Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120507_CFMinutes * Decisions and action items are indicated in bold font. Members Present: Phil Andrus, District 2; Scott Brinton – Agriculture; Lige Christian, District 3; JD Gallant – District 3; Ray Hunter, Interest – Fallow Farms; Richard Jahnke, Interest – Coastal Areas; Janet Kearsley, District 1; Phyllis Schultz, Interest – Working Lands; Lorna Smith, Interest – Ecotourism (arrived at 3:11); Sarah Spaeth, Interest - Jefferson Land Trust; Fred Weinmann, Interest - Ecology; John Wood, District 1 Members Absent: Jerry Gorsline, District 2 (excused) County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Water Quality Division and Recorder Guests: Peter Bahls I. Call to Order: Chair John Wood called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM II. Review of Agenda: The agenda was approved as written. III. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the April 11, 2012 meeting were approved as written. IV. Observer comments: None V. Old Business: None VI. New Business A. Deposition of Committee Members with ethics questions based on Chief Deputy Civil Prosecuting Attorney’s July 9, 2002 memo. Lorna Smith arrived. Jefferson County Conservation Futures Committee Monday May 7, 2012 3:00-6:00 PM Tri Area Community Center Chimacum, WA FINAL MINUTES http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 2 Tami Pokorny read the following deposition statement, with regard to all three of the 2012 conservation futures applications: the Boulton Farm, L. Brown Trust II, and Tarboo Forest Conservation projects: In order to obtain and maintain the appearance of fairness in this decision-making process, the Committee wishes to know if there is anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any particular Committee member in this decision-making process, and, if so, to state the reasons for that objection. No one voiced any objection. Sarah Spaeth requested that the four of the project-specific questions be read by staff in preparation for the remainder of the deposition. The four questions were read: 1. Do you as a member of the committee stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? 2. Are you as a committee member able to hear and consider this proposal or application in a fair and objective manner, that is, without bias and without a predisposition toward any particular result regarding this proposal or application? 3. Have you as a committee member engaged in any communication outside this hearing with either a proponent or opponent of this particular proposal or application? 4. Are you as a committee member able to certify that you have attended the project presentation and either attended the site visit or viewed the official video tape? Staff then stated that she would read the four questions in relation to the BOULTON FARM project for each member to answer in turn. Do you as a member of the committee stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? Lige Christian: No Sarah Spaeth: No Scott Brinton: No Phil Andrus: No Fred Weinmann: No, I do not. Janet Kearsley: No Phyllis Schultz: No Ray Hunter: No Rick Jahnke: No JD Gallant: No John Wood: No Lorna Smith: No Are you as a committee member able to hear and consider this proposal or application in a fair and objective manner, that is, without bias and without a predisposition toward any particular result regarding this proposal or application? Lige Christian: Yes http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 3 Sarah Spaeth: As the project applicant and sponsor on behalf of JLT, I of course hope it will be funded and will be recusing myself from the ranking decisions. Scott Brinton: Yes Phil Andrus: Yes Fred Weinmann: Yes Janet Kearsley: Yes Phyllis Schultz: Yes Ray Hunter: Yes Rick Jahnke: Yes JD Gallant: Yes John Wood: Yes Lorna Smith: Yes Have you as a committee member engaged in any communication outside this hearing with either a proponent or opponent of this particular proposal or application? Lige Christian: No Sarah Spaeth: Yes I have been in communication with John Boulton who is the owner of the property. Scott Brinton: No Phil Andrus: No Fred Weinmann: No Janet Kearsley: No Phyllis Schultz: No Ray Hunter: No Rick Jahnke: No JD Gallant: No John Wood: No Lorna Smith: No Are you as a committee member able to certify that you have attended the project presentation and either attended the site visit or viewed the official video tape? Lige Christian: Yes Sarah Spaeth: Yes Scott Brinton: Yes Phil Andrus: Yes Fred Weinmann: Yes Janet Kearsley: Yes Phyllis Schultz: Yes Ray Hunter: Yes Rick Jahnke: Yes JD Gallant: Yes John Wood: Yes Lorna Smith: Yes http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 4 Staff then read the four questions in relation to the L. BROWN TRUST II project for each member to answer in turn. Do you as a member of the committee stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? Lige Christian: No Sarah Spaeth: No Scott Brinton: No Phil Andrus: No Fred Weinmann: No Janet Kearsley: No Phyllis Schultz: No Ray Hunter: No Rick Jahnke: No JD Gallant: No John Wood: No Lorna Smith: No Are you as a committee member able to hear and consider this proposal or application in a fair and objective manner, that is, without bias and without a predisposition toward any particular result regarding this proposal or application? Lige Christian: Yes Sarah Spaeth: As the project applicant and sponsor for the L. Brown Trust parcel, once again I will be recusing myself from the ranking. Scott Brinton: Yes Phil Andrus: Yes Fred Weinmann: Yes Janet Kearsley: Yes Phyllis Schultz: Yes Ray Hunter: Yes Rick Jahnke: Yes JD Gallant: Yes John Wood: Yes Lorna Smith: Yes Have you as a committee member engaged in any communication outside this hearing with either a proponent or opponent of this particular proposal or application? Lige Christian: No Sarah Spaeth – Yes, our Chumsortium partners are all proponents of the project. Scott Brinton: No Phil Andrus: No Fred Weinmann: No Janet Kearsley: No Phyllis Schultz: No Ray Hunter: No Rick Jahnke: No http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 5 JD Gallant: No John Wood: No Lorna Smith: No Lorna Smith - No Are you as a committee member able to certify that you have attended the project presentation and either attended the site visit or viewed the official video tape? Lige Christian: Yes Sarah Spaeth: Yes Scott Brinton: Yes Phil Andrus: Yes Fred Weinmann: Yes Janet Kearsley: Yes Phyllis Schultz: Yes Ray Hunter: Yes Rick Jahnke: Yes JD Gallant: Yes John Wood: Yes Lorna Smith: Yes Staff then read the four questions in relation to the TARBOO FOREST CONSERVATION project for each member to answer in turn. Do you as a member of the committee stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? Lige Christian: No Sarah Spaeth: No Scott Brinton: No Phil Andrus: No Fred Weinmann: No Janet Kearsley: No Phyllis Schultz: No Ray Hunter: No Rick Jahnke: No JD Gallant: No John Wood: No Lorna Smith: No Are you as a committee member able to hear and consider this proposal or application in a fair and objective manner, that is, without bias and without a predisposition toward any particular result regarding this proposal or application? Lige Christian: Yes Sarah Spaeth: As the project sponsor, I will be recusing myself from the ranking decisions. Scott Brinton: Yes Phil Andrus: Yes Fred Weinmann: Yes http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 6 Janet Kearsley: Yes Phyllis Schultz: Yes Ray Hunter: Yes Rick Jahnke: Yes JD Gallant: Yes John Wood: Yes Lorna Smith: Yes Have you as a committee member engaged in any communication outside this hearing with either a proponent or opponent of this particular proposal or application? Lige Christian: No Sarah Spaeth: Yes, I’ve talked with Peter Bahls, the project applicant. Scott Brinton: No Phil Andrus: No Fred Weinmann: No Janet Kearsley: No Phyllis Schultz: No Ray Hunter: No Rick Jahnke: No JD Gallant: No John Wood: No Lorna Smith: No Lorna Smith - No Are you as a committee member able to certify that you have attended the project presentation and either attended the site visit or viewed the official video tape? Lige Christian: Yes Sarah Spaeth: Yes Scott Brinton: Yes Phil Andrus: Yes Fred Weinmann: Yes Janet Kearsley: Yes Phyllis Schultz: Yes Ray Hunter: Yes Rick Jahnke: Yes JD Gallant: Yes John Wood: Yes Lorna Smith: Yes Sarah Spaeth recused herself and departed. Staff commented that there had been a mix up with some of the ratings sheets. She apologized to Phyllis Schultz and Fred Weinmann for the trouble this caused and thanked them for helping her to resolve the problem before the meeting. An Excel spreadsheet with the committee member’s individual rankings was displayed on a screen. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 7 Discussion and Rating of 2012 Conservation Futures project applications 1. BOULTON FARM Rating Process Committee members took turns reading questions from the ratings sheet. Scores for each question were compared, discussed and adjusted as desired, except in situations where all the scores were in agreement. Final scores are reflected in the composite spreadsheet for each project in Appendix A. Question #1 To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisition from groups, agencies or individuals? a. leverages significantly = 3 points b. leverages moderately = 2 points c. meets requirement = 1 point All scores were in agreement. No discussion was necessary. Question #2 To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the proposed project? a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point Scott Brinton asked whether a farm plan would be developed that would provide some assurances on how the property would be farmed. Lige Christian noted that farm plans generally focus on how manure will be managed and may or may not be binding depending on what the farmer is trying to accomplish with it. Since there is a salmon stream on the Boulton property, there should be a farm plan once operations get underway. It isn’t known whether a farm plan would be a part of the conservation easement. Lige Christian stressed that an agricultural conservation easement does not guarantee that the land will be actively farmed. The easement does ensure that agriculture is what the land’s primary use will be. Phil Andrus interpreted Question #2 not in relation to the landowner but, instead, in relation to the project sponsor – the Jefferson Land Trust (JLT) which has demonstrated capability for long-term stewardship. Rick Jahnke said that JLT has the legal capacity to enforce the terms of the proposed conservation easement. Fred Weinmann didn’t think that this question applied to agriculture because the land trust can only provide stewardship [of farming activities] to the degree that the conservation easement addresses them. The committee asked staff to put this question on the agenda for a future discussion in relationship to agriculture. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 8 Question #3 To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a similar project? a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points Scores for this question were in agreement. Question #4 To what degree is the acquisition feasible? a. Highly feasible = 5 points b. Moderately feasible = 3 points c. Slightly feasible = 1 point Scores for this question were in agreement. Question #5 To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort? a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3 points c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation efforts = 1 point The project area is included as in the county’s comprehensive plan and is also listed in the Jefferson Land Trust Conservation plan. Question #6 To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened? a. Significantly threatened = 5 points b. Moderately threatened = 3 points c. Slightly threatened = 1 point d. Not threatened = 0 points Phil Andrus commented that he would need to see a “For Sale” sign in front of the property in order to rank this question a “5.” We all want to see the property remain as it is – but there is no “For Sale” sign and farmers are already working the land. JD Gallant commented that farms in general are almost all significantly threatened, and he rated the question a “5.” Ray Hunter mentioned that he hauled hay bales off the Boulton Farm many years ago and knows John Boulton loves the land and wouldn’t want to see it broken up. Others pointed out that while this may be the case, there are currently no guarantees of what would happen in the next generation. It only takes one heir who is not committed to perpetuating the farm in order to threaten it. There are eight separate parcels potentially, so the land could easily be carved up into chunks without a conservation easement. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 9 Question #7 To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna? a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species = 0–3 points b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points Part a. JD Gallant noted there is a fish-bearing stream. Fred Weinmann pointed out that the purpose of this easement is to keep the land in agriculture. The proposed conservation easement will not provide additional stream protections. Rick Jahnke pointed out that state and federal threatened or sensitive species, such as salmon and trumpeter swans, use the property. Trumpeter swans are listed as sensitive. John Wood noted that this question is highly subjective. There is no assurance of any future riparian restoration. Protection for the farm is potentially protection for the swans depending on what they plant. Lige Christian said the easement provides for monitoring and therefore some measure of protection in contrast with residential use and no monitoring. The purpose of the project is not aligned with the question. Janet Kearsley noted that although there are state sensitive species present, no endangered species are located on the site. Part b. Rick Jahnke said agricultural land is intended to be plowed and planted with crops – and is not typically managed for native diversity. He gave the project a “1” in this category. Fred said that the project does offer protection to plant and animal diversity by limiting the number of home sites. Scott Brinton chose not to compare the project to a forest but to compare it to what would result without the conservation easement – a higher human population density. Rick Jahnke said a lot of people these days might buy five acres and leave four more or less untouched. Lorna Smith commented that one of the limiting factors for overwintering raptors is farm fields. When those get converted it really hurts raptor and swan populations. Scott Brinton felt that questions such as this one should be more tailored to the situation – agriculture or forestland for example. Part c. Scott Brinton discussed the benefits of farmland protection as a wildlife corridor but also the risk of fencing which would limit animal movement. Again, are we comparing against what could be in the future, or the other 2012 projects? Ray Hunter, a recent member of the committee, gave some history of fish management in Crocker Lake. Concern was expressed that some of the information he offered would be of greater use prior to this meeting, and that there is a deadline for “new information.” Question #8 To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use? a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points d. Other programs http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 10 Phil Andrus asked what the program would be that the farm is participating in. Lorna gave credit for the voluntary effort to conserve the farm through this process, and she ranked this question a “1.” Janet Kearsley thought the question could refer to the CREP program or a farm management plan. John Boulton had accomplished some selective logging and Ray Hunter considered that a conservation program. A few members expressed the feeling that some of the ratings questions should be reworked. The Boulton’s sale of five acres to the Washington State Department of Transportation was considered another program perhaps. Question #9 To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area? a. Broad county benefit = 5 points b. Localized benefit = 3 points Scores for this question were in agreement. Question #10 To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource? a. Public access, with planned or educational/interpretive displays and materials, events or activities = 5 points b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points c. Remote location = 1 point d. No opportunity = 0 points The application indicated there would be some educational opportunities at the farm such as internships and perhaps it would be included on the farm tour. John Wood would like to see this question reviewed because allowing access to a farm may not be as appropriate as an undeveloped open space. Question #11 To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources1? a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3 points b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point Some members were surprised that the Boulton application did not make a case for this. The description of the farm says it was established in the early 1900s which actually makes it a historic farm, but they answered “NA” in the application to Question #27. To be listed as historic, the barn itself would need to be a unique structure. Scott Brinton felt that the property is a culturally significant, keystone farm for the area. If the application says “NA,” are we forced to rank the question with a zero? Janet Kearsley said that based on historical criteria of 50 years this is a historic property. 1 Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious ceremonial and social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of resources under chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 11 Question #12 To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use? a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable silviculture Certified = 3 points Uncertified = 0 points This project is not asking to fund protections for the forest land. The hope is to keep the forest land separate from the agricultural area. Janet Kearsley pointed out that in the southern portion of the conservation easement area there is significant forest land and forested buffer on the creek – although it would not likely be managed for silviculture. Understory planting is a silvicultural practice, but the intent of the question is related to commercial forestry, not restoration. There was a 10 minute break to improve spreadsheet function. 2. L. BROWN TRUST II Rating Process Question #1 To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisition from groups, agencies or individuals? a. leverages significantly = 3 points b. leverages moderately = 2 points c. meets requirement = 1 point There was no discussion. Question #2 To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the proposed project? a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point Scores were in agreement. Question #3 To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a similar project? a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points Scores were in agreement. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 12 Question #4 To what degree is the acquisition feasible? a. Highly feasible = 5 points b. Moderately feasible = 3 points c. Slightly feasible = 1 point Lige Christian rated the question a “3” due to the lack of a purchase and sale agreement. As a longtime neighbor, Ray Hunter felt that the property would make a great open space project because of its location and significance and began to share some of his recollections. Janet Kearsley requested that a note be made in the minutes to emphasize that no new information be brought into the ranking meeting. John Wood commented that there is always some new information that comes into the meeting whether it’s extensive knowledge of wildlife or native plants. But, factual knowledge about a specific property under consideration should be brought forward ahead of the ranking meeting. No changes were made to the scores for this question. Question #5 To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort? a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3 points c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation efforts = 1 point Scores were in agreement. Question #6 To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened? a. Significantly threatened = 5 points b. Moderately threatened = 3 points c. Slightly threatened = 1 point d. Not threatened = 0 points There was no discussion. Question #7 To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna? a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species = 0–3 points b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points Part a. John Wood changed his score from a “2” to a “3.” There was no discussion. Part b. Fred Weinmann the expressed the opinion that this was a high value site for wildlife protection. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 13 Part c. A few changes to scores were made. There was no discussion. Question #8 To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use? a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points d. Other Programs The comment was made that all the scores for this question should be “0” in this case. There were a couple of 2s that were adjusted down to 0s. Question #9 To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area? a. Broad county benefit = 5 points b. Localized benefit = 3 points Lige Christian commented on the connections between the L. Brown Trust project and others in the Snow Creek area and that, together, they could yield broad benefits for salmon. Question #10 To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource? a. Public access, with planned or educational/interpretive displays and materials, events or activities = 5 points b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points c. Remote location = 1 point d. No opportunity = 0 points Several members remarked on the land trust’s intention to include this site within its docent or naturalist programs. Access to the site would be actively managed. Question #11 To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources2? a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3 points b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point Lorna Smith commented that she thought it was surprising that the L. Brown Trust application didn’t make a case for salmon being a cultural resource. Janet Kearsley said that the sponsor could also have made the point that most streams were or are also trail corridors – another cultural resource. 2 Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious ceremonial and social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of resources under chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 14 Question #12 To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use? a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable silviculture Certified = 3 points Uncertified = 0 points Janet Kearsley said that the stated plans to under-plant conifers could qualify this project for points. There was general agreement that “silviculture” is defined as a commercial activity. Perhaps the word “silviculture” should be replaced by “commercial forestry.” Scott Brinton noted that the project likely received points for the plan to under-plant conifers in order to balance the points available in the agricultural question. Maybe the term “silviculture” should be changed to “commercial forestry.” Phil Andrus noted that this question was included because agricultural lands would otherwise have an unfair advantage. Preservation of both agricultural and forest lands is important to the CF program. This question should receive all zeros if you accept this explanation of its intent. Janet Kearsley suggested that projects receive credit for silvicultural practices designed to enhance biological diversity, not only commercial return in the next cycle. This year, the answers should reflect the original intent of the question. Staff tallied the scores for the Boulton Farm and L. Brown Trust II projects. Boulton Farm = 270 L. Brown Trust II = 234 3. TARBOO FOREST CONSERVATION Rating Process Question #1 To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisition from groups, agencies or individuals? a. leverages significantly = 3 points b. leverages moderately = 2 points c. meets requirement = 1 point Lorna Smith pointed out that this question is subjective. There is a requirement for at least fifty percent leverage. Question #2 To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the proposed project? a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point The forest management plan’s stated intent is to keep the forest standing wood volume essentially the same. Timber in excess of that amount could be harvested. The applicant stated that the clear cutting would be very selective. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 15 Question #3 To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a similar project? a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points Scores were in agreement. Question #4 To what degree is the acquisition feasible? a. Highly feasible = 5 points b. Moderately feasible = 3 points c. Slightly feasible = 1 point There was clarification that the Freemans and NWI already own the properties and are seeking funding to pay back the loan that was used to acquire them. Question #5 To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort? a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3 points c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation efforts = 1 point Phil Andrus felt that the Land Trust’s conservation plan was not broad enough to qualify the project for points on this question. Any sponsor ought to be able to come up with a plan that includes its own projects. The application also mentions the county’s conservation plan under Question #17 of the application. Lorna Smith pointed out that that question is very broad and says, “…or, identified in a community conservation effort,” which equates to a plan apparently. Janet Kearsley, read the rest of question #17, “The proposed acquisition is specifically identified in an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or community conservation effort.” It means that we claim not only county, federal but also local conservation efforts. Like NOSC, the Jefferson Land Trust is a local conservation planning effort. Phil Andrus wanted to see more of a link to other project sites. Fred Weinmann pointed out that Northwest Watershed Institute, and not JLT, is the project applicant – and their program has also been in place for a long time. Does this property have to be identified specifically in a plan? For Phil Andrus, it would need to be in a plan other than those of a proponent, applicant or sponsor. The Jefferson Land Trust developed their conservation plan over two years, so Janet Kearsley felt that it is as valid as any other conservation planning effort. Lige Christian thought that the application should have included more information about how the larger community had been involved in the development of the JLT plan. Fred Weinmann pointed out that other organizations, including The Nature Conservancy, had participated in its http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 16 development. Scott Brinton also noted that it the plan was in place well in advance of this application. Question #6 To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened? a. Significantly threatened = 5 points b. Moderately threatened = 3 points c. Slightly threatened = 1 point d. Not threatened = 0 points Scott Brinton asked, if this project isn’t protected by a conservation easement, is it necessarily vulnerable? Fred Weinmann pointed out that the forest practices would be quite different. Clear cuts are common. The land was purchased specifically to avert the owner’s plans to clear cut and sell the property for development. Rick Jahnke read this question as, “How severe is the threat?” As in the case of the Boulton Farm, there is no “For Sale” sign but the applicant stated the previous owner’s goal was to clear cut and sell. The purchases were made to avoid this and, consequently, a high score is justified because the severity of the threat was high. If the mortgage isn’t covered, the property reverts back. Scott Brinton thought that development wouldn’t likely be swift. Others remarked on the presence of residences and clear cuts in the surrounding area. Although timber prices may be depressed now, in the longer term this could easily change. There have been other projects, such as Finnriver Farm or some in the Quimper Wildlife Corridor, which perhaps were more urgent. Lorna Smith noted that risk could also take the form of a chain saw if the property reverted to the bank. A private investor may be more sympathetic however. John Wood said that the lack of obvious risk is perhaps the penalty for having purchased the properties. We don’t know what other options might exist if the purchase hadn’t occurred. At this point, many steps would be necessary for the properties to be taken over by a developer and developed. This is a subjective question. Question #7 To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna? a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species = 0–3 points b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points Part a. There was no discussion. Part b. There was no discussion. Part c. Deer and salmon in the area were mentioned as well as the likelihood of bear. There are non- fish bearing streams running though the property which feed clean water to Tarboo Creek. On http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 17 the site visit, pileated woodpecker excavations were seen. JD Gallant felt that the properties could well be considered a wildlife corridor. Question #8 To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use? a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points d. Other Programs Scores were in agreement. Question #9 To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area? a. Broad county benefit = 5 points b. Localized benefit = 3 points Janet Kearsley felt that this is project is significant to the watershed and that “watershed” should be included in the question. This would be a discussion for the future. Lorna Smith said in her view there would always be a broad value if there are ecological benefits. Janet Kearsley reminded the group about a previous project—a small property up against the highway—that was felt to have only local benefit. Question #10 To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource? a. Public access, with planned or educational/interpretive displays and materials, events or activities = 5 points b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points c. Remote location = 1 point d. No opportunity = 0 points The NWI barn, on an adjacent property, was considered a potential benefit here. Question #11 To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources3? a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3 points b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point The barn was also noted as a cultural resource – and it could be argued that the project is a buffer to that historic site. Ray Hunter felt that the forest is just another stand of second growth. Scott Brinton commented that the application mentioned a goal of managing the forest so that 3 Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious ceremonial and social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of resources under chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 18 some cultural benefits would be restored such as cedar trees large enough to be carved into canoes. JD Gallant argued that all forests of this type have the potential for cultural use. Question #12 To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use? a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable silviculture Certified = 3 points Uncertified = 0 points Part a. There was no discussion Part b. Phil Andrus said there was no evidence of enrollment. Janet Kearsley asked that a future meeting include a discussion on whether they would seek enrollment. The adjusted score for the Tarboo Forest Conservation project was calculated at 232. Scores for the projects: Boulton Farm = 270 L. Brown Trust II = 234 Tarboo Forest Conservation = 232 Lige Christian summarized that the next tasks are to determine whether each of the projects can be considered fundable or not, to rank them, and to determine funding recommendations. Staff noted that the agreed upon language is whether the projects are “worthy of funding.” Phil Andrus moved that the Committee find all three projects worthy of funding. Phyllis Schultz seconded the motion. There was no discussion. All in favor: Unanimous. The motion passed. Phil Andrus moved that the Boulton Project be fully funded. Ray Hunter seconded the motion. There was no discussion. Fred Weinmann asked, why did this project receive 30 more point than the others? The reason, it was felt, was that the project ranked well on the three agricultural questions. Also, it did well because the county funds would be highly leveraged. John Wood called the question. All in favor: Unanimous. The motion passed. Staff reviewed the estimate of available funds: $260,000. The request for the Boulton Project is $69,000 which leaves $191,000. The request for the L. Brown Trust II is $26,900. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 19 Lige Christian moved made a motion to fully fund the L. Brown Trust II property. JD Gallant seconded the motion. There are not sufficient funds available to fully fund all three projects in this year. The motions already passed preclude the Tarboo Forest Conservation project from full funding using only 2012 funds. A choice is needed based on the other proposed funding options. Fred Weinmann emphasized that the L. Brown Trust also highly leverages county funds while acquiring the property fee simple and creating a preserve. Lige Christian said if the L. Brown Trust project is not funded, it would still mean funding Tarboo over two years. He felt that L. Brown Trust is important enough to request that the BoCC commit the necessary funds to protect it. Rick Jahnke said there may not be quite enough funds available this year to meet the first year’s request for Tarboo after the commitments to the other two projects. Janet Kearsley called for the question. All in favor to fully fund the L. Brown Trust II property: Unanimous. The motion passed. Lige Christian moved to commit the remainder of the funds to the Tarboo Forest Conservation Project. Lorna Smith seconded the motion. Rick Jahnke asked if they were making this motion with or without any stipulations with regard to the following year. Mr. Christian and Ms. Smith answered “without.” There was no further discussion. All in favor: Unanimous. The motion carried. Lige Christian reviewed the funding scenarios proposed in the application. Do we want to see funds from next year committed to this project? Lorna Smith would like to communicate to the proponents that, given a sizeable award this year, they are encouraged to look for sources of additional funding and come back to the CF Committee with a new application in 2013. Their future application would be given full consideration, but this would potentially free up CF funds for other worthy projects that might come along. Rick Jahnke said that alternative #3 in the application indicates that if the project is funded over two years, the cost would increase. In this scenario, Jefferson Land Trust and Northwest Watershed Institute would request $167,000 again next year unless they succeed in obtaining other sources of funds. In other words, it increases the project’s cost from $260,000 to $334,000. If they are successful in securing additional funds, their proposal will be that much more attractive. The application indicates that the project is split-able, so basically half would be purchased this year. Rick Jahnke clarified that the committee is discussing splitting the project completely into two separate projects. Lige Christian asked if there is a precedent for “prefunding” a project. Staff confirmed that yes, this is permissible and was done for the Tamanowas Rock and Nicholson Short Plat Project – the BoCC obligated funding in advance from the next year’s cycle. Lorna Smith stated that the committee obviously likes this project and funding it this year is an incentive to support it next year unless something more urgent comes along. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Conservation Futures - May 7, 2012 20 Lorna Smith moved to not commit funding to the Tarboo Forest Conservation Project for next year but to put a letter together to encourage them to reapply and also invite them to seek additional funding. John Wood suggested alternative language – that the committee has considered the application carefully and invites the proponents to apply for the balance of the needed funds next year. Lorna Smith accepted the language as a friendly amendment. There was discussion of whether this motion was actually necessary. Lige Christian felt that it is necessary to provide an answer to the Tarboo project request to commit some of next year’s conservation futures funds to fully fund it. Lorna Smith withdrew her earlier motion. Lige Christian moved to not commit conservation futures funds from 2013 to the Tarboo Forest Conservation project at this time. Phil Andrus seconded the motion. The motion carried: Unanimous. VII. Other/ Administrative Staff Update The next meeting will occur in September unless the committee chooses to get together, perhaps informally, over the summer. Fund Balance: At the end of April the balance in the CF account was $620,816.73. VIII. Observer Comments None IX. Adjournment Chair Wood adjourned the meeting at 5:55 PM. Submitted by Tami Pokorny Appendix A Composite Ratings Sheets Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011 Project Title: BOULTON FARM Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total CRITERIA POINT LEVELS ADJUSTED WEIGHT (multiplier)SCORE 1 To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisitions from groups, agencies or individuals? Points awarded based on the following level of contribution. 1c. Leverages significantly = 3 points 1d.Leverages moderately = 2 points 1e. Meets requirement = 1 point 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 165 2 To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the proposed project? 2a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points 2b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points 2c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 550 3 To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a similar project? 3a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points 3b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points 3c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point 3d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 55 4 To what degree is the acquisition feasible? Boulton Farm Appendix A Composite Ratings Sheets Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011 Project Title: BOULTON FARM Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total 4a. Highly feasible = 5 points 4b. Moderately feasible = 3 points 4c. Slightly feasible = 1 point 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 440 5 To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort? 5a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points 5b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3 points 5c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation efforts = 1 point 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 7 371 6 To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened? 6a. Significantly threatened = 5 points 6b. Moderately threatened = 3 points 6c. Slightly threatened = 1 point 6d. Not threatened = 0 points 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 330 7 To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna? (Points awarded in part based on level of documentation.) 7a 7a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species = 0–3 points 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 4 80 Boulton Farm Appendix A Composite Ratings Sheets Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011 Project Title: BOULTON FARM Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total 7b 7b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 96 7c 7c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points 3 3 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 4 104 8 To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use? 8a 8a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 4 84 8b 8b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 132 8c 8c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 132 9 To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area? 9a. Broad county benefit = 5 points 9b. Localized benefit = 3 points 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 220 10 To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource? 10a. Public access, with plan for educational/interpretive displays and materials = 5 points 10b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points 10c. Remote location = 1 point 10d. No opportunity = 0 points 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 4 148 11 To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources? Boulton Farm Appendix A Composite Ratings Sheets Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011 Project Title: BOULTON FARM Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total 11a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3 points 11b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points 11c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 3 48 12 To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use? a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 18 b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable silviculture Certified = 3 points; Uncertified = 0 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TOTAL SCORE 2973 11 Number of raters 270 Average Boulton Farm Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011Project Title: L. BROWN TRUST II Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total CRITERIA POINT LEVELS ADJUSTED WEIGHT (multiplier)SCORE 1 To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisitions from groups, agencies or individuals? Points awarded based on the following level of contribution. 1c. Leverages significantly = 3 points 1d.Leverages moderately = 2 points 1e. Meets requirement = 1 point 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 160 2 To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the proposed project? 2a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points 2b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points 2c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 550 3 To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a similar project? 3a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points 3b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points 3c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point 3d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 55 4 To what degree is the acquisition feasible? 4a. Highly feasible = 5 points 4b. Moderately feasible = 3 points 4c. Slightly feasible = 1 point 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 8 360 5 To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort? 5a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points 5b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3 points L. Brown Trust II Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011Project Title: L. BROWN TRUST II Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total 5c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation efforts = 1 point 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 385 6 To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened? 6a. Significantly threatened = 5 points 6b. Moderately threatened = 3 points 6c. Slightly threatened = 1 point 6d. Not threatened = 0 points 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 306 7 To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna? (Points awarded in part based on level of documentation.) 7a 7a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species = 0–3 points 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 132 7b 7b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 124 7c 7c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 128 8 To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use? 8a 8a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8b 8b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8c 8c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area? 9a. Broad county benefit = 5 points 9b. Localized benefit = 3 points 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 220 10 To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource? 10a. Public access, with plan for educational/interpretive displays and materials = 5 points 10b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points 10c. Remote location = 1 point 10d. No opportunity = 0 points 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 132 11 To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources? L. Brown Trust II Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011Project Title: L. BROWN TRUST II Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total 11a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3 points 11b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points 11c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use? a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 24 b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable silviculture Certified = 3 points; Uncertified = 0 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TOTAL SCORE 2576 11 Number of raters 234 Average L. Brown Trust II Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011Project Title: TARBOO FOREST Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total CRITERIA POINT LEVELS ADJUSTED WEIGHT (multiplier)SCORE 1 To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisitions from groups, agencies or individuals? Points awarded based on the following level of contribution. 1c. Leverages significantly = 3 points 1d.Leverages moderately = 2 points 1e. Meets requirement = 1 point 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 5 145 2 To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the proposed project? 2a. Stewardship plan with guaranteed long-term stewardship = 5 points 2b. Stewardship plan with guaranteed short-term stewardship = 3 points 2c. Stewardship plan, no guarantee = 1 point 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 550 3 To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a similar project? 3a. Highly demonstrated = 5 points 3b. Moderately demonstrated = 3 points 3c. Slightly demonstrated = 1 point 3d. Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 55 4 To what degree is the acquisition feasible? 4a. Highly feasible = 5 points 4b. Moderately feasible = 3 points 4c. Slightly feasible = 1 point 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 408 Tarboo Forest Conservation Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011Project Title: TARBOO FOREST Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total 5 To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort? 5a. Site identified in the adopted plan = 5 points 5b. Site is not identified in the adopted plan, but the project complements an adopted plan = 3 points 5c. Stand alone project with an adopted plan and potential to stimulate broader conservation efforts = 1 point 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 7 357 6 To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened? 6a. Significantly threatened = 5 points 6b. Moderately threatened = 3 points 6c. Slightly threatened = 1 point 3 5 6d. Not threatened = 0 points 3 1 5 5 1 5 3 5 3 5 1 6 222 7 To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna? (Points awarded in part based on level of documentation.) 7a 7a. State of Washington Priority Habitat and/or State or Federal Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species = 0–3 points 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 116 7b 7b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 112 7c 7c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 112 8 To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use? 8a 8a. Participates in other conservation programs = 0–3 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8b 8b. Likely will maintain active agricultural use = 0–3 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8c 8c. Preserves rural cultural heritage = 0–3 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Tarboo Forest Conservation Jefferson County Conservation Futures Rating Worksheet 2011Project Title: TARBOO FOREST Andrus Brinton Christian Gallant Hunter Jahnke Kearsley Schultz Smith Weinmann Wood Factor Composite Total 9 To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area? 9a. Broad county benefit = 5 points 9b. Localized benefit = 3 points 5 5 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 204 10 To what degree does the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource? 10a. Public access, with plan for educational/interpretive displays and materials = 5 points 10b. Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points 10c. Remote location = 1 point 10d. No opportunity = 0 points 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 156 11 To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources? 11a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3 points 11b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points 11c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 3 24 12 To what degree does the project preserve forestland for silvicultural use? a. Management plan retains or establishes a mix of species and age class = 0-3 points 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 93 b. Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable silviculture Certified = 3 points; Uncertified = 0 points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TOTAL SCORE 2554 11 Number of raters 232 Average Tarboo Forest Conservation Conservation Futures Ratings Meeting 2012 FINAL Review of Recommendation Process Before the meeting:  Each of the CFFC members eligible to participate in the rankings reviews the applications, attends the requisite presentations, and either attends the site visits or views the video (DVD).  Each person prepares individual rating sheets and provides them to staff (by the morning of May 3 ideally). At the meeting:  During the deposition portion of the meeting, staff reads all of the appearance of fairness questions and asks for objections from the audience. Then each member answers questions relevant to their eligibility and possible conflict of interest. They have the opportunity to recuse themselves, as necessary. For each project, the following question is asked first: In order to obtain and maintain the appearance of fairness in the decision making process, the committee wishes to know if there is anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any particular committee member in this decision making process and if so, to state the reasons for that objection. Then, the following four questions are asked of the committee members with respect to each project. Answers are given round robin style so that the question doesn’t need to be repeated for each member. This year, we’ll have hard copies of this information sheet available for your reference. 1. Do you as a member of the committee stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome? 2. Are you as a committee member able to hear and consider this proposal or application in a fair and objective manner, that is, without bias and without a predisposition toward any particular result regarding this proposal or application? 3. Have you as a committee member engaged in any communication outside this hearing with either a proponent or opponent of this particular proposal or application? (A yes answer is not an automatic disqualification if the nature of the communication is disclosed and others have the opportunity to question/approve its inconsequentiality to this process.) 4. Are you as a committee member able to certify the project presentation and either attended the site visit or viewed the official video tape?  Members who recuse themselves from all of the ratings leave at this point. Arrangements/times are confirmed so that members who are eligible rank some projects, but have recused themselves for others, may participate as appropriate.  An absolute majority (7) members of the committee are needed to recommend projects to the BoCC. Definition of an absolute majority from Wikipedia: "An absolute majority or majority of the entire membership (in American English, a supermajority voting requirement) is a voting basis which usually requires that more than half of all the members of a group (including those absent and those present but not voting) must vote in favour of a proposition in order for it to be passed. In practical terms, it may mean that abstention from voting could be equivalent to a no vote. Absolute majority can be contrasted with simple majority which only requires a majority of those actually voting to approve a proposition for it to be enacted. Absolute majority voting is most often used to pass significant changes to constitutions or to by-laws in order to ensure that there is substantial support for a proposal.  The ratings are displayed electronically, reviewed, and possibly adjusted at the individual rating level and then compiled into composite scores. No new information concerning the applications may be introduced. For each project a total score is calculated and then a weighted average based on the number of members who participate in the ratings for that project (total score divided by number of committee members who rank the project).  The amount of funding available is reviewed for capital and O & M expenses. Two recommendations from the CFFC are expected: 1. Is the project worthy of being funded? And 2. What funding levels are recommended for each of the worthy projects?  Motions are made as appropriate to recommend and at what level.