central wetland areas during the wet seasons.
102
Protected Property Descriptions (Continued)
1. Landkammer Conservation Easement. 1995: A natural buffer will be permanently preserved between the marine environ-
ment of Discovery Bay and the limited residential development permitted under the terms of the conservation easement. Trees may not
be cut or vegetation disturbed within the buffer area, and no more than two homes may he constructed within the seven acres affected by
the easement.
J. Maw's Chimacum Creek Conservation Easemetrt. 1992: Bill Marlow purchased several blocks in Irondale, two with
portions of Chimacum Creek flowing through them. He logged the property in a careful manner then vacated streets and combined lots
to create a lower density than might have been developed. Each of the house sites overlooks the creek, and each of the Jots created by
Bill is subject to a conservation easement affecting a 100 -foot wide strip of land (50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek.) The
intention is to preserve bank stability by preserving existing vegetation, and permanently preclude any development near the stream.
K. Norton Donation, 2000: Wally Norton gave Jefferson land Trust title to more than 450 feet of creek -front along Chimacum
Creek. This area is legally known as Holman's Pack, and is located in the Shold Business Park in Port Hadlocjk. This forested property is
valuable because it is strategically located upstream from critical spawning habitat of the endangered Chimacum Creek summer chum
salmon.
L. Marshall Conset E_dion Easement 2000: The Marshall property of approximately 5 acres is located in the Chimacum I
Hadlock r Irondale urban growth area. The conservation easement area of approximately 3 acres is in the west portion of the property
protecting the riparian area along East Chimacum Creek. Restoration efforts will take place to re- meander the: stream and replant the
riparian area. Only horseback riding will be permitted in the protected area.
% Kurtzo Donation, 1995: Joe Kurtso willed 4112 acres of land on Marrowstone Island to Jefferson Land Trust with the
request that most of it be protected for wildlife habitat A conservation easement was placed on most of the property, and it was
then sold so that some of the proceeds could go to help protect other areas on the Island.
N_ Meacham Conservation Easement. 1993: Merl and Marion Meacham have lived on their 40 acres for more than 40 yam,
and have selectively harvested its timber resources to supplement their income. Timber harvesting will continue to be allowed under
the easement, but the land may not be subdivided or developed for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. A on"em portion of
the property has been reserved for one single- family residence, the site of the Meacham's home.
O. jis1top Conservation Easement 2000: A conservation easement was purchased on portions of the Gerald Lee Bishop
property, located near Egg and I Road. The conservation easement purchased with State Salmon Habitat funding protects approxi-
mately 30 acres of critical salmon habitat. which includes about one half mile of the forested headwaters of the east fork of
Chimacum Creek. The easement will help protect the forested upland and riparian areas, preserve water quality and habitat for
spawning salmon, and provide habitat for other wildlife species.
P. Marsh and Meadow Conservation Easement, 2000: The Bruce Porter family placed a conservation easement on approxi-
mately 30 acres of natural wetlands within the Ludlow Creek Watershed on Embody Road. This contains riparian areas associated with
Beaver Creek and an unnamed tributary of Beaver Creek that flows into Ludlow Creek. The wetlands protected through the easement
provide habitat for numerous wildlife and bird species, as well as provide scenic and open space values viewed from Beaver Valley
Road.
Q. Barnhouse, Conservation Easement, 2000; Howard and Flora Bamhouse have protected the headwaters of the west folk of
Chimacum Creek through a conservation easement. They agreed to sell an easement on portions of their property holding Chimacum
Creek for natural resource and habitat protection. Jefferson Land Trust holds the 33 + acre easement that wart purchased with state
funding to protect stream habitat for coho salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, a beaver pond and other wildlife habitat. The Chimacum
Headwater Restoration Project took place in 1999 and 2000 in the protected area, and included fencing the entire easement area along
the stream, the re- meander of 500 feet of stream, placement of logs and root -wads, and planting of native grass, trees and shrubs.
R. Schmidt Conservation Easement, 2000: The Schmidt easement is located on Center Road in Center Whalley. State Salmon
Habitat Funding provided for the purchase of the easement protecting approximately 11 acres of the headwaters of the west fork of
Chimacum Creek, just upstream from the Bamhouse easement and restoration work. Important conservation values of the property
' include the forested uplands, riparian habitat, spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and cutthroat trout, and habitat for other wildlife
species. The easement prevents any use that would jeopardize these conservation values.
S. Quilcene Heights Conservation Easement, 1994: Donovan Creek flows through this properly owned by the Qui Gene Heights
Limited Partnership. Approximately 30 acres of wettand and wildlife habitat is protected by a conservation easement. Residential use is
' limited to the west side of McInnes Road, which bisects the properly. The donor reserved the right to drift wells and cut trees to preserve
views of Quilcene Bay. Trees were cut in 1993 and replanting has been completed. The wetland area was previously used for cattle
grazing.
T. The Nature Conservancy 1 Prince Easement, 1997: This 5 acre forested high bluff waterfront property on Dabob Bay was
donated to The Nature Conservancy by George Prince with the stipulation it be maintained in its natural state, and only limited clearing
' allowed around a residential site. The Nature Conservancy donated a conservation easement to Jefferson Land Trust to ensure this
protection and then shared proceeds of the sale with the Land Trust.
U. Last Camp Conservation F..asement: Gary and Man Phillips have subdivided. 51- acres-of property adjacent to Dabob Bay into
7 lots (between 2.3 and 4.3 acres each) for homes, and a 30 acre open space area to be owned in common by lot owners. A conservation
' easement has been created to protect, in perpetuity, sensitive areas along the shore and stream corridors a well as an archaeological
site. Timber resources in the 30 acre open space had been logged and replanted by Philips, and will be managed by the Home Owners
Association and Jefferson Land Trust as a productive forest.
V. Hitoshi and Alice Kawghara Conservation Easement_ 1995: Alice Kawahara was born in a small. house still standing on the
' shore of Dabob Bay. She and her husband own 90 acres of land that can never be subdivided or further developed under the terms of
their conservation easement. The forest away from the shoreline will Continue to be selectively harvested, and no cutting is allowed on
steep slopes or within 200 feet of any stream or wetland. A 2 -acre area adjacent to the bay will continue to be used as the site for no more
than three existing single - family residences. The easement was the result of a coopertive effort involving Jefferson Land Trust and the
Port Gamble S'Klallam tribe, who worked with the Kawaharas on a salmon stream enhancement project within the property.
W. Harry and Ida Bailey Conservation Easement_ 1994: Harry and Ida Bailey's 190 acres of farmland and forest are adjacent to
the Olympic National Forest and bisected by the Dosewallips River. Bear, cougar, elk, salmon and other wildlife are regular visitors. The
conservation easement prevents subdivision of the property, while allowing up to nine residences for family members, The Baileys
retained the rights to harvest timber and raise crops and animals on the property.
' 103
r
ieffenon Land Trust
Post Office Box 1610
Pert Townsend
Washington 98368
Phone (206) 379 -9501
Offeting bmdownen
the meamfir establishing a
living legaLy ofrpeei d lands
and receurcts shrnugh
voluntary conservation.
I-
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ABOUT
CONSERVA.'T ION EASEMENTS
THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROV.LDES -A PRACTICAL, legally
effecrive means fora private landowner- to protect foiever the significanc
features of a property, or a portion of a property, while retaining private
ownership. - By defining and. removing particular righsts from the owner-
ship of a parcel of land, the. conservation easement creates permanent .
safeguards against uses of the land that could damags or destroy its
ecological, scenic, recreational, or resource values.
Each conservation easement is written specifically co-'address the needs
and desires of the owner, the natural characteristics Of the land, and the
conservation ., objecrives of the protecting-organization. Conservation
easements are most often donated to nonprofit nature conservanc.y
organizations, such as Jefferson Land Trust,. or to I a governmental
agency. The holder of a conservatior easement is obligated to safeguard
its restrictions in perpetuity. '
Property Rights and Conservation. Easements
Every landowner is the holder of certain rights related ro ;the use of land and
its resources, Historically, some of these rights — such as mineral and timber
rights --- have been used, taxed, or transferred separatelyfrotn outright
ownership. Road and utility easements also are examples of modifications of
the rights of exclusive ownership. -A conservation easement arises out of this
principle of separating and modifying land ownership rights.
A conservation easement is created by. a,landowner (the "grantor ") who desires
to transfer certain rights to a conservation organization-(the grantee "), under
an agreement which prohibits the grantee's exercise of those rights. Working
cooperatively, the landowner and the grantee identify appropriate uses for the
land and detail activities which should lie prohibited. For example, a land-
owner tray transfer the right to arse a property for residential devclopmcm to
the grantee. The grantee organization then holds that right, but- is prohibited
by the terms of the conservation easement from ever using it. Thus, it is
assured that no future owner will have the right to use t4c pioperty.for resi-
dcntial dcvdopmcnt. Conservation easements are perpetual,. restricting futures
land -uses regardless of who may own the land in the futures
Land subject to a conservation easement is still privately owned and managed.
Al! rights of ownership which have not been eransferred to tl a granree nsay be
exercised by the current .owner. For example, a. landowner may transfer the
.rights to develop a property for commercial, industrial, or multi - residential
104
purposes while retaining rights to use the land for farming, harvesting of
rimber, or for the owner's personal residence.
' Who accepts or holds conservation easements?
Under Washington State law (RCW 64.04.130), a conservation easement
' may br held by a non -profit nature conservancy corporation or by a federal,
state, or local.gowrnment. Jefferson Land Trust, which was incorporated'by
local residents in 1989, mcets.all of the qualifications of this Washington law
' as well as those imposed by federal law to qualify as a tax- cxcmpt charitable
institution under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Does a conservation easementgrant public access. to land? . .
Only if the protecting property owner specifies public access as a petmitte4
use of the land: A landowner may allow limited access for cducational.or
scientific purposes,. but public access is not required by jefferson Land Trusr
as a condition of accepting a conservation casement. However, the Land
Trusr is obligated to arrange an annual visit to the site by its representativa.(s)
to assure compliance with the terms of the conservation easemenr. ,
Does a. conservation easement restrict a landowner's
abilizy.to sell, develop, or bequeath land in the future? .
Land protected by a conservation easement may be sold, bequeathed or
' otherwise, transferred at any time. An easement may apply only to certain
portions of a property, preserving,open or wooded areas, for example, while
permitting development of the remainder. Ownership of the portion pro-
' rested by the conservation easement maybe divided for purposes of limited or
cluster development if deemed appropriate by the granting landowner. Trans-
fer of ownership will not affect the integrity or enforceability of the caserrrcnt.
' Restrictions defined in the recorded conservation easement run with the title
to the property forever, providing landowners an effective means. of perpetuat-
ing their, caring-stewardship.
' What are the financial benefits
of donating a Co* nservation easement?
INCOME TAXES: Potential federal income tax benefits vary with the patticu-
tars of each conservation easement.. To qualify as a charitable gift., which may'
' be deductible for federal income tax purposes, donation of development rights
through a conservation easement must be granted in perpetuity- to a.qualifred
conservation organization — such as Jefferson Land Trust. The value off the
gift,.derermined by a formal appraisal, is the difference between the fair
market value of the 'properry before and after donation of the conservation
easement, To be deductible, an casement must serve conservation purposes
1 by. preserving natural- habitat, historic sites, unique scenic landscapes, wildlife
corriciore or eonnecrions co orlYvr protested parcc6, areas of eonvarn for public
Iconsinued
1 105
An ournm*ho donates
a conservation easement
tojef�erson Land . Trust
can be. assured that
compliance with the
identified protective
goals wild.be annually
reviezi ee4 and that
A16re owners will not
alter the land contrary
to ;the owner's wishes.
Jerson Land Trust
Post O iee Bar 1610
Port Townsend
Washington 98368
Phone (206).379-9501
Qiiing landoumers
the meant for establishing a
living legacy of special lands
and resources through.
Voluntary comertuz o ".
Q,UESTIbNS tic ANSWERS ABOUT
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
continued
education or recreation, or open spaces in the vicinity of intense land develop-
ment. In general, .thc maximum allowable deductions arise from conservation
easements donated over large tracts of open space in areas where development,
pressures are-intense.
ESTATE. TAXES: State and federal inheritance taxes on unrestricted land are
often so high that heirs are forced to sell some or all of the land just to pay
these taxes. Because a conservation easement rcduGcs the; market value of the
property by reducing its development potential, inheritance taxes'are also
reduced. A conservarion easement can enable heirs to retain property chat
would otherwise have to be sold.
GIFT TAx1s: When' a gift of land is rnade to a family momber or other
person, it is subject to.federal gift taxes if its value exceeds the maximum tax-
-free amount. A reduction in the value of the property through a conservation
easement may allow a landowner to give more land in any one year without
creating a gift tax obligation, or it may.help reduce -the arhourit of gift tax -
owed.
PROPERTY TAXES: Under Washington property tax law; land subject to
a conservation easement,can qualify fora reduction in assessed.valuation.
Jefferson County has adopted a Puhlic Benefit Rating System; which is used
to.determine the percentage of reduction in assessed valuation. A range of
points is assigned to various factors which have been detexrnined to be valu-
able to the public. A minimum number of point's must be accumulated in
order to receive a reduction in assessed.valuation.. Conservation easements
automatically receive six points on a scale of twelve, while other special
attributes of the property may result in further reductions. The maximum
possible reduction is 90%.
How are conservation easements enforced?
At the time a conservation easement is .created, planr. and wildlife.invcntories.
are added to photographic information to provide a baseline for future
monitoring. Annual visits are arranged by the Land Trust in order to
determine that the terms and-conditions of the conservation easement
are being honored.
if a violation is identified, die landowner is promptly notified, in accordance
with procedures outlined in the conservation casement, a4d steps must be.
taken to repair any damage. The easement also defines the process to be
followed to resolve disputes regarding an alleged violation of the easement. '
If necessary, the Land Trust will take legal action to fulft-1,l its conservation
casement' obligations.
A STEWARDSHIP FUND is created in conjunction with the acceptance of each
conservation easement. It is used exclusively for that property to cover future
106
expenses of monitoring; enforcing compliance with casemcnt reurictions, and
underwriting legal .defense of'rhe easement protections. The amount required
for a stewardship lurid is .proportional to the responsibility being assigned to~
' the Land Trust under the terms -of the conservation easement.
The Land Trwt.Advantage
While any landowner may attach conservation restrictions to a property .title
before transferring it, an own*cr who donates a conservation easement ro .
' Jefferson Land Trust can be assured that compliance with the identified
protec&e. goals will. be arinually rcvicwcd, and that future' owners will not .
alter rhe•land contrary to the owner's wishes.
I
1
1
107
Th*publication, firn4dfryagrant
from the Brt!lsttFoundurion, ispart
of informational series m land
con m=tionstrategies. Othertopics
available upon request include.
Wiq.T' 1S A LAND TRUST?
LANDS WE SEEK TO. PROTECT
QUALIPYSNG CRITERIA
,PRO'J'EC'TIDN oPTIONB =
SL•MMARY DEPtMTIONS OP
PROTECTION STRAMMIS
TAX SAVINGS GURERATED 8Y GIPTS
AND DONATIONS TO A LAND TRUST
MATE PLANNING —
PROTFIC'LTNG PAMILY LANDS
CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS
JEFFERSON LAND TRUST
ACCOMPLLSI.IMENTS To DATA;
F."r ded in 1989 by residents oflcffeEson
t.oirt . =4 guidcd by a voluntary board
Qf diieciors, Jefferson Land Trust is i non
P-ele, tax- exempt, prism corporation.
Al2 donations co the Land Trust. whether
of money, scx:uritiea, land, or the value of
A conscrvauoa eamultrin. ut aa:0841UeLI
by the IRS as charitable contributions.
uGCiGN r �tat•LrrrL rnY: •
PPINTSD ON 100% RLYUPWLED PAPER I XYY WK
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund
Annual Revenue $ 155,000
Borrowing/Bond Options (20 Years)
Percent of
Annual revenue
Principal
Interest
Payment
obligated
$
500,000
6.0%
$43,592.28
28%
$
750,000
6.0%
$65,388.42
42%
$
1,000,000
6.0%
$87,184.56
56%
$
1,250,000
6.0%
$108,980.70
70%
$
1,500,000
6.0%
$130,776.84
84%
$
1,750,000
6.0%
$152,572.97
98%
$
1,500,000
6.0%
$154,444.15
100%
Borrowing /Bond Options (15 Years)
7/26/2001
Borrowing /Bond Options (10 Years)
Percent of
Percent of
Annual
revenue ,
Annual
revenue .
Principal
obligated
Interest
Payment
obligated_
$
500,000
6.0%
$51,481.38
33 %
$
750,000
6.0%
$77,222.07
50%
$
1,000,000
6.0%
$102,962.76
66%
$
1,250, 000
6.0%
$128,703.45
83%
$
1,500,000
6.0%
$154,444.15
100%
7/26/2001
Borrowing /Bond Options (10 Years)
108
Prepared by Gary Rowe
Percent of
Annual
revenue ,
Principal
Interest
Payment
obligated
$
500,000 6.0%
$67,933.98
44%
$
750,000 6.0%
$101,900.97
66%
$
1,000,000 6.0%
$135,867.96
880/0
108
Prepared by Gary Rowe
w
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 2001
TO: Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
FROM: John Howell and Gaylis Linville
SUBJECT: Alternatives for the Project Selection Process
As you know from earlier discussions, the counties that have adopted the Conservation Futures tax use a
wide variety of methods to make decisions about the allocation of the funds. In the summary that follows
we have tried to outline several alternatives for your review and discussion at our next meeting. Each
alternative includes a brief listing of some of the major pros and cons associated with that alternative. We
look forward to discussing these options with you on September 19`x'.
A. No Citizen Advisory Committee
1. Jefferson County- Managed Process
Jefferson County staff would review all project applications and make funding recommendations to
County Commissioners. The application review and selection process could be very closed, with county
staff making sole determination about strength of application. Alternatively, the process could be more
fluid, with the staff undertaking negotiations between Jefferson County and cities, or established
conservation or historical organizations, such as in the case of Whatcom County. Decisions could be
based primarily on those organizations' recommendation or in concert with a comprehensive plan or
existing federal or state programs.
The Conservation Futures program office would forward recommendations to County Commissioners
for review, possible public hearings, and approval.
PROS
Streamlined process
County staff should be able to tie funding decisions to county policies and priorities
CONS
Lack of citizen involvement could alienate project advocates
Allocation recommendations may reflect county staff interests but not necessarily broader community
interests
2. Non- 1rofit Conservation Organization - Managed Process
The Conservation Futures Program could be managed by a non -profit land trust organization, as is the
case in San Juan County. The land bank develops a list of potential acquisitions, based on their own
109
planning efforts and proposals from landowners or community groups. The County works cooperatively
with the land bank to solicit partnerships with other government agencies, park boards, park and
recreation districts, and non - profit organizations concerned with conservation. The Land Bank makes
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
PROS
Places control with organization whose mission is land preservation.
May reduce county staff costs to administer the program.
CONS
Some county residents may feel that public funds are controlled by private organization.
Lack of citizen involvement could alienate project advocates
B. One Citizen Advisory Committee, Staffed by County Staff
Citizens representing various interests, points of view and technical expertise review applications and
make project recommendations to County Commissioners. Citizen committee also periodically reviews
evaluation criteria, program priorities, and expenditure of funds to date, to insure that program is
aligned with current community needs. A county staff member supports the committee's work. The
committee may hold public hearings before final approval by County Commissioners.
PROS
Committee insures that broad interests and perspectives are considered in recommendations.
Direct public involvement in allocation process may lead to broader public support for program.
CONS
Some risk that citizen committee recommendations will not be consistent with county priorities.
May result in higher staff costs.
C. Two Citizen Committees, An Advisory Committee and a Technical Review Committee
This model is similar to the one used by Pierce County. The Technical review committee is made up of
stakeholders who review applications, make site visits and rate projects using the evaluation criteria.
This group then forwards its recommendations to an at -large advisory committee, which reflects broad
community viewpoints. The Advisory Committee recommendations are forwarded to County
Commissioners for review and approval. The Commissioners hold public hearings on the
recommendations.
PROS
Use of two citizen committees likely insures that no one special interest will dominate review and
discussion.
Two citizen committees broaden the level of interest in and support for the program.
CONS
Two citizen committees can create a cumbersome, time consuming process.
Given the limited available resources, there are likely to be few applications to review (i.e. the technical
review committee may have little to do).
110
SON
w�� OG2
` Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
I9SN 1 N G`t
Meeting Summary
' July 26, 2001
INTRODUCTIONS
Committee members were invited to introduced themselves and give a brief statement on why they were
interested in serving on the Conservation Futures Advisory Committee. Those committee members in
attendance included:
Kevin Miller (Real Estate)
Ralph Rush (Citizen at Large)
David Johnson (Timber)
Alan Youse (Port Townsend City Councilmember)
Sarah Spaeth (Jefferson County Land Trust)
Janet Kearsley (Citizen at Large)
Roger Short (Agriculture)
Committee members Glen Huntingford (County Commission) and Dennis A. Schultz (Citizen at Large) were
unable to attend.
County and committee staff included:
Gary Rowe (Director of Central Services)
Al Scalf (Director of Planning)
Renee Talley (Dept. of Central Services)
John Howell (Cedar River Associates)
Gaylis Linville (Cedar River Associates)
Two members of the community also attended the meeting.
OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF COMMITTEE'S ROLE
Gary Rowe summarized the role of the committee as outlined in Resolution. 43 -99 adopted by the Jefferson
County Board of Commissioners. The committee's main charge is to formulate a plan for using the
'Conservation Futures Tax revenue. This plan is to include: 1) a rating system; 2) acquisition guidelines; 3)
financial plans; and, 4) criteria for potential acquisitions.
'The committee is expected to have a final recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners by
November of this year.
IApproximately $80,000 in revenues has accrued to date, with an expected annual income of $155,000.
I ill
Stewardship and monitoring of the program should be addressed and included in the final recommendation.
Jefferson County has not assigned anyone to staff these committee meetings in an official capacity (this will
be the role of Cedar River Associates), but Renee Tally will be on hand for administrative support. Dave
Christensen will be attending the meetings and will direct the program once the Board of County
Commissioners reviews the committee's recommendations and approves the program.
John Howell reviewed the agenda items for this meeting and then outlined the proposed scope of work (see
handout) for the rest of the year. The committee accepted the scope of work as it was proposed. The issue of
a public hearing was discussed, but the committee believes there will be adequate, opportunity for public
comment since each of the meetings is open and will be advertised in advance. Jefferson County will also
post committee meeting materials on its web site.
GROUND RULES
Committee members reviewed the proposed ground rules (see handout) and suggested the following
additions:
• Meeting materials will be sent to committee members in advance
• It is the responsibility of each member to be prepared for each of the meetings
• If a committee member misses a meeting, it is his/her responsibility to be up -to -speed on the issues by
the next meeting
• Meetings will start and end on time; everyone is expected to be prompt and prepared
• A quorum is necessary for a meeting. If a quorum is not expected, the meeting will be rescheduled
• Committee members unable to attend a given meeting can have information relayed to the committee via
correspondence or a designated substitute
• Committee members are expected to be respectful of the person who is speaking; no side conversations.
REVIEW OF ADVANCE MATERIALS
State Enabling Legislation (see complete RCW and summary hand outs) — Committee members were
invited to read the legislation and bring any questions to the next meeting. Since the law can be interpreted
differently from county to county, there may be a need at some point in the committee's deliberations to
refer a question to the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney.
Glossary (see handout) — Committee members were invited to add entries to this list of terms as needed.
Suggestions can be e- mailed to Cedar River Associates.
Overview of Conservation Futures Tax Programs (see handout and summary sheet) — Committee members
received a summary of the report that detailed other western Washington counties' use of Conservation
Futures Tax revenues. The summary discussed common themes, and certain examples were cited during the
discussion.
The committee was interested in learning more about:
112
1
• The stewardship of acquired lands in other counties; who monitors land and who pays for maintenance?
• How the land is selected; government targeting certain lands or landowners offering property for
consideration?
• Advantage of fee simple acquisition over easements?
• What other counties would have done differently?
JEFFERSON COUNTY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AS RELATED TO PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS
Planning Director Al Scalf provided a handout from the County's Comprehensive Plan titled "Open Space,
Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation Element." Committee members were asked to familiarize
themselves with this document and bring any questions they may have to the next meeting. Maps were
included in this document, but Al mentioned newer ones will be available to the committee.
The committee discussed the possibility of obtaining documents and maps from other organizations that are
involved in land preservation and enhancement in the county, such as Jefferson County Parks and
Recreation, Jefferson County Land Trust, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, cities within
Jefferson County (Open Space Plans) and other non -profit consortiums /organizations.
CONSERVATION FUTURES REVENUE FORECAST
Gary Rowe provided a handout that illustrated various bonding options based on a fixed annual tax revenue
of $155,000.
1 NEXT STEPS
G
Meeting Schedule — The next meeting is scheduled for August 15 from 5:45 to 7:45 p.m. at the WSU
Cooperative Extension Offices in Port Hadlock. September meetings will be held in the same offices on the
5th and 19th from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Jefferson County will advertise the meetings.
Election — Sarah Spaeth was elected Chairperson for all future meetings. David Johnson was elected Vice
Chairperson.
August Meeting Agenda — Cedar River Associates will work with Sarah Spaeth to set agenda.
Information Needs — Committee members are invited to contact Cedar River Associates if additional
questions or needs arise. John Howell can be reached at (206) 287 -1818, or-john@cedriv.com. Gaylis
Linville can be reached at (206) 789 -4585, or gaylis @uswest.net.
1 113
SON c0 G2
'
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
IN
Meeting Summary
'
August 15, 2001
CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
The second regularly scheduled Conservation Futures Advisory Committee meeting was called to order at
5:45 p.m.
'
Committee members attending the meeting included: Roger Short, Ralph Rush, Dennis Schultz, David
Johnson, Alan Youse, Kevin Miller, Glen Huntingford, Janet Kearsley, and Sarah Spaeth. Committee staff
'
included: John Howell, Gaylis Linville and Renee Talley.
,
Other interested parties attending the meeting included: Al Scalf, Al Latham, Barb McColgan Pastore, Dave
Christensen, and Barbara Bowen.
GROUND RULES FINAL REVIEW & APPROVAL
Copies of the revised ground rules were distributed for review. Several items had been added during the
first meeting and the committee was asked if this final list was accurate and complete.
There was some discussion concerning Rule #5 (designating a substitute). The rule should be amended to
say: "Committee members are strongly encouraged to attend every meeting. Those unable to attend a
meeting may communicate their wishes regarding specific issues to the Chair. If committee members cannot
attend meetings regularly they should notify the chair who will request that the County Commissioners
,
appoint a replacement."
There was also a brief discussion regarding Rule #6. A committee member voiced concern that summary
,
notes (as compared to official meeting minutes) may be missing key action items or recommendations. Rule
#6 should be amended to include: "Any recommendations to the Board of Commissioners or key action
items will be noted in detail in the summary notes."
,
With the addition of those changes, the Ground Rules were approved.
'
RESPONSE TO FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS FROM JULY 26 MEETING
,
At the July 26 meetin g, Committee members were given an overview of Conservation Futures Programs in
eight other Western Washington Counties. There were four follow -up questions concerning stewardship,
property acquisition priorities, acquisition methods and program effectiveness. A summary of answers was
distributed in advance of the meeting (see handout). The committee had no other questions.
114
'
["I
BRIEFINGS ON JEFFERSON COUNTY CONSERVATION INITIATIVES
In order to give the Conservation Futures Advisory Committee a better idea of what types of conservation
efforts are being conducted throughout the county, three representatives of various interests gave brief
presentations on past, current and proposed projects. The goal of these presentations was to help committee
members begin the process of thinking about priorities for use of the Conservation Futures' funds.
Jefferson County Overview
Dave Christensen gave a brief presentation on the county's conservation efforts concerning habitat.
• Completed Habitat Studies
1. The Culvert Inventory (those that have salmon & trout)
2. The Lower Big Quilcene Comprehensive Flood Management Plan.
• On -going Studies
1. The Linger Longer Feasibility Study
.2. The East Jefferson County Refugia Study
Dave gave a brief overview of the refugia study. The study was funded by the State and should be
completed by next summer. The goal of the study is to identify the most productive areas for salmon ?
spawning and rearing, and an accompanying list of properties for future acquisition and restoration. A
committee member asked about the State's plan for funding the proposed acquisitions. Dave said Salmon
Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) funds may be made available (the local match is 15 %).
• Issues to be Addressed
1. Wildlife habitat -- not only salmon habitat, but that of various birds, animals, native plants (it was
noted that the Audubon Society conducted a study and developed a report in the 1980's that identified
various species and their habitat in Jefferson County.)
2. Habitat in agricultural lands
3. Flood plains and channel migration zones
' A brief discussion followed concerning conservation efforts in the west part of Jefferson County. Most of
the County's efforts are currently concentrated in East Jefferson County because of threats to salmon stocks
' and development pressures. There have been no conservation acquisitions in the west, but some river and
stream restoration projects have been conducted.
rThe Linger Longer and Lower Big Quil studies include habitat and working property issues. Dave said the
County will be applying for funds to acquire properties in these two regions.
It was noted that the Public Works Department is currently developing a plan concerning trails, and the
Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) Salmon Recovery Project continues to identify key habitat. (See
' end of summary for web site address.)
1
1 115
Jefferson County Conservation District
Al Latham spoke on behalf of the Jefferson County Conservation District. He brought a display of some of
the recent salmon habitat restoration projects.
Al provided an overview of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). This is a partnership
between Washington State and the USDA. It provides incentives to restore and improve salmon and
Steelhead habitat on private agricultural land. (See handouts.) The program provides "rental payments" to
farmers for up to fifteen years.
It was noted that there should be a balance between habitat preservation and preserving farmers' livelihood.
Al said that if conservation futures funds were used to purchase an underlying permanent easement on
CREP lands, the program would be more attractive to landowners. There was a brief discussion about the
affect on property taxes if a landowner participates in the CREP program.
Chumsortium
Al Latham also presented information on Chumsortium, a coalition of organizations formed to coordinate
conservation activities regarding the summer chum salmon in Chimicum Creek. The organization's role has
now expanded to include acquisition activities. About a dozen different interests are part of this group that
meets monthly to share information and pool resources to obtain grants for acquisitions.
Al displayed maps of habitat and properties and/or easement that have been purchased. The group has
identified additional properties they would like to purchase, pending available funding. The group may
expand its efforts to include work on Salmon and Snow Creeks.
Jefferson Land Trust
Sarah Spaeth gave an overview of the Jefferson Land Trust, a non -profit organization that was formed in
1989 for land owners who wanted to protect their properties in perpetuity. The Land Trust acquires (either
through purchase or donation) a conservation easement, which becomes part of the deed of trust. Sarah
provided information on easements.
The Land Trust has about 20 easements in Jefferson County to date. Five years ago, the organization
decided to become more pro- active. Rather than having people come to them, the trust is now targeting
specific projects, such as greenbelts /wildlife corridors and working landscapes (both forest and agricultural
land). About 60% of acquisition funds come from the community. There is some state funding for salmon
habitat. The Land Trust is now developing a new set of priorities that may include working landscapes
[agriculture and forest]. The Land Trust conducts its work in the eastern part of the county only.
NEXT STEPS
The committee decided additional presentations from other organizations are not necessary. If committee
members would like additional written information about programs or plans, they should contact John or
Gaylis. Cedar River will consult with Sarah Spaeth (Chair) to set next month's agenda. The Draft Program
Principles were not addressed today.
116
I �
I �
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
fi
I I I
The committee asked for a determination from the Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney regarding
ownership of easements /properties. Can Conservation Futures funds be used to purchase properties or
easements on behalf of a qualified entity (i.e. non -profit organization)?
It was requested that the committee reconsider the scheduled meeting days in September. Committee
members will be contacted by Cedar River Associates to attempt to find alternative dates. If alternatives
cannot be found the committee will keep its current schedule (September 5, at 5:30; and September 19, at
5:30).
John Howell asked committee members if they had enough time to review the materials in advance of the
meeting. They agreed that sending packets on the Friday previous to a Wednesday meeting gives them
enough time for review.
Web Sites of Interest:
www.hcccxog.wa.us
www.co.san-juan.wa.uslland—banklmission.
117
ON C
O
�41 Ga
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
kl NP
Meeting Summary
September 5, 2001
CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
The scheduled Conservation Futures Advisory Committee meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Chair
Sarah Spaeth.
In addition to Ms. Spaeth, committee members attending the meeting included: Ralph Rush, Dennis Schultz,
David Johnson, Alan Youse, Kevin Miller, Glen Huntingford and Janet Kearsley. Roger Short was out of town.
Committee and County staff included: John Howell, Gaylis Linville, Renee Talley and Dave Christensen.
The proposed agenda was approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Ms. Spaeth summarized the progress of the committee to date, and gave an overview of what issues need to be
addressed in the upcoming meetings. As a follow -up to last month's meeting topic concerning the conservation
efforts in Jefferson County, she made available a copy of an Aububon Society report referenced. She led a
discussion on the merits of compiling a complete list of county -wide conservation efforts, and using that
summary to establish county -wide preservation priorities. The committee decided to table this issue, but will
likely ask the county to develop and summarize a list in the future. Janet Kearsley provided a list of the current
efforts with which she's familiar. (See attached: List of Organizations)
Answers were provided to two questions posed during the previous meeting that required discussion with the
Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's office:
Can private, non-profit conservation or historical organizations use Conservation Futures funds to purchase
property or easements on behalf of their organizations (rather than being county - owned)?
Yes. The State enabling legislation makes this possible.
Can Conservation Futures funds be used for program development, monitoring or staffing?
The initial reaction from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office was that staff activities funded by Conservation
Futures should be related to the purchase of property or easements, such as appraisals or legal expenses. It was
noted that other counties use Conservation Futures funds for staffing and monitoring the program. This will
require further discussion between County staff and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
118
�I
I
i
t
NEW BUSINESS
Draft Principles
Committee members were asked to review and approve a set of principles for the program. After a brief
discussion, it was agreed that Cedar River Associates will revise the language for several of the principles,
and submit another update for review and approval by the committee. (See attached: Revised Draft
Principles)
Acquisition Priorities
In advance of the meeting, committee members received examples of proposed acquisition priorities from
Pierce County and evaluation criteria from Island and Snohomish Counties. Committee members were
asked to consider which of the land types they believe are most important to preserve.
An exercise was conducted to determine committee members' perceived acquisition priorities in Jefferson
County. Members were first asked to express their personal preferences in high -, medium - and low - priority
categories. After a brief discussion, committee members then indicated their preferences by marking a large
chart. The result of that exercise is as follows: (Note: Roger Short's votes were faxed to Cedar River
Associates after the meeting, and incorporated in the following tally.)
High Priorities
(ranked high -to -low in no. of votes)
Critical Salmon Habitat (7)
Estuaries and Tidal Marshes (6)
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Areas (5)
Streams (5)
Agricultural Lands (4)
Shoreline /Salt Water Beaches (3)
Rare Plant Reserve (3)
Trails/Open Space Corridors (3)
Wooded Areas (3)
Wetlands (3)
Aquifer Recharge Areas (2)
Indicator Species (2)
Lakes (2)
Scenic View Point/Vista (2)
Working Forests (2)
Pristine Wetlands (1)
Comp Plan Open Space (1)
Passive Recreational Sites (1)
Nature Reserves (1)
Community Separators (1)
Flood Hazard Areas (1)
Zoned Open Space (1)
Medium Priorities
(ranked high -to -low in no. of votes)
Open Space in Urban Areas (6)
Nature Reserves (5)
Wetlands (5)
Existing Park/Forest Land Expansion
(4)
Aquifer Recharge Areas (4)
Fresh Water Beaches (4)
Salt Water Beaches (4)
Historic Landmark/Cultural/
Educational Sites (4)
Trails /Open Space Corridors (4)
Flood Hazard Areas (3)
Lakes (3)
Rare Plant Reserve (3)
Scenic View Point/Vista (3)
Agricultural Lands (2)
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Areas (2)
Working Forests (2)
Wooded Areas (2)
Zoned Open Space (2)
Estuaries & Tidal Marshes (1)
Open Space in CompPlan Areas (1)
Streams (1)
119
Low Priorities
(ranked high -to -low in no. of votes)
Landslide Hazard Areas (8)
Archaeological Sites (6)
Passive Recreational Sites (6)
Community Separators (5)
Zoned Open Space (5)
Flood Hazard Areas (4)
Historic Landmark/Cultural/
Education Sites (4)
Working Forests (4)
Existing Park/Forest Land
Expansion (4)
Fresh Water Beaches (3)
Lakes (3)
Wooded Areas (3)
Agricultural Lands (2)
Open Space in Urban Areas (2)
Comp Plan Open Space (2)
Scenic View Points/Vistas (2)
Aquifer Recharge Areas (1)
Salt Water Beaches (1)
Estuaries and Tidal Marshes (1)
Trails /Open Space Corridors (1)
Critical Salmon Habitat (1)
Fish & Wildlife Habitat Areas (1)
Nature Reserves (1)
Rare Plant Reserves (1)
If priorities are awarded to those items receiving four or more votes in each of the three categories, we can
assume the following:
High Priorities
High Priorities
Low Priorities
• Critical Salmon Habitat
•
Open Space in Urban Areas
•
Landslide Hazard Areas
• Estuaries and Tidal Marshes
•
Nature Reserves
•
Archaeological Sites
• Fish & Wildlife Habitat
•
Existing Park/Forest Land
•
Community Separators
Areas
Expansion
•
Passive Recreational Sites
• Streams
•
Wetlands
•
Zoned Open Space
• Agricultural Lands
•
Aquifer Recharge Areas
•
Flood Hazard Areas
•
Fresh Water Beaches
•
Historic Landmark/Cultural/
•
Salt Water Beaches
Education Sites
•
Historic Landmark/Cultural/
•
Working Forests
Educational Sites
•
Existing Park/Forest Land
•
Trails /Open Space Corridors
Expansion
Certain conclusions can be drawn from this exercise, but the committee has yet to decide whether or how to
use this information when drafting specific acquisition criteria.
NEXT STEPS
Time did not allow for discussion of evaluation criteria. Cedar River Associates will draw up a draft list of
criteria taking into consideration the principles, proposed priorities, and the positive comments expressed by
committee members about the Island and Snohomish County criteria that were included in the meeting
packets. John Howell and Gaylis Linville will also develop a list of options for the selection process.
The next meeting has been scheduled for September 19'h, 5:30 - 7 :30 p.m., at the WSU Extension offices.
The October meeting was tentatively scheduled for the 3, 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. The John Howell and Gaylis
Linville will check with all committee members about that date before final commitments are made.
120
1
ON
�s c _
0
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
IN
Meeting Summary
' September 19, 2001
1 CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
The Conservation Futures Advisory Commitee meeting was called to order by Chair Sarah Spaeth at 5:30 p.m.,
1 Wednesday, September 19, 2001.
Committee members attending the meeting included: Ralph Rush, David Johnson, Glen Huntingford, Kevin
Miller, Dennis Schultz, Janet Kearsley, Roger Short and Sarah Spaeth. Committee staff and visitors included:
Barbara Bower, Dave Christensen, Warren Steurer, Renee Talley, John Howell and Gaylis Linville.
1 Ms. Spaeth outlined the agenda items for meeting.
' OLD BUSINESS
Review of Draft Principles
The second iteration of the draft principles was sent to each of the committee members in advance of the
meeting. Committee members suggested some additional changes. Approval of this item was tabled until after
the review of the draft Criteria.
r
1 NEW BUSINESS
Draft Evaluation Criteria and Scoring System
John Howell of Cedar River Associates gave a brief overview of how the criteria were developed. He said it
reflected information gathered from several sources, including the presentations made to the committee in
August by key stakeholders, previous committee discussions (including the recent rankings of land type
1 priorities), and two "model criteria" from Snohomish and Island Counties.
Ms. Spaeth then asked for feedback from the committee members to determine if this draft criteria, in general,
'accurately reflects the direction in which the committee wishes to proceed. It was agreed that this was the right
approach, but that some fine tuning was necessary. It was suggested that the criteria may be too broad, and may
encourage too many applications for the limited amount of funding. There was brief discussion about the merits
of the conservation futures tax program.
It was suggested that the final criteria could be accompanied by a narrative that explains the committee's intent.
' Also, the committee recommended periodic review of the criteria to make sure it continues to address
community needs and governmental mandates.
1 121
Members agreed that the merits of each criteria should be discussed one by one, and that the draft rating
system should be considered separately (although during the course of the meeting, items were often
discussed concurrently).
The following is. a brief summary of comments concerning each of the criteria. For comprehensive changes
to the draft criteria, see the attached Revised Draft Evaluation Criteria. [NOTE: The Revised Criteria
appear in a different order than indicated below.]
#1 Leveraging Funds
The committee agreed that obtaining matching funds is highly important. There was some discussion of
wording that a sponsor "must" provide alternative funding sources if the matching funds fall through.
Rather than disqualifying properties from consideration, a deadline for finding alternative funding sources
will be set by the review board or County Commissioners.
#2 Degree of Threat
There was discussion on the need to include the degree of threat in the criteria. Some suggested that, by the
time a property is significantly threatened, it would be too expensive to acquire, and that development may
be imminent. It was noted, however, that this program is voluntary, and property owners have a choice
between development or conservation efforts. The degree of threat may be reflected differently in the rating
system, giving it a lesser weight.
#3 Existing Programs
This was approved on the condition that "a" and "b" be re -written to offer a clearer distinction between
"enhances" and "complements."
#4 Preservation of Habitat
The term "native" should be used to describe endangered, threatened or sensitive species. The points should
be adjusted on the rating worksheet so that each bulleted item will have a value ranging from 1 to 3.
#5 Agricultural Land Preservation
A point regarding development pressure was deleted since the criterion for degree of threat deals with this
issue. The items on the rating worksheet should be changed to correspond to the criteria, and a value of 1 to
3 points should be assigned to each one.
#6 Community Benefit Area
The committee wanted to make clear that the benefit was assigned exclusively to Jefferson County. There
was discussion that the "regional' benefit category could be interpreted to mean "state - wide. The
committee was concerned that a special interest group from outside Jefferson County could make a case for
"regional" benefit. The "regional' reference will be deleted, and the "community" and "district" benefit
descriptions will be re- worded.
#7 Educational Opportunities
No changes suggested.
#8 Suitablity of Property for Proposed Uses
122
I
I I
This criterion will be deleted, but its intent will be reflected in the Program Principles. The committee
believes that the sponsoring agency will have investigated the viability of acquisition prior to submitting it
for consideration in the Conservation Futures Program.
#9 Degree of Feasibility
No changes suggested.
#10 Long -term Stewardship
The committee agreed that the language of this criterion should be strengthened so that proposed
acquisitions must have a long -term stewardship plan. Additionally, the weighting factor on the rating
worksheet should be increased, and no points should be awarded to those projects that do not have such a
plan or program.
The committee asked Cedar River Associates to make the changes discussed to the criteria and the rating
worksheet, and re -order the items by priority (based on the weighting factor). Revised drafts will be sent to
committee members for review in advance of the October meeting.
Discussion of Project Review Process Alternatives
There was not enough time to discuss this, so it will be reviewed at the October meeting, along with the
Draft Principles
NEXT STEPS
The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 9t", at 5:30. Due to the number of agenda
items, the meeting may be lengthened from two to three hours.
123
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Advisory Committee
Meeting Summary
October 9, 2001
CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
The Conservation Futures Advisory Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Sarah Spaeth at 5:30 p.m.,
Tuesday, October 9, 2001.
Committee members attending the meeting included: David Johnson, Kevin Miller, Dennis Schultz, Janet
Kearsley, Roger Short and Sarah Spaeth. Committee staff and visitors included: Dave Christensen, Renee
Talley, John Howell and Gaylis Linville. Committee members Alan Youse, Glen Huntingford and Ralph Rush
were unable to attend the meeting.
Ms. Spaeth shared with the committee a brochure describing recent land acquisition programs from around the
country. She received this information at a national conference for land trusts in Baltimore. She noted that the
conservation efforts in Jefferson County, including the conservation futures tax, are consistent with strategies
underway in many communities across the country.
The agenda was outlined. Ms. Spaeth suggested that discussions on a time frame for program implementation
and outreach efforts should be added to the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
Program Principles
John Howell summarized the changes that were made to the draft Program Principles based on the committee's
input from the previous meeting. He brought to the committee's attention a new principle that addresses
ownership of the properties and/or easements. The new principle states that all acquisitions must be held either
all or in part by a governmental entity. There was some discussion about the pros and cons of public vs. private
non- profit ownership. Some committee members expressed concern that property owners may be reluctant to
deal with a governmental entity. Others didn't believe public funds should be used to acquire property or
easements which would be held by private non - profit organizations. There was also some concern expressed
about the long -term viability of non - governmental organizations. Ms. Spaeth said that the Jefferson Land Trust
would be unlikely to steward properties that are held entirely by a government entity. The committee asked
Dave Christensen to see if there is a policy that addresses the issue of private entities holding easements or titles
to properties that were purchased with public funds.* After additional discussion, the committee agreed to leave
the principle as is. The program principles were approved by the committee.
*[NOTE: 10/15/01 -- Dave Christensen reported back on this issue and said there is no standing policy; it's up
to the committee to make recommendations.]
Program Criteria
The committee was asked for its comments on the revised evaluation criteria. Ms. Spaeth suggested
reviewing the criteria one by one. The comments from the committee are as follows:
#1 Leveraging Funds --
• Change the deadline for obtaining funds from six months to one year..
• Have an interim review after six months to make sure the applicant is pursuing funding.
• Points should be awarded based on documented matching funds or the rating committee's
assessment of the likelihood of securing the match..
#2 Sponsorship -- Approved as is.
#3 Feasibility -- Approved as is.
#4 Plan Enhancement -- Approved as is.
#5 Degree of Threat -- Approved as is, but lower its value on the rating worksheet.
#6 Habitat Preservation -- Language in item (a) changed to read "higher number of points" rather than
"highest." Removed language that reads, "undocumented evidence will receive fewer points."
#7 Agricultural Use -- Last sentence in item (b) deleted. It was noted that some inactive farms may be
purchased with the intention of using the land once again for farming.
#8 Community Benefit -- Approved as is.
#9 Educational/Interpretive Opportunities — Deleted the work "significant" in the description of public
access.
Draft Rating Worksheet
The committee agreed that the items should be listed in order of the maximum number of points available.
Other comments include the following:
#1 Leveraging -- Change the description to read: "To what degree does the project leverage contributions
' from groups, agencies or individuals ?" Also, points awarded for the percentage of match should be
broken down into smaller categories.
' #6 Habitat Preservation — In awarding points, the level of documentation provided by the sponsor should be
considered.
' #8 Benefit Area -- The weighting factor should be changed from three to four.
' #9 Educational/Interpretive Opportunities -- The weighting factor should be changed from three to four.
Several of the criteria should reflect the option of assigning "zero" points.
NEW BUSINESS
Application
Because of the time constraints of this meeting, the committee voted to review the application on their own
time and send their comments to Cedar River Associates via email, phone or fax. [Note: the deadline for
comments was October 23.]
It was noted that the requirements for non- profit organizations may be too detailed, and that less
documentation would streamline the process.
Review Process
The committee was given a list of several scenarios for managing the Conservation Futures program,
including 1) Jefferson County managed; 2) Non -profit conservation organization managed; 3) one citizen
advisory committee, with County staff; and 4) two citizen committees (technical & advisory).
After a brief discussion the committee voted to recommend option (3), with one citizen advisory committee
that will be staffed by a county staff person.
There was also discussion about the potential for the advisory committee to make recommendations
regarding future years' allocation of conservation futures revenues. For example, there was consensus that
the advisory committee should be able to recommend funding for a good project that had not secured
matching funds. The committee suggested that it have the ability to "reserve" funds in the following year
for such a project.
Final Report
John Howell suggested the final report to the Board of County Commissioners contain the following items
• background information on the Conservation Futures Program in the state, and Jefferson County's
enabling legislation;
• projected conservation futures revenue;
• summary of briefings and issues discussed by the committee;
• narrative of process, conclusions and recommendation; and
• attachments of all of the program documents.
NEXT STEPS
Public Review
The committee agreed that any public hearing on the proposed recommendations should be addressed by the
Board of County Commissioners.
County Staff and Commission Review
The final report will be presented to the commissioners the third week of November. Staff will secure a
place for this on the agenda.
Structure and Schedule
The committee agreed:
• the final number of committee members should be 13;
126
current committee members should stay in place as the advisory committee for one year in order to
provide continuity between program design and start-up;
the Parks Board should be represented, as well as other interests;
there will be an annual grant cycle with
- notice to interested parties in November,
- applications ready to send out by January 15,
- applications due April 30,
- recommendations to Commissioners by May 30, and
- Commission to adopt recommendations by June 30;
outreach efforts to interested parties should begin as soon as possible, with
- information about the program posted on the County's web site,
- letters sent to those organizations currently involved in conservation efforts in Jefferson County,
- the committee and County staff to consider additional forms of outreach;
the advisory committee should convene quarterly; and
it is prudent to make funding decisions based upon the revenues collected for the previous year (i.e.,
allocation decisions made in 2002 will be based on the amount of conservation futures revenues
collected in 2001).
127