Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120917_CFMinutes http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp * Decisions and action items are indicated in bold font. Members Present: Lige Christian, District 3; JD Gallant – District 3; Jerry Gorsline, District 2; Ray Hunter, Interest – Fallow Farms; Richard Jahnke, Interest – Coastal Areas; Janet Kearsley, District 1; Sarah Spaeth, Interest - Jefferson Land Trust; John Wood, District 1 Members Absent: Phil Andrus, District 2; Scott Brinton – Agriculture; Phyllis Schultz, Interest – Working Lands; Lorna Smith, Interest – Ecotourism; Fred Weinmann, Interest - Ecology County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Water Quality Division and Recorder Guests: Cindy Jayne and Rebecca Benjamin I. Call to Order: Chair John Wood called the meeting to order at 4:41 PM. II. Review of Agenda: The agenda was approved as written. III. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the September 17, 2012 meeting were approved as written. IV. Observer comments: Ms. James remarked that she is new to the area and interested in the committee and its work. Ms. Benjamin commented that the Conservation Futures Program is important to the success of salmon restoration projects in Jefferson County. Both women are interested in potentially serving on the committee in the future. V. Old Business: BoCC Decision on 2012 Projects John Wood delivered the committee’s project funding recommendations to the BoCC at their June 26 meeting. The commissioners were very positive about the projects and passed resolutions to reflect the committee’s recommendations. Jefferson County Conservation Futures Committee Monday September 17, 2012 4:30-6:30 PM Tri Area Community Center Chimacum, WA FINAL MINUTES http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp 2 Sarah Spaeth announced that federal funding has been secured to further compensate the Boulton Farm for the conservation easement acquisition and to provide additional match for the CF award. The Land Trust, county staff, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe met recently to discuss the Tamanowas Rock closing, which should occur before the end of the year. Ray Hunter mentioned that there has been a lot of activity at the Boulton Farm lately and said the project is phenomenal for both the county and the CF Committee. VI. New Business Review of 2012 Round Materials and Process; Propose Modifications for 2013 Staff suggested that a meeting could be added to the CF process to discuss how each question on the rating sheet would be interpreted with respect to the specific proposed projects. This could help avoid confusion and to help bring out “new information” earlier in the process. The best time to ask questions or make comments is at the publicized site visits, presentation meeting, or through staff ahead of the deadline for additional questions. This gives a perception of fairness to the public and to the applicants. There was discussion of the value of open discussion during the actual ranking meeting. The process of sharing perspectives is invaluable. It’s the focused energy on the questions in that context of ranking that leads to the best thinking. “No new information” can seem restrictive but surprises can be problematic. Sarah Spaeth suggested it might be helpful to hold site visits first – ahead of the project presentation meeting. If the committee asks for information at the site visits, the sponsor will have time to develop a response that could be incorporated into the formal presentation. The process would then be: 1. Site visits 2. Time for questions 3. Project presentations 4. Ranking (immediately after presentations) It will be important to read the applications, with an eye to scoring them, ahead of the site visits and have questions ready. Rebecca Benjamin said in her experience the real questions come to mind when you sit down and actually try to score. There was general agreement that the ranking sheet and application should be more closely aligned so that sponsors and committee members can easily link the application and ratings questions. That way if a sponsor misses something, it’s more obvious and can be addressed. Lige Christian moved that the sponsors be required to use the order of questions on the ranking sheet to order their presentation. Janet Kearsley seconded the motion. All in favor: Unanimous. The motion carried. Staff was asked to reorganize the application and/or rating sheet so that they are better aligned. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp 3 Lige Christian mentioned that the application calls for information that is not scored. Perhaps this should be discussed on a future agenda. Discussion then turned to questions that were identified during the 2012 ranking meeting. On May 7, John Wood had asked to have the following question reviewed because allowing access to a farm may not be as appropriate as an undeveloped open space. 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 committee decided to retain question as is and to inform applicants that education and interpretation are defined broadly by the committee. On page 12 of the May 7 minutes, a request was made to discuss the requirements for no new information. This has now been accomplished. With respect to Question 11 of the Ranking Sheet: 11. To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources1? ______ X 3 = _______ a. Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3 points b. Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points c. Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point Sarah Spaeth had commented on committee members’ acknowledgement that no case had been made for the cultural or historical significance of the Boulton Farm or the L. Brown Trust properties. If assets such as salmon or barns might qualify properties as significant, perhaps that fact could be more clearly stated. Lige Christian moved to table the topic until the next meeting. Janet Kearsley seconded the motion. All in favor: Unanimous. The motion carried. 1 Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious ceremonial and social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of resources under chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp 4 Staff was requested to look into the RCWs. In relationship to the following ranking sheet question, 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 Land is enrolled in public and/or private programs which certify long-term sustainable silviculture Certified = 3 points Uncertified = 0 points Janet Kearsley had suggested that projects receive credit for silvicultural practices designed to enhance biological diversity, not only commercial return. How broadly should silviculture be defined? For example, is under-planting a forest practice? This question corresponds with Question #28 [now #24] of the CF Program Application. Staff was instructed to add the underlined words to 28 a., “….planned silvicultural activities including forest management plan(s) or forest ecosystem restoration.“ The committee discussed whether working forest land is an important conservation value in the way that restoration forestland is, and the general sense was that it was. Management requirements for forest lands will change over time. The main goal is to see working forest lands retained for timber and not converted to other uses. How important are the specific forest management approaches to the committee? Jerry Gorsline felt there were additional benefits from restoration forestry. It’s possible to design silviculture for healthy forest development – and that is not necessarily incompatible with clear cuts. It depends on the size of the clear cut and the intentions behind it. Like agriculture, silviculture maintains open space by keeping it from being developed for housing or other purposes. Beyond that, plans to maintain selective logging, restoration along streams, and that sort of thing should yield additional points. There are certainly forms of agriculture that are not particularly friendly to the environment. The committee asked staff to revise rating sheet Question 12 to assign points for silviculture only and to make it align with the question on agriculture (#8). On page 17 of the May meeting minutes Janet Kearsley had asked whether the word “watershed” should be added to Question #9: Question 9 To what degree does the project serve a significant benefit area? a. Broad county benefit = 5 points b. Localized benefit = 3 points It was ultimately felt that this is one of those times where the committee must exercise its own judgment, and the wording should remain as is. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commissioners/Conservation/conservation.asp 5 Calendar The draft calendar will reflect the previous discussion. Fall Presentation Staff commented that although the committee is required to go before the board every two years, it’s typically done this each autumn. The sort of changes proposed so far could probably be processed by staff. VII. Other/ Administrative Staff Update: The next meeting will occur in November. Fund Balance: At the end of August, the balance in the CF account was $638,531.03. All of the 2012 projects plus Tamanowas have yet to close. Outreach: In 2012, Conservation Futures outreach was provided through the Conservation District tree sale, the Conservation District annual meeting, at the Port Townsend and Chimacum farmer’s markets, and at the Quilcene Fair. Membership: The next term to end is Phyllis Schultz’ at the end of April 2013. VIII. Observer Comments None IX. Adjournment Chair Wood adjourned the meeting at 6:32 PM.