HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 0121 97C0 -.71-,I .e.,14-D.J19,4. r -Z-1-17
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
IN THE MATTER OF AN emergency }
ordinance establishing interim land use }
controls, designating and conserving }
forest lands of long-term commercial }
significance, as required by }
Chapter 36.70.A RCW }
Ordinance No. 01-0121-97
Section 1.00 Purpose: The intent of this Ordinance is to designate and conserve forest lands of
long-term commercial significance. Lands classified as forest lands but not designated as long-
term commercially significant, are not required or encouraged to convert to other uses. On the
contrary, forestry is encouraged on all these lands. Specific purposes include:
1. To sustain and enhance forest resource operations of long-term commercial significance by
protecting from incompatible development forest resource lands that can be economically and
practically managed for forest resource production.
2. To encourage the continued diversity of forestry in Jefferson County through designating two
classes of long-term commercially significant forest land that will allow the continued
existence of a range of approaches to forest management.
3. To alleviate the pressure experienced by forest resource land owners to convert their land to
more intense uses.
4. To alert potential purchasers as to the location of forest resource lands, and the nature of land
uses and activities to be expected within such areas.
1.10 Findings: The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners enter the following findings:
The Washington State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act, Engrossed
Substitute House Bill 2929, now codified as Chapter 36.70A RCW, which, in part,
requires local governments to classify, designate, and regulate to conserve resource lands.
2. In accordance with RCW 36.70A.050, the (then) Washington State Department of
Community Development established Minimum Guidelines to classify and designate
resource lands, codified as Chapter 365-190 WAC.
:.vas- 23 E,r. 5D
In March of 1994, the Washington State Legislature adopted Engrossed Substitute
Senate Bill 6228, which amended the definitions of agricultural land and forest land
contained in RCW 36.70A.030.
4. Following an exhaustive policy creation and public review process, the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) adopted an interim ordinance to conserve forest lands of long-
term commercial significance (Ordinance No. 07-0705-94) on July 5, 1994.
On September 8 and 911994, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings
Board received petitions for review of the interim forest and mineral land ordinances
from the Olympic Environmental Council, the Washington Environmental Council and
the Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
6, On October 28, 1994, the County adopted an emergency ordinance, Ordinance No. 16-
1028-94, which committed the County to adopting new interim forest and mineral land
ordinances by November 30, 1994 and reopened the public process for the submission of
comment on potential designation.
7. Following advertisement in the Port TownsendUefferson County Leader for the
submission of further information from interested parties, the completion of preliminary
analysis on the economic viability of forestry in eastern Jefferson County, and review by
the Board of Commissioners on November 21, 1994, the County adopted an emergency
ordinance, Ordinance No. 17-1128-94, on November 28, 1994, which extended the
deadline for adoption of new interim forest and mineral land ordinances to December 14,
1994.
8. On December 12, 1994, the County adopted Ordinance No. 18-1212-94, an emergency
ordinance, extending the timeline for completion of replacement interim resource land
ordinances to February 13, 1995. This ordinance provided for expanded analysis and
public review processes, these being deemed necessary by the Board of Commissioners
for any replacement ordinances to properly comply with the designation, conservation
and public process requirements of the Act.
9. On December 23, 1994, the Jefferson County Planning Commission commenced
reviewing maps, together with their associated designation criteria, of alternative forest
land designations prepared by planning staff using the analysis procedure contained in
'Exhibit B' of Ordinance No. 18-1212-94.
10. On December 28, 1994 the Planning Commission met to continue its work on forest land
designation. At this meeting, a draft forest lands ordinance (identified as Draft #3) was
released by legal counsel for Planning Commission review.
VOL 23 Face 56
11. The Planning Commission continued its deliberations on forest land designation through
January, February, March and April of 1995, holding a total of eleven meetings (the
meeting held on January 23, 1995 being continued from January 17, 1995).
12. The Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 1995 featured the presentation of
testimony from representatives of the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, MRGC Inc., and Pope Resources Inc., on the value, productivity and
profitability of forest lands in eastern Jefferson County.
13. All the Planning Commission Meetings held over this period were properly advertised
and open to members of the public. Opportunity for public comment was frequently
provided and sign -in sheets listing people in attendance were maintained by Planning
staff.
14. On January 11, 1995, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
held a public hearing on the merits of the appeals filed by the Olympic Environmental
Council, the Washington Environmental Council, and the Washington State Department
of Natural Resources on the County's existing interim forest and mineral resource land
ordinances.
15. On February 16, 1995, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
issued its final decision and order (Case No. 94-2-0017) on the appeals of the County's
interim forest and mineral resource land ordinances.
16. In finding Ordinance 07-0705-94 out of compliance with the requirements of the Growth
Management Act, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
ordered the County to adopt an ordinance which designates and conserves forest lands of
long-term commercial significance consistent with the goals and requirements of the Act
within 60 days.
17. Following receipt of the final decision and order for Case No. 94-2-0017 from the
Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Jefferson County Planning
Department staff commenced drafting an ordinance designed to address the issues raised
in the decision and return the County to compliance with this portion of the Growth
Management Act.
18. This ordinance was drafted through reference to the previously released draft #4 of the
forest lands ordinance, the full deliberations of the Jefferson County Planning
Commission over the period December 23, 1994 to February 24, 1995, and the Final
Decision and Order for Case No. 94-2-0017 issued by the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board.
VOL 23 racy 57
19. Draft #5 of this ordinance was mailed to the Jefferson County Planning Commission on
March 10, 1995, and participants of record on March 13, 1995. Copies of the ordinance
draft were made generally available on the afternoon of March 10, 1995.
20. The Planning Commission held a special workshop to review draft 95 of the ordinance on
March 14, 1995 and determined that this draft did not fully implement the forest land
designation scheme they had developed at their earlier workshops. The Planning
Commission requested staff to produce G.I.S. maps that displayed their preferred
designation options and declined to consider the issue any further until this was
accomplished.
21. On March 20, 1995, Planning staff mailed a series of G. 1. S. maps to the Planning
Commission that displayed their preferred designation options.
22. On March 22, 1995, the Planning Commission held a workshop to further consider the
designation of forest lands, basing their deliberations upon the maps mailed on March
20th. At this workshop a consensus emerged that a two-tier approach to designation and
conservation could work well in Jefferson County.
23. On March 24, 1995, Planning staff mailed a staff report entitled 'Proposed Characteristics
of Commercial and Rural Forest Land' that added detail to the consensus decisions on a
two-tier designation system made on March 22.
24. On April 3, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners urged the Planning Commission
to bring their review of forest lands to speedy closure and identified Monday May 1,
1995, as the date for holding a public hearing on a draft ordinance.
25. On April 5, 1995, the Planning Commission met to resolve the three remaining
designation issues identified by Planning staff in a letter dated March 24, 1995. Through
reference to additional maps prepared by Jefferson County IDMS and consideration of
appropriate factors, the Planning Commission completed their deliberations and produced
a final recommended two-tier designation system for forest resource lands.
26. Using the Planning Commission recommendations, Planning staff produced a new draft
ordinance (Draft #6) which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners for
Public Hearing on April 17, 1995.
27. A public hearing was held on Draft #6 of the ordinance by the Board of County on May
1, 1995.
28. Two workshops to review testimony received at the public hearing were held by the
BOCC. The first on May 17, 1995, and the second on May 22, 1995.
0
voi- 23 racy 58
29. The Board of County Commissioners finds that: (1) A reasonable economic return is
necessary for a commitment to forestry, and (2) Based upon testimony received, forest
land grades 1 through 4 generally correspond to, and support, a 20,000 board foot yield
per acre.
30. The adoption and use of a forest land designation system that identifies long-term
commercially significant forest resource land is considered highly desirable by the County
as it serves to retain the maximum amount of commercially viable forest land in timber
production while preserving the needed development options of those forest land owners
who intend to retain their most productive lands in forestry over the long-term.
31. The designation and conservation mechanisms contained in this ordinance represent the
results of a highly detailed consideration of both the spirit and intent of the requirements
of the Growth Management Act.
32. The Board of Commissioners finds that adoption of this ordinance is necessary to bring
the County into conformance with the requirements and goals of the Growth
Management Act, as identified in RCW 36.70A.170, RCW 36.70A. 060, and RCW
36.70A.020.
33. In addition to bringing the County into compliance with the applicable requirements of
the Act, adoption of this ordinance shall also have the beneficial effect of insuring the
interim designation of productive and profitable forest lands that can be successfully
managed for commercial forestry over the long-term.
34. The Board intends that this ordinance shall apply to all property within the
unincorporated areas of Jefferson County, to the extent permitted by law.
35. This ordinance allows for development to proceed in a manner consistent with the rights
of individuals to peacefully use and enjoy their property.
36. These regulations bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare of
the County as a whole.
Section 2.00 Policies: It is the goal of Jefferson County to conserve and encourage
existing and future timber production land uses on those lands that can be economically and
practically managed for such production as a viable land use and as a significant economic activity
within the community; and protect forest lands of long-term commercial significance from
encroachment and incompatible uses. These goals shall be accomplished through the following
policies:
voi- 23 59
It is the policy of Jefferson County to conserve forest lands for productive economic use by
classifying and designating forest lands where the principle and preferred land use is long-
term commercial timber production.
2. The primary land use activities in forest areas are commercial forest management, mineral
extraction, sand and gravel operations and those uses that maintain, enhance or have no
impact on the long term management of designated commercial forest lands.
The County encourages the resource based economic use of forest land for a variety of
natural resource and other forest management activities particularly suited for forest lands
because of physical and topographical characteristics; remoteness from populated areas;
availability of water supply; and the quality of the forest environment.
4. The County supports multiple approaches to forest management on all designated lands, and
does not regard any single approach as being uniquely associated with long-term
commercially significant forest lands.
5. To promote certainty and continuity in the management decisions of forest land owners, the
County shall endeavor to adopt goals, policies and regulations for the conservation of long-
term commercially significant forest land under the revised Comprehensive Plan, that bear a
substantial relationship to those contained within this ordinance.
6. The acquisition of commercial forest land for public recreational, scenic park and
environmental purposes, should first be evaluated for its impact on a viable forest industry
and local government revenue and programs.
7. The County supports and encourages the maintenance of forest lands in timber and current
use property tax classification consistent with RCW 84.28, 84.33, and 84.34.
8. The County discourages the establishment or expansion of special purpose taxing districts
and local improvement districts, or the imposition of rates, charges and fees which
may place a financial burden on commercial forest landowners, with the exception of the
formation of fire district boundaries.
9. Land use activities within or adjacent to designated forest land should be sited and designed
to minimize conflicts with forest management and other activities on forest land.
10. Residential development shall be strongly discouraged within designated Commercial Forest
Lands. However, nothing in this policy shall be construed to prevent the owner of
designated Commercial Forest Land from living on his/her land, provided that applicable
building requirements are met.
7
VOL 23 r�." 60
11. Special development standards for lot size and configuration, fire protection, water supply,
and dwelling unit location should be adopted for development within or adjacent to forest
land.
12. Forestry activities performed in accordance with county, state and federal laws should not be
subject to legal action as public nuisances.
13. Notification should be placed on all plats, binding site plans, or building permits that the
adjacent land is in resource use and subject to a variety of activities that may not be
compatible with residential development. The notice should state that forestry activities
performed in accordance with county, state and federal laws are not subject to legal action as
public nuisances.
14. Support those uses and buffer areas adjacent to designated Commercial Forest Lands that
minimize conflict with forest management practices.
15. Incentives should be established to encourage landowners to continue commercial forest
management of designated Commercial Forest Lands.
16. The establishment or expansion of special purpose districts and local improvement districts
resulting in the imposition of assessments, rates, or charges on designated Commercial Forest
Land shall be discouraged when the services do not benefit forest management activities.
Section 3.00 Definitions:
3.10 "Parcel": A legally created lot, parcel, or tract of real property in which the boundary is
defined by a deed recorded in the Jefferson County Auditor's Office; or, a legally created lot,
parcel, or tract of real property that has been defined by a survey recorded pursuant to
Washington State surveying or platting laws.
3.20 "Designated land": any land designated pursuant to this Ordinance.
3.30 "Forest Lands": includes both Commercial and Rural Forest Lands as designated in this
Ordinance.
Section 4.00 Classification and Designation of Commercial and Rural Forest Lands:
4.10 Classification and Designation: Any parcel that meets the following criteria is hereby
classified as forest land under this Ordinance and is hereby designated as Commercial and
Rural Forest Lands:
7
VOL 23 Face 61
Forest Land Grades: The land should consist primarily of Forest Land Grades one
through four as mapped by the Department of Natural Resources.
2. Parcel Size:
A. Commercial Forest Lands:
i. A minimum of nominally 80 acres or 1/8th of a section; or
ii. Parcels less than 80 acres which are zoned Forestry when at least 80 acres are
contiguously owned and the land is in a deferred forest or exempt tax status.
B. Rural Forest Lands:
i.. A minimum of nominally 40 acres or 1/16th of a section; or
ii. Parcels less than 40 acres which are zoned Forestry when at least 40 acres are
contiguously owned and the land is in a deferred forest or exempt status.
3. No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Urban Growth Area
boundary and no part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of a Rural Center
boundary as designated on the attached map for the Rural Centers of Port Hadlock,
Quilcene and Brinnon and within approximately one half (1/2) mile of the urbanized
boundary of the Master Planned Community of Port Ludlow.
4, Tax Classification: Parcels shall currently be in a deferred forest tax status pursuant to
RCW 84.33 or RCW 84.34 or classified or designated Timber Tax land, or, State or
Federal land outside the National Forest Service boundary. Subsequent removal of a
parcel from forest tax status would not be sole grounds for removal from forest lands
designation.
S. A majority of the parcel lies outside any community water system service area;
6. Is part of a block of land at least 320 acres in size that meets the Commercial Forest
designation criteria contained within this Ordinance.
Section 4.20 InholdingE Parcels of land that are entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural
forest lands of long-term commercial significance shall be designated as Forest Lands except
as follows:
Where said parcels are less than 20 acres in size and the landowner makes a written
request to have said parcels removed from the Forest designation. This written request
shall be made within 120 days from the adoption of this Ordinance.
.vo+_ 23 mi_ 62
2. Where an application for development of the parcel is properly vested under Washington
Law and the landowner makes a written request to have said parcel(s) removed from the
Forest designation. This written request shall be made within 120 days from the adoption
of this Ordinance.
Section 4.30 Establishment of Forest Land Blocks: From the effective date of this Ordinance,
the blocks of designated Commercial and/or Rural forest land created through application of
the designation criteria contained in subsections 4. 10, excepting subsection 4.10.4, shall be
established and shall continue to exist even though individual parcels within the forest land
block may be removed in the future because they no longer may meet the established
designation criteria. This provision shall apply even if the amount of designated Forest Land
in the block falls below 320 acres, but not if the acreage of the block falls to zero.
Section. 5.00 Maps: Designated lands shall be identified on maps prepared by the County using
the following sources:
1. Department of Natural Resources maps of Private Forest Land Grades;
2. Jefferson County Assessors Office parcel maps;
Jefferson County Assessors Parcel Data Base;
4. Jefferson County Integrated Data Management System, GIS Data Bases for Public Service
Providers;
5.10 Designations: Any parcel that meets the designation criteria as classified as Forest Land
under sections 4.10, 4.20 and 4.30 of this Ordinance shall be accurately represented on the
final Forest Lands Map to be adopted with this Ordinance.
Section 6.00 Amendment of Designation:
Section 6.10 Effective Period: Jefferson County shall allow the submission of petitions to the
County for:
a. inclusion within the Commercial or Rural Forest Lands designation;
b. removal from Commercial or Rural Forest Lands designation.
6.10.1 Forms: With the exception of any required professional reports, all petitions must
be made on forms provided by the County and shall be reviewed for completeness prior
to formal acceptance.
0
VOL 23 Face 63
6.10.2 Fees: With the exception of costs incurred for publishing legal notices in the
newspaper of record, no fees shall be charged by the County for processing any petitions
made under this Ordinance section. The petitioner shall, however, be liable for the
payment of any professional foresters or other consultants they have retained to prepare
materials for their petition.
Section 6.20 Petition for Designation as Forest Land_ The owner of land which meets the
forest land criteria under this Ordinance may petition the County for inclusion within the
Forest Lands designation on the basis of either incorrect mapping, or, compliance with a
majority of the designation criteria contained in subsections 4.10 of this Ordinance.
6 20 1 Petition for Designation as Commercial or Rural Forest Land: Any land proposed
by its owner for redesignation to Commercial or Rural Forest Land must meet all the
criteria listed in subsection 4.10 of this Ordinance for the petition to be approved by the
County.
6.20.2 Process: Petitions for designation as forest land shall be reviewed by the County
using the process as described below. The County shall, however, review the petition for
conformance with the criteria identified in subsections 4.10 and 4.20 of this Ordinance.
1. At least ten days prior to the Hearing Examiner reviewing a petition to amend
designation, a legal notice describing the petition, together with the date, time, and
location of the hearing shall be published in the County newspaper of record.
2. The Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing on a petition to amend designation
and shall review the petition using the criteria identified in Section 4.00 of this
Ordinance.
3. The Hearing Examiner is hereby assigned the functions, powers and duties incident to
holding hearings and making recommendations to the Board on the approval or
disapproval of petitions to amend designation made under this Ordinance.
4. The Board of County Commissioners shall review recommendations on petitions to
amend designation made by the Hearing Examiner and approve or disapprove the
recommendation.
5. Where the Board disagrees with the recommendation forwarded by the Hearing
Examiner, it may hold a hearing and formulate findings and conclusions using the
processes identified in subsections 6.20.2.1 and 6.20.2.2.
Section 6.30 Petitions for Removal from Designation: The owner of any land so mapped as
designated land may petition the County for removal of said designation on the basis of: (1)
10
von_ 23 Face 64
incorrect designation or mapping under the applicable criteria Section 4.00, except for 4.10.4.
Such removal of said designation will be done on an area -wide basis in consideration of the
overall character of the land and the natural resource industries goal of RCW 36.70A as
opposed to the specific characteristics of an individual parcel, and (2) shall not result in the
creation or expansion of inholdings or the fragmentation of designated blocks.
6.30.1 Process: Petitions for removal of lands from forest lands designation shall be
reviewed by the County using the process as described above in subsection 6.20.2.
1. This written petition request shall be submitted by the property owner to the County
within 120 days from the adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 7.00 Development Restrictions:
7.10 Subdivision Restrictions
There shall be no subdivision of land designated Commercial Forest or Rural Forest for
residential purposes. However, nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent
the owner of designated Commercial or Rural Forest Land from living on his/her land,
provided that applicable building requirements are met.
2. Subdivision of Commercial and Rural Forest Lands for construction or installation of
non-residential purposes, such as some of those uses listed under subsection 8.20
Conditional Uses, shall be reviewed and considered through the County's Subdivision
public hearing process and the County's Conditional Use review process. Parcel sizes
created under this approval process shall be at least 40 acres in size within the
Commercial Forest designation and 20 acres in size within the Rural Forest designation
and shall meet the following criteria:
a. The facility cannot otherwise be suitably located on undesignated land,
b. The installation cannot otherwise be accomplished without subdivision;
c. The facility is to be located on the lowest feasible grade of forest land; and
d. The facility removes as little land as possible from timber production.
7.20 Siting of Structures Adjacent to Forest Lands.
Builders of new structures proposed to be located on parcels adjacent to forest lands shall:
Establish and maintain a minimum 250 -foot building setback adjacent to Commercial
Forest Lands and 100 feet adjacent to the Rural Forest Lands designation, which shall
11
V01- 23 fact 65
serve as a resource protection area, as measured from the property boundaries of
adjacent forest lands except as follows:
a. If the size, shape, and/or physical site constraints of an existing legal lot do not allow a
setback of 250 feet adjacent to Commercial Forest Lands and 100 feet adjacent to the
Rural Forest Lands designation, then the new structure shall maintain the maximum
setback possible; or
b. If the owner of the land on which the new structure is proposed and the owner of the
adjacent forest land each sign and file for record, in the manner required by law for
covenants running with the land, a document which establishes an alternative setback
for one or both of the properties, a setback of less than 250 feet adjacent to
Commercial Forest Lands and 100 feet adjacent to Rural Forest Lands may be
maintained.
2. Submit a notice signed by the developing landowner and recorded with the title of the
developing property, which explains:
a. The ability of the forest land owner to practice forestry using management practices as
allowed under Title 222 WAC)-
Provide
AC;
Provide adequate access for fire vehicles; and
4. If the proposed structure is located within 200 feet of the boundary of the property
designated forest land, survey the property boundaries that abut forest land, locate the
property boundaries on the ground, and submit a record of survey with a building permit
application.
7.30 Siting of New Structures on Lands Designated Commercial Forest and Rural Forest.
Builders of new structures proposed to be located on parcels designated Commercial and
Rural Forest shall:
Establish and maintain a minimum 500 -foot setback, which shall be a resource protection
area, from the property boundaries of adjacent Commercial and Rural Forest Lands
except as follows:
a. If the size, shape and/or physical site constraints of an existing legal lot do not allow a
setback of 500 feet, the new structure shall maintain the maximum setback possible.
7.40 Establishment of Resource Protection Areas Required.
Subdivisions, short subdivisions and rural cluster subdivisions of parcels adjacent to forest
land shall establish a resource protection area of a minimum 250 -foot width along Commercial
Forest Land boundaries and 100 -foot width along Rural Forest Land boundaries..
12
VOL 23 Face 66
Section 8.00 Uses
8.10 Permitted:
The growing and harvesting of timber, forest products, and associated management
activities in accordance with the Washington Forest Practices Act of 1974 as amended,
and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
2. Removal, harvesting, wholesaling, and retailing of vegetation from forest lands such as
fuel wood, cones, Christmas trees, salal berries, ferns, greenery, mistletoe, herbs, and
mushrooms.
All uses and activities necessary to the harvesting of timber;
4. Storage of explosives, fuels, and chemicals used for agriculture and forestry subject to all
applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Telecommunication facilities.
6. Outdoor recreation facilities limited to primitive campsites, trails, trailheads, and
snowparks, warming huts for climbers and cross-country skiers.
7. Watershed management facilities, including but not limited to diversion devices,
impoundments, dams for flood control, fire control, stock watering, and
hydroelectric generating facilities.
8. Treatment of waste water or application of sewage sludge.
9. Utility and transmission facilities within existing right-of-ways.
10. Single family detached dwellings or manufactured homes and accessory residential uses
for existing legal lots of record. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prevent
the owner of designated Commercial Forest Land from living on his/her land, provided
that applicable building requirements are met.
11. Heliports that support emergency and forest related management uses and practices on a
temporary basis.
12. The maintenance of forest lands in timber and current use property tax classifications
consistent with RCW 84.28, RCW 84.33, and RCW 84.34 shall be encouraged.
13
V0!_ 03 Far: 67
13. Commercial mineral extraction including sand, gravel, and quarry rock shall be allowed
on designated Forest Lands.
8.20 Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be allowed only after obtaining a Conditional
use permit. In the design and operation of a development or use authorized by a Conditional
use permit in the forestry district, the major emphasis is to be placed on protecting the ability
of the forest land owner to conduct traditional forest practices and the use must be found not
to have significant adverse impacts to adjoining permitted forest uses.
1. Public and private developed recreational facilities including parks, playgrounds,
campgrounds, lodges, cabins, youth camps, and boat launches.
2. Correctional facilities; sanitary landfills; recycling facilities; incineration facilities; inert
waste; and demolition waste disposal sites.
3. Public and semi-public structures and uses including utility substations, pump stations,
wells, and transmission lines.
4. Saw mills, shake and shingle mills, plywood mills and the production of green veneer,
particle board plants and other products from wood residues, chippers, pole yards, log
sorting and storage, buildings for debarking, drying kilns and equipment, accessory uses
including but not limited to scaling and weighing stations, temporary crew quarters,
storage and maintenance facilities, residue storage and disposal areas and other uses
involved in the harvesting and commercial production of forest products.
5. Class III and Class IV Forest Practice Permits for proposed conversion of timberlands.
6. Forestry, environmental, and natural resource research facilities.
Section 9.00 Plat Notation: Jefferson County requires that all plats, short plats, development
permits, and building permits issued for development activities on, or within three hundred feet of
land designated as forest land, shall contain a notice that the subject property is within or near
designated long term Forest Lands on which a variety of forest related activities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development. These activities include spraying, pruning,
harvesting, blasting, drilling, rock crushing and vehicle movements, which can generate dust,
smoke, noise and odor. The notice shall also state that forest or mining activities performed in
accordance with county, state, and federal laws are not subject to legal action as public nuisances.
Section 10.00 Monitoring: For the duration of this Ordinance, the Planning Department shall
compile annual reports which provide information on conversions of forest land, exchange of
parcel designations (disaggregated by planning area and parcel size), information on changes in
14
ownership of any lands in the classified or designated timber tax program (or lands acquired by
the state or federal governments), and complaints received by landowners conducting forest
practices. These reports shall be presented to the Board of County Commissioners and Planning
Commission for review and discussion.
Section 11.00 Expiration: The provisions of this interim Ordinance shall cease to be effective
upon adoption and implementation by the County of a final designation system, and associated
development regulations for resource lands, as required by RCW 36.70A.
Section 12.00 Severability: If any section, subsection, or other portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such section,
subsection, or portion shall be deemed a separate portion of this Ordinance and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 13.00 Effective Date: This Ordinance shall become effective at 5 p.m. on January 21,
1997.
Section 14.00 Adoption: Adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners this 21 st
day of January, 1997.
Seal • , r ,4
ATTEST:`%C—r 1�T
Lorna Delaney, Clerk of the Board
APP VED AS TO FORM ONLY:
David Skeen, Jefferson County
Prosecutor
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD
15
VOL 1 23 69
Daniel Harpo e, Mem er
Glen Huntingford, Member
n
owg-Z-7-
-�-Mm
'bill
alnm
rd
TMI . Mp"
I
MEN
MIN ,,a.
".Wp -
�.
06
1
E
r
�
+\
r
00
JAN -06-1997 15:51
JOFNSTON REALTY
�A,Y f� 3Ga _ 379-y5�sl
January 6, 1997
Al Scalf
Jefferson County Permit Center
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
i.e. Forest Land Ordinance
360 765 3560 P.01
In reading the Forest Land Ordinance we feel that you have mis-
mapped our property. This is not what we were given to
understand a year alto when we were in contact with the
Commissioners at that time nor since then_
We suggest that you look at this and not only reconsider, but
change what has been done_
We are angry and upset at this new change in mapping. Please get
back to us A.S.A.P.
Thank you.
Si cern `
J.
Ward
rnai J
Frances M. Larsen
TOTAL P,01
��1J��6-1997 15:58 JOHNSTON REALTY 360 765 3560 P.01
Jefferson County Colimi2sicners
P_0. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Commissioners:
We are angry to read the Forest Land Ordinance subMitted by the
Jefferson County Planning Department and the Poard of
s ommi�ttsic+t ers _ This plan in no way resembles the ordinance which
the forest owners endorsed_
You have advocated that you want input ±rom communities,
landowners, business people, etc., etc. These are bold face
Lies. You don't want input from anyone.
Let me tell you "what goes around comes around". You will reap
the repercussions of your cheating the people and of YOUf-
irresponsible ways.
You haven't just met the CMA requirements you have gone ov'erb'oard
and fax beyond.
Flomao inr liirla anir end all rrnmmPnt,, and 4r IQ�--grs that either of
us have submitted at previous times.
Sincere y J
.^Glc,•'/
Lorna Ward
Frances M. Larsen
TOTAL P.01
fief
t $+
JAN 0
199
We are angry to read the Forest Land Ordinance subMitted by the
Jefferson County Planning Department and the Poard of
s ommi�ttsic+t ers _ This plan in no way resembles the ordinance which
the forest owners endorsed_
You have advocated that you want input ±rom communities,
landowners, business people, etc., etc. These are bold face
Lies. You don't want input from anyone.
Let me tell you "what goes around comes around". You will reap
the repercussions of your cheating the people and of YOUf-
irresponsible ways.
You haven't just met the CMA requirements you have gone ov'erb'oard
and fax beyond.
Flomao inr liirla anir end all rrnmmPnt,, and 4r IQ�--grs that either of
us have submitted at previous times.
Sincere y J
.^Glc,•'/
Lorna Ward
Frances M. Larsen
TOTAL P.01
JAN -06-1997 15:54-J JOHNSTON REALTY 360 765 3560 P.01
,/5� -;r 8f- F3,? ;,-
a
January 6, 1997
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
P.0. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
I am upset and angry that the board is so brazen and had, the
audacity to postpone the public hearing for taking testimony on
the Interim ardinanoe Forest Lands. The board knew very well by
Postponing eh hearing from Dec. 16 to Dec. 23 that many of those
attending would either be out of town or busy with the Christmas
holidays and therefore would, be unable to attend to give their
testimony.
I think this is a cheap shot_ This action may have been lawful
but was certainly unethical and I for one, among those that
attended the Dec. 16 meeting, did not appreciate your action.
These kinds of actions are no surprise to us anymore.
Sincerely,
l
orna J. and
TOTAL P.01
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Gary E. Winberg
1436 Cleveland Street'
Port Townsend, WA 98368 AN Q 6 190'7
The Jefferson County Commissioners tVFFERSO ! i(COUN- YROAM OFCOMMISSIONERSWinberg
January 6, 1997
Comments on the December, 1996 Draft of the Interim Forest Lands
Ordinance
The county, in it's latest draft of the proposed Interim Forest Lands Ordinance invites public
comment. In my case, my comments reflect over five years of participation in the Growth
Management Act process as a member of the general public. Thank you for this opportunity.
Regarding the process and results over the past five years, the county's efforts are incredibly
expensive, remarkably feeble, and have resulted in a farce. The county has failed to assert itself
consistent with the Growth Management Act, and has failed to defend itself in it's legislative
determinations, consistent with it's authority.
At every turn, out of public scrutiny, planners and administrators have shown an independent
agenda. Independent, that is, of the GMA, the general public and our legislative authority. This is
readily apparent in the public record. The current draft ordinance and the MOA with the OEC,
WEC and DNR offer further evidence of this point.
So far, by intent or by neglect, the county staff has continually perverted the process -- this
includes the work of the community planning groups and of the planning commission. For at least
four years, the BOCC has remained "in the dark" -- to this day each member would probably fail
an elementary test on the GMA, its local history and consequences....
Now comes the latest step by the county -- the draft Interim Forest Lands Ordinance presented in
December 1996. Several issues are readily apparent and have not yet been addressed.
1. The county must notify every property owner about the effects of this proposed legislation.
2. The county must have accurate mapping; it cannot disclaim it's inaccuracy, leaving the
detrimental effect to "fall out" on landowners.
3. The county must acknowledge the "takings" issue and assess the costs. Four years of
avoidance does not seem tolerable.
4. The county must now overcome it's obvious arbitrary "compromise" thresholds that were
offered for a convenient promise to avoid possible future appeals to the Western
Washington Growth Management Hearing Board, or more legal challenge. This appalling
notion is very clearly expressed in the MOA between the appellants (DNR,OEC, and WEC)
and the county that was signed in early December 1996.
5. The county must discuss how an ordinance can be mediated to preserve therp ide of
county government. A pride which excludes the most relevant people in the county, the
landowners.
6. The county must bring the public back into the process. Attrition has resulted in less
public participation. The county must overcome this defect.
7. The county has, since the onset, failed continually to prove any "state of emergency". So
far, the only emergency has been a threat to the citizens and property owners in our
county by the county government itself. In other words, the emergency declaration is self-
serving and independent of external reality.
8. The county must now acknowledge it's claim that the MOA .and the interim ordinance will
appear in the comprehensive plan. With or without any evidence from the public process -
- it appears to be a DONE DEAL! Read the ordinance record and the current draft. Read
the MOA. Do you really think this is legal? I don't.
Consider all of my previous record, previous comments and previous participation. I continue to
participate in this flawed, though real, process.
V
JAN -@6-97 13:57 FROM: PNPTC CENTRAL OFFICE ID: 3602973413 PAGE 1
k
Point No Point Treaty Council
Port gamble S'Klallam • Lower Elwha S'Klallam + Jamestown S'Klallam • Skoknmish
7999 N. E. Salish Lane Kingston, Wash1nA�)�r t ' °'
Phone (360)297-3422 Faxl (360)297-3413 ;'360) 297-2787,
JAH 0'-'
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
S
rll� D OF (,C��a
IZ10Iql:
Transmission To. KKK,
Transmission From:
Number of Pages (including this sheet);
Comments:
,Jamestown S'Klalla-
lower Elwha Kli lam
Shokomish
Port Gamble S'Flallam
JAN—M-97 13:57 FROM: PNPTC CENTRAL OFFICE ID: 3602973413 PAGE 2
Point No Paint Treaty Council
Hort ("arnh1A:-S'KIa11am • Luwei Hwh,r s'KLrllmll * Jnmo;rown 5 KIalklm * Skuk<tmWi
•
January 3, 1997
Honorable County Commissioners
JefYerson County
P.O. Box 1220
PortTownsend, Wil 98368
RI -7 Comments on Forest Resource Lands Interim Ordinance
i lonorable Board of County Commissioners:
Un behalf of the member tribes of the Point No Point Treaty Council, .I would like to comment on
the forest Resource Lands Interim Ordinance currently being considered for adoption. I wauld
also like: to have entered into the record correspondence from the Part Gamble S'1Cidllam Tribe to
the Board of County Commissioners dated May f, 1995 regarding the Forest Res6arce Lands
Interim Ordinance proposed at that time,
Generally, the Point No Point Treaty Council supports the changes made in the Forest RCSOUrcc
Lands Interim Ordinance from the version circulated for public review in 1995. The removal of
the designation criteria requiring forest lands to produce a minimum net yield, the inClUSlnn of
Class 4 lands, and improved development regulations including a prohibitions on further
subdividing designated forest lands represents substantial improvements in the proposed
Ordinance. With these changes, we believe it will be possible for Jefferson County to move
forward with final resolution of this issue through the development of the Comprehensive Plan.
The following are cornments and suggestions for minor changes on specific sections of the
Ordinance.-
1 � Classification and Designation of Commercial and Rural forest Lands
a. As stated in the May 1, 1995 letter from the Part Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, a minimum parcel
size cif 80 acres for Commercial Forest Lands and 40 acres for Rural Forest Lands may exclude
parcels clown to 20 acres in size which are commercially viable timber lands and are currently
receiving a tax reduction as timber land. This concern may be partially addressed by the inclusion
of smaller lots entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural Forest Lands (Sec 4.20) and
secondary criteria under each classification category which includes parcels smaller than the
minirliuttl size which are "coned Forestry" (Sec 4.10.2.A.ii and Sec 4. l0.2.B.ii). The informatics
source flor identifying; areas zoned as Forestry is not defined. A. definition and source for this terra
should be made explicitly clear and should not be limited to areas currently zoned i,orestry under
the old Comprehensive Plan, PNPTC supports including smaller parcels which meet the currently
defined criteria.
744t) N.I . Salish 1.asie 0 Kingston, Wishington 98346 a Kingston (300) 297 -:i -UJ • FAX 060) 297-:1413
JAN -0£-97 13:56 FROM: PNPTC CENTRAL OFFICE ID: 3602973413 PAGE 3
b. PNPTC Supports the provision that removing a parcel from forest tax status should not be the
sole grounds for removal from forest lands designation. Removing these lands, especially larger
blocks, from forest designation will cause fragmentation of remaining; designated areas and
promote incompatible development activities on adjacent areas.
c. Landowners can petition to have their lands removed from a forest land designation on the
basis of incorrect mapping, it -their land no longer meets designation criteria, or if it is an inholding
less than 20 acres or it was properly vested under Washington State Law, In the case of the last
two situations, landowners have 120 days to request removal, but are subject to no further
conditions. To avoid fragmenting blocks of forest land, such requests should also be Subject to
the requirements of Sec 6.30 and development restrictions outlined in Section 7.00,
2. Development Restrictions
a, PNPTC supports the prohibition of subdividing designated Commercial Forest or Rural forest
Lands for residential purposes with an allowance for owner occupied residences and limited
subdivision for non-residential uses, This is appropriate because the Growth Management Act
requires a conservative approach of protecting forest lands in an interim Ordinance°while
ultimately resolving land allocation and allowable density issues through the Comprehensive flan,
b, Conditional uses are defined on page 14 to include Class III and Class IV Forest practices
Permits for proposed conversion of timberlands. By definition a conversion activity mast be a
Class IV permit; therefore the reference to Glass III permits should be removed. Conversion
activities should be limited to those activities defined as conditional and permitted uses. Other
conversion activities should be prohibited.
3, Maps
Sec S. 10 states that any parcel meeting; the designation criteria shall be accurately represented on
the final Forest Lands Maps to be adopted with this Ordinance. It is unclear if the map provided
with the Ordinance is a "final" map and if the designation criteria is accurately reflected on this
map. The County should maintain the flexibility to reference maps but use the criteria itself as the
ultimate definition due to the potential for mapping errors,
in summary, we believe the proposed forest resource lands ordinance meets the intent and
purpose of Crrowth Management Act to protect and conserve forest resource lands and we urge
the Jellerson County Commissioners to adopt this long overdue Ordinance.
4incerely,
e4�J�H-k
Carol Bernthal
Senior Habitat Biologist
JAN -06-97 13:58 FROM: PNPTC CENTRAL OFFICE
ID: 3602973413 PAGE 4
PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM TRIBE
Department of Natural Resources
31912 Little Boston Road NE • Kingston. WA 48346
Honorable County Commissioners
Jefferson County
P.C. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE Testimony submitted at public hearing, Notice of Public
Hearing published April. 19, 1995 on the Forest Resource Lands
Interim Ordinance.
Honorable Board of County Commissioners,
My name is Peter Bahls. Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on behalf of the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe regarding the
proposed Forest Resource Lands interim Ordinance (Notice of
Public Hearing published April 19, 1995). 1 review timbgr sales
in E. Jefferson County as the tribe's representative i,n`''the
Timber -Fish -and -Wildlife Agreement between the state, tribes,
timber companies and public interest groups. I am intimately
familiar with the types of forests that occur in E. O'efferson
County and the types of forestry practices that occur here.
The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe strongly supports the long term
conservation of the commercial forest land base and supports the
stated purpose of the ordinance to "sustain and enhance forest
resource operations of long-term commercial significance by
protecting from incompatible development forest resource lands
that can be economically and practically managed for forest
resource production". The tribe depends on the forest, land base
for employment in the timber and mill industries and for
maintaining fish, wildlife and gathering resources reserved in
their Usual and Accustomed Area by the Point No Paint Treaty of
1855.
The proposed forest resource lands ordinance is an improvement
over the last version in some respects, but it -still does not
comply with the Growth Management Act because it does not
adequately designate, classify, nor conserve commercial forest
hands of long term significance. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe
urges you to make the needed revisions to the proposed ordinance.
Currently in East Jefferson County, about 111,000 acres of land
i.n parcel sixes of 20 acres of larger are enrolled under the
state's Timber Tax program. These tax parcels represent the
maximum land area that could potentially be designated and
conserved under GMA. However, the net effect of the proposed
ordinance would be to conserve about one-quarter of these timber
tax lands.
page 1 of 5
(360) 297-4792 (360) 29 -174�f
JAN -06-97 13=59 FROM: PNPTC CENTRAL OFFICE ID= 36102973413 PAGE 5
Forest Resource Ordinance Comments
May 1, 1995
page 2 of 5
1. Designation and Classification
The criteria used to designate forest resource lands are
arbitrary and Narrowly deffined to accomodate development
interests, rather than objectively define commercial forest
lands. The effect of the designation process alone would be to
remove about half of the timber tax lands from potential
conservation under CMA.
I would like to point out the arbitrary and inconsistent nature
of the designation and classification criteria of the proposed
ordinance.
a. An a0 acre minimum parcel size is proposed for designation as
commercial forest land. The assumption is that Bra acre is the
minimum parcel size needed to maintain commercial for'astry.. Yet,
the regulations section allows subdivision of commercial forest
land into 40 acre parcels. The assumption here is that 40 acre
parcels are sufficient to maintain commercial forestry. In gay
opinion, there is no justification for a minimum 80 acre parcel
size and the designation criteria for commercial forest lands
should be changed to a minimum size of 40 acres.
b. similarly, a 40 acre minimum parcel size is proposed for
designation as rural forest land. Yet, the regulations allow
subdivision into 10 acre lots with 7 acres on each lot in
forestry. The assumptions are that a 40 acre parcel size is the
minimum needed to maintain rural forestry, but also that 7 acres
will do if you want to develop, There appears to be no valid
rationale for a 40 acre or 7 acre minimum parcel size, let alone
both in the same ordinance. 'There is rationale for a 20 acres
minimum parcel size for designation of rural forest, since this
is the minimum size permitted for inclusion in the timber tax
program.
c. There appears to be no valid justification for the proposed
exclusion of forest lands from designation if they are within 1/2
mile of a UGA boundary or 1/2 mile from lands characterized as
rural or suburban (in the November 8, 1994 Rural Lands
Characterization study). Commercial forestry has been occurring
directly adjacent to towns and rural areas in this county for
over 100 years. The proposed ordinance itself prescribes only a
loo foot setback for new developments adjacent to commercial
forest lands and a 50 foot setback adjacent to rural forest
lands. I recommend that one potential tree height, or a maximum
of 200 feet, be used as the standard measure to establish
development setbacks from adjacent forest uses and also for
designation purposes (e.g. forest resource lands with part of the
parcel within 200 feet of UGA boundary would not be designated.
IJAN-dB-97 14:00 FROM: PNPTC CENTRAL OFFICE ID: 3602973413 PAGE 6
Forest Resource Ordinance Comments
May 1, 1995
page 3 of 5
d. The ordinance is fatally flawed by the dependence on an
arbitrary economic indicator of a minimum net yield (25,000 board
feet for designation as commercial forests and 15,000 board feet
for rural forests). These net yields were based on receiving an
estimated interest rate return and assuming a 1 percent annual
increase in value of wood. Yet, the choice of percent return is
arbitrary. If the money were invested in mutual funds or stocks,
the risks would be equivalent and return rates probably lower.
Second, the economic model fails to account for the large tax
subsidy provided to forestry. According to the Jefferson County
Assessor, the average assessed value of an acre of timberland is
100 dollars. At a 10 percent tax rate, timber owners pay 10
dollars an acre a year. The tax savings and investment potential
from owning timber tax land is not included in the economic
model. Third, the one percent annual increase in wood value is
based on an average increase over the last 20 years. This time
frame includes the glut in federal timber supply in thi early
1980& when wood prices were relatively low. With the reduction in
federal timber supply, wood prices have increased dramatically in
recent years. Assuming a more realistic two percent annual
increase in timber value, the results of the economic model
justify including less productive timberlands as commercially
viable at the same arbitrary rates of return. Fourth, the use of
the net yield criteria introduces a biased, complex and costly
process. Landowners pay consultants to determine if their land
meets the net yield levels, petition the county and attend
hearings before the Hearing Examiner and potentially the county
commissioners to decide on the designation of each parcel.
Furthermore, during the first 120 days after passage of the
ordinance, as landowners get their parcels removed from
designation based on their consultants' net yield claims, the
actual amount and location of forest resource lands designated
and protected would change dramatically from what is shown on the
map attached with proposed ordinance. The end result of this
haphazard process of removal is the unpredictable fragmentation
of the existing blocks. After the 120 period, the block position
would be stabilized, but landowners could continue to remove
their parcels, resulting in further unpredictable, haphazard loss
of forest lands.
In summary, the best option to ensure compliance with OKA,
stability of the forest resource base and cost-efficient
implementation of the ordinance is to acknowledge that while
timber production ranges widely in East Jefferson County, land
grades one to four are commercially viable for production of
timber and should be included for designation. other
criteria, notably, parcel size and location, should be used as
the primary means to discriminate between commercial and rural
forest resource lands.
JAN -Q(6-97 14:00 FROM: PNPTC CENTRAL OFFICE ID: 3602973413 PAGE 7
Forest Resource ordinance Comments
May 1, 1995
page 4 of 5
2. Development regulations
The regulations designed to conserve the designated lands go
through such pontortions to satisfy developers that less than
half of the designated lands would actually be protected, as
described as follows.
a. Designated commercial forest lands can be subdivided from 80
acres down to 40 acre parcels and rural forest lands can be
subdivided to 20 acre parcels. For a consistent rationale, I
recommend that the designation criteria be adjusted downward to
40 acre and 20 acres minimum parcel sizes for commercial and
rural forests, respectively, with no further subdivision, except
cluster subdivision permitted in designated rural forests.
b. There is no limit on the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
provision. In other words, a 200 lot density from 8000 'acres of
commercial forest land could be transferred to a designated rural
forest land, resulting in a dense development incompatible with
rural forest lands. I recommend that the maximum density on the
receiving parcel be one unit per 10 acres, clustered on 10
percent of the parcel and on the perimeter of a forest block.
c. Cluster development provisions for rural forest resource lands
permit 40 percent of the parcel to be developed. This one
provision directly removes 40 percent of the rural forest
resource land baser and also permits sprawl, development with
clusters of subdivisions scattered throughout forest land blocks.
In addition, the 60 percent of forest land protected could
include critical areas, such as lakes and stream buffers. 'thus,
in many caries, the 40 percent of the parcel that is the most
productive forest land could also be used for the cluster
subdivision, while the 60 percent of the land conserved for
forestry would actually represent much less than 60 percent of
the productive forest land on the parcel due to -critical. areas. I
recommend that clustering be limited to 10 percent of the block
and permitting only on parcels that are on the perimeter of a.
forest block to prevent fragmentation of the block.
d. The proposed ordinance is seriously flawed by allowing
subdivision of rural forest resource: lands into ten acre tracts,
with protection of 70 percent of each tract for forestry. There
is no valid justification for assuming that long term forestry
will continue when land is sub -divided into 7 acres forested
pieces.
3. Permitted users
a. Agricultural uses of land, such as for general farming, should
not be permitted uses for land designated for long term rural
JAN -d6-97 14=01 FROM: PNPTC CENTRAL OFFICE ID: 3602073413 PAGE 6
Forest Resource Ordinance Comments
May 1, 1995
page 5 of 5
forest or commercial forest resource use. For example, conversion
of a 20 acre forest to pasture is not consistent with long term
forestry. _
In summary, the proposed ordinance must be substantially revised
to servo the public interest.
Sincerel ,
star Bahls
Habitat Biologist
12/26/96
To County Commissioners,
Jefferson County, WA.
Port Townsend
Dear Sirs,
UNWED
JAN 0 fi 1997
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1 just read the latest rendition of the interim ordinance related to forest
lands of long-term commercial significance here in our county. The aspect which
propose to take issue with is the threshold of 20,000 board foot yield per acre. I
conducted a harvest of a 25 acre parcel I own in the north Port Ludlow area. This
acreage, like the rest of our 200 acre stand, was approximately 80 year old. I am
not sure what the time limit is on producing your proposed 20,000 BF/A, because
the harvest from our 25 acres was a total of 133,580 board feet. This works out
to approximately 5,340 board feet per acre. Since the 25 acres is a fair
representation of the remainder of our forest holdings in stand quality and
quantity I am caused to wonder. Perhaps there are some other aspects to the
proposed qualifications that are not readily forthcoming. If this is the case,
please feel free to enlighten me as to just what they might be. if not, someone
needs to do some rethinking.
As you have stated in the proposed interim ordinance, those who would see
the need to have their property removed from the perpetuity of this forestry
classification, must go through the process of petition to that end. Please feel
notified as to our decision to make it very clear that we do not wish to be held
hostage by your arbitrary rule making on what we can and cannot do with our
property. If this is to entail your so called petition process than so be it.
I would like to go on record as stating our position as a member of the
forestry community here in East Jefferson County. "We do not get the rainfall of
other portions of the county, and we do not have the deep rich soil qualities of
other areas of this county." It is our opinion that a case by case study of the
forest holdings in East Jefferson County should be conducted. This would give you
a better idea of just what areas you should include on your next attempt at a
meaningful map of forests of long-term significance here in our county. It would
423 N. Bay Way Pt. Ludlow, WA. 98365 Ph: 360-437-0382
not be based on the half idea of the aesthetic beauty of our forests. I strongly
suspect that if any of you were asked to make an investment in something that
would have certain restrictions on what you could do with it in the future (50 to
80 years), and the return was possibly bleak at best, you would be just a little
upset if someone was trying to dictate to you very limited options. If you think it
is wise to arbitrarily saddle some of us with a long range choke hold on just what
we are going to be able to do with the property in our care, than you had better be
ready for some serious law suits about the constitutionality of it.
At present I do not have overt thoughts as to doing something different with
my forest holdings, but I have always had the thought of continuing with the
commercial development, begun by my forebears, of the property into something
else which would contain the elements of a forest, yet at the same time provide
some meaningful economic return.
Sincerely,
G-- i
Jeff Peters
Property Manager of Olele Woodlands
423 N. Bay Way Pt. Ludlow, WA. 98365 Ph: 360-437-0382
(1, (-,, P tA4-t-,"
Craig L. Jones
Senior Vice President
General Counsel
January 3, 1997
! - & 9^ ,-j
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
Post Office Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Pope Resources
A Lill& d Partnership
Re: Proposed Interim Long -Term Commercial Forest Land Ordinance
Gentlemen:
Pope Resources previously submitted comments with regard to the proposed Interim Long -Term
Commercial Forest Land Ordinance ("Ordinance"). At the recent public meeting, a new map was
presented for consideration by County staff. The new map designates approximately 30% more land
in East Jefferson County as forest lands. Pope Resources requests that the County further evaluate
the merits of the particular criteria selected to determine forest lands, and the factual basis for
adoption of the criteria. In addition, Pope Resources requests further review of the criteria relating
to water service areas, especially as it will impact the Shine area.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of that portion of the newest forest land map showing the
Shine area. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a map from the August, 1996, draft of the Jefferson
County Coordinated Water System Plan Update (hereafter "Plan Update"), showing that PUD No.
1 has included a large portion of the new forest lands within its proposed water service area. Pope
Resources will incur substantial monetary damages if the County fails to recognize the PUD's
proposed water service area.
Pope Resources developed the public water system serving the Shine region at a cost of
approximately $600,000. Pursuant to an Agreement between Pope Resource and the PUD, Pope
Resources conveyed the regional water system to the PUD in exchange for reservation of 125 water
connections to serve its property in the vicinity. This property is included within the proposed water
service area shown on Exhibit B. The property involved is adjacent to properties being utilized for
relatively dense residential use served by a major transportation corridor. Given these factors, it is
appropriate to remove this property from forest lands designation.
19245 Tenth Avenue NE, PO Box 1780, Poulsbo, WA 98370
PHONE (360) 697-6626, ext 534 FAX (360) 697-1156 SEATTLE (206) 292-0517
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
January 3, 1997
Page- 2
The most recent draft Ordinance provides that lands located within a community water service area
are excluded from forest land designation. The County staff appears to take the position that only
those water service areas currently in existence should be considered for purposes of designating the
forest lands. This approach circumvents all of the efforts taken by the various municipalities over
the last couple of years to further refine their service areas. When applying the water service area
criteria, the County should include the most recent water service area designations within the Plan
Update.
Pope Resources requests that the County modify Section 4.10(5) to read as follows:
"[a] majority of the parcel lies outside of any existing or proposed community water service area as
shown on the August, 1996, draft of the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan Update."
Thank you for consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
C,A
7Craig L. ones
CLJ/gb
0
i
04 4 t
m
Olympus Beach Tracts
Yi
bidlow'
ter Co.
Jefferson Count
Water District 90.1
PUD No. 1
Bywater Bay
EXHIBIT B
CURRENTLY SERVED AREAS
FUTURE SERVICE AREAS
PORT TOWNSEND
CITY SERVICE AREA
PORT TOWNSEND PROPOSED
V,
EXTERNAL SERVICE AREAS
PORT TOWNSEND 1986 CWSP
q=_7
EXTERNAL SERVICE AREAS
A
Sound View Villa
Water System
PUD No. 1
Shine
Bridgehaven
Water
System
PUD No. 1
Bywater Bay
EXHIBIT B
CURRENTLY SERVED AREAS
EXHIBIT 3-1D
JEFFERSON COUNTY
WATER SERVICE AREAS
AUGUST 1996
WECON00C An LINGIMERING SERVICES, INC.
M: \jEFFER\P46780\WSA\jEFF-BS2.0WG
FUTURE SERVICE AREAS
PORT TOWNSEND
CITY SERVICE AREA
PORT TOWNSEND PROPOSED
EXTERNAL SERVICE AREAS
PORT TOWNSEND 1986 CWSP
EXTERNAL SERVICE AREAS
EXHIBIT 3-1D
JEFFERSON COUNTY
WATER SERVICE AREAS
AUGUST 1996
WECON00C An LINGIMERING SERVICES, INC.
M: \jEFFER\P46780\WSA\jEFF-BS2.0WG
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Jefferson County Planning Dept. PLANNING DERARTIVRIT
Court House JAN 0 6
Port Townsend, Wa 98368 y5t pApA ' 17 y a "p YA
Attn: Al Scalf JAN 0 b 1997
RE: Proposed Forest Resource Lands �3J OF CON90ISSMINERS
I have reviewed the colored map .which shows the different land
designations. The map, if ddoped as it is, takes some of the
land parcels that I own out of timberlands. It takes many parcels
owned by other out also.
I wish to keep my property and I wish to keep it in timberland
classification. I'm sure others feel the same way.
I planted these properties approximately 16 years ago with
douglas fir and a small portion with noble fir for X-mas trees.
I am currently trying to sell off ani property I have that is
not in timberlands classification as the taxes are becoming too
much of a burden.
May I suggest another classification be formed such as Private
Forestlands in which the criteria allows for 20 acre tracts to be
left in timberlands. If one of the goals truely is to keep
lands growing timber then it seems to me that forcing lands out
of timberlands classification thru mapping and criteria that
cannot be met even though the lands are growing timber does not
make sence and is not fair to the landowners that have put
time and money into their forest lands.
Please take this suggestion into consideration as the currect
Draft will adversly affect quit a few land owners.
Thank You
�t
Stan Johnston
P.O. Box 176
Brinnon, Wa 98320
CC: John Holgate
cc•. Pt
December 16, 1996
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA. (8368
Comments on Forest Land Ordinance
I am saddened and angry to read the ordinance that we are here to discuss today. It bears no
resemblance to the ordinance that the forest owners endorsed. The process has been long and
adversarial. It will continue and get worse. People will not give up their work, plans, dreams,
and investments because you ignorant idiots tell them to. We who are involved in timber on a
daily basis should have saved our breath, our gas money, and our time. In an effort to save what
breath and time I might have left, include all of my comments/letters submitted at previous
meetings and workshops.
Sincerely,
Mari Phillips
450 Penny Creek
Quilcene, WA. 98376
X_%. P l is-ay1
December 16, 1996
Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA. 98368
re: Forestland Ordinance
Commissioner Wojt,
I'm addressing you because you are the third district representative where I happen to
live.
As the old saying goes, "to the victors go the spoils." In this case the spoils are the hopes,
savings, property, and retirement incomes of a large number of the districts citizens. Since the
voters in the November election chose the road they did, may I suggest to you that you
immediately 1. Raise taxes to the maximum allowed by law, 2. Restrict as much private
property as possible (large buffers along streams and wetlands and please use the broadest
interpretation) 3. Buffer all timberlands (Do you think 250' is enough?), 4. Use large eagle
circles, owl habitats, osprey nests, and set -asides, etc.
By following these suggestions maybe you will. take out enough rope so the citizens will
finally see through your Eco -environmental policies and use the old apple tree method on you.
Respectfully,
i
Robert French
P.O. Box 145
Brinnon, WA. 98320
P�
PAUL D. CONSTANTINE
Post Office Box 95
Nordland, Washington 98358
December 20, 1996
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Jefferson County Long Range Planning Department
Post Office Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98358
Re: Proposed Interim Forest Lands Ordinance
Gentlemen:
The proposed Interim Forest Lands Ordinance should be rejected and
substantially amended for the following reasons:
1. Important findings set forth in the ordinance are erroneous and
misleading and do not properly reflect the record developed in the course
of public participation regarding this issue, to wit:
A. Finding No. 26 states "Using the Planning Commission
recommendations, Planning staff produced a new draft ordinance"
when it should state "Ignoring the Planning Commission
recommendations,..".
B. Finding No. 29 states that "forest land grades 1 through 4 generally
correspond to, and support, a 20,000 board foot yield per acre." The
record, developed over several years with substantial public input,
supports nothing of the sort. To the contrary, forest land grades,
even when accurately mapped, produce a wide range of yields
depending on location, rain fall, and features and characteristics of
specific parcels. To dismiss very important economic issues and
considerations with this sort of insupportable "generalization" is
improper and unfair. It would be like "finding" that "every
household in Jefferson County has an income of $25,000, and
should be happy with it", regardless of the size of the household
and the nature of its particular expenses. Such a "finding" is
demonstrably inaccurate, critically irrelevant, and should never be
used to support policy.
C. Finding No.30 states that the ordinance serves to "retain .. viable
forest land in timber production while preserving the needed
development options of those forest land owners who intend to
retain their most productive lands in forestry..". Nothing could be
farther from the truth. The ordinance, in fact, eliminates virtually
all development options for anybody unlucky enough to get caught
in its very broad net, regardless of intent, opportunities, or any
other relevant factors.
2. The drafting of this ordinance circumvented the very important GMA goal
regarding citizen participation. To the contrary, this ordinance was the
result of a "negotiation" between and among representatives of one state
agency, two environmental advocacy groups, and one county
commissioner, none of whom actually own any land affected by the
ordinance.
3. Because this ordinance is the undeniable result of a "deal" made by the
parties to the "negotiation", it cannot possibly be deemed to be "supported
by reasoned choices based upon appropriate factors actually considered as
contained in the record", as required by the GMA, and the Hearings
Board.
4. This ordinance is flawed in that it leaves virtually no opportunity for a
land owner to challenge the notoriously inaccurate mapping process and
get relief from the burdens imposed by an erroneous designation. If, for
instance, a land owner is not made aware of a mapping error in time to
apply for relief, he loses his opportunity for relief forever, even if the
mapping error was negligent or even intentional. Furthermore, if the
error effects only his parcel and not the "overall character of the land", he
will still be denied relief. A landowner whose parcel is improperly or
erroneously mapped for designation should be granted relief at any time
and as soon as such errors are discovered without the burden of going
through a public hearing before a Hearing Examiner. And, a landowner
must be granted relief based on "the specific characteristics of an
individual parcel". Why else would he be seeking relief except for the
"specific characteristics" of his parcel and the effect of designation
thereon? If , for instance, an individual parcel is erroneously mapped as
currently being in deferred forest tax status when it is, in fact, not in
deferred forest tax status and does not therefore meet the criteria for
designation, the ordinance seems to stipulate that removal would not be
allowed in any case, despite the fact that the error was made by the
County in the first place. Would this landowner have to go through the
cumbersome Hearing Examiner process? Under the existing language,
how could a Hearing Examiner not deny relief? If a landowner correctly
assumed from the ordinance that he did not meet the criteria for
designation and did not discover the error on the map, would his right to
removal from designation expire absolutely after 120 days? What about
the provision for "creation or expansion of inholdings or the fragmentation
of designated blocks"? Who has made the determination that those things
are important enough to warrant the violation of individual property
rights, particularly when the violation was the result of an error made by
the County? Isn't there already an exception for "inholdings" (Sec. 4.20)?
Why are those "inholdings" more important than those contemplated in
Sec. 6.30? What is the rationale for these distinctions? Why is the
language in the ordinance most restrictive and punitive and, therefore, in
conflict with Sec. P of the Memorandum of Agreement? Why would the
County draft something that gives away even more than was required by
the "deal"? What in the world is going on here?
5. The ordinance violates State and Federal Constitutional as well as GMA
mandated protection of private property rights. The arbitrary and
capricious designation of an inappropriate quantity of privately -owned
land as "forest lands of long-term commercial forest lands" without the
specific consent of those land owners constitutes a taking of private
property without due process or compensation. Moreover, to "take" the
property by forcing its owners into a very risky and competitive business
without consent and without a site specific evaluation of the economic and
practical issues affecting that site is in direct violation of GMA goals and
definitions.
6. The ordinance violates the GMA goal regarding economic development.
The practical effect of inappropriately designating tens of thousands of
acres in east Jefferson County as "commercial forest lands" and, thereby,
eliminating the possibility of "conversion of [that] forest land to other
uses" as contemplated in the GMA will be the devaluation of that land by
as much as several hundred million dollars. The loss of the use of that
value by private citizens will severely impact the economic health of those
citizens as well as that of the County. Moreover, the elimination of the
possibility of conversion of that land will result in the loss of the
substantial revenues and income to the citizens who might have
participated in the transfer, conversion, and development of that land, not
to mention the property, transfer, and sales taxes and permit fees that
would have generated.
7. The ordinance violates the GMA goal regarding housing, particularly
"affordable" housing, by artificially limiting the present and future supply
of buildable lots in the County which will drive the prices of existing
homes and homesites up well beyond "affordable" levels.
8. This Ordinance, as written, fails to comply with the GMA in that it does
not sufficiently take into account the factors explicitly set forth in the
amended definition of Forest land and discussed and deliberated in public
meetings over the last many months. Those factors are: (a) the proximity
of the land to urban, suburban, and rural settlements; (b) surrounding
parcel size and the compatibility and intensity of adjacent and nearby
land uses; (c) long-term local economic conditions that effect the ability to
manage for timber production; and (d) the availability of public facilities
and services conducive to conversion of forest land to other uses. Nothing
in the proposed ordinance indicates adequate consideration of all of the
factors set forth in the Act. While paying lip service to the presence of
public facilities and services with a mention of "a community water
system service area", it leaves out any consideration of other such
facilities and services enumerated in the GMA, namely, streets, roads,
highways, parks and recreational facilities, schools, fire protection and
suppression, and law enforcement. It also omits consideration of "private"
services "conducive to conversion" such as electrical service, telephone
service, etc.
9. This Ordinance is invalid in that the map attached to and made a part of
it was produced in 1995 from a significantly different set of criteria and,
therefore, does not comply with Sec. 5.00 of the Ordinance which requires
the map to be produced using the criteria set forth in the proposed
Ordinance.
10. This Ordinance is invalid because it is so poorly conceived and drafted as
to be vague, misleading, confusing and a violation of any standard of due
process to which the citizens of this County might be entitled.
The GMA requirement for designation of "forest lands of long-term
commercial significance" is not intended to be a means for locking up every
acre of land in this County that can grow trees, despite what environmental
advocates, the DNR, and the Hearings Board may say. It is intended to
protect forest lands that can be "economically and practically managed" for
commercial production and that do not have the possibility of conversion to
"more intense uses". The record, developed over several years of testimony
and discussion with foresters, timber companies, etc., demonstrates
conclusively that, in virtually all of east Jefferson County, timber yields are
marginal and the "possibility of conversion" to "more intense uses" is an
important consideration in the economic analysis of the purchase and
management of these lands. How this County can ignore the record and
make such an important determination based on a "negotiation" with parties
who have no intent or reason to resolve this matter is beyond my
comprehension and your moral and legal authority.
I urge you to wake up to what you are about to do to the citizens of this
County for no good reason, go back and read the relevant language in the
GMA, read the relevant language in the Hearings Board decisions in which
they admit that they have no authority to tell you what to do, and read the
relevant language in the recent Mason County Superior Court decision that
confirms that the Hearings Board has no authority to tell the County what to
do; then send this process back to be finally done right.
Respectfully submitted,
AJA) "4c"
Paul D. Constantine
M; 9\ la -;3-u
HOH INDIAN TRIBE
2464 LOWER HOH ROAD • FORKS, WASHINGTON 98331
TELEPHONE (360) 374-6582 • FAX (360) 374-6549
December 16, 1996
Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Commissioners Office
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
RE: Jefferson County Interim Forest Lands Ordinance
Dear Commissioners:
d CLte'Ct t l J 7- 2-/
The Hoh Tribe appreciates the opportunity to comment on the interim Forest Lands
Ordinance.
The Tribe supports the interim ordinance because it meets the intent of the Growth
Managment Act in that it classifies, designates, and conserves the most important
forest resource lands in east and west Jefferson County, and prevents incompatible
development adjacent to those lands. It will also prevent further loss of valuable forest
lands in the short term while developing the Comprehensive Plan. In the conservation
and sustainable management of forest lands lies the future of our fish and wildlife
resources.
Thank you for your efforts to conserve our valuable resources.
Sincerely,
Jonette Bennett, Chair
Hoh Tribe Business Committee
i
i
Publish: Legal notice, One time, 'Wednesday, December 4, 1996
Bill; Jefferson County Planning Department
,
P.O. Box 1220
'
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
N '
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
h?OT'ICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners will
E
conduct it public hearing on Monday, the 16th day of December, 1996, at the hour of 2:00
P.11., in the Comm-issioners' Chambers on the first floor of the Jefferson County Courthouse for
the purpose of taking testimony from all interested persons on an Interim Ordinance designating
and classifying forest lands of long-term commercial significance, as required by Chapter 36.70_A
f
Ordinance Summary
Jefferson County Interim Forest Lands Ordinance
Sect_ ior t begins by identifying the following purposes for the Ordinance: (1) To sustain and
enhance forest resource operations of long-term commercial significance by protecting from
incompatible development forest resource [ands that can be economically and practically managed
for forest resource production; (2) To encourage the continued diversity of forestry in Jefferson
County through designating two classes of long-term commercially significant forest land that will
allow the continued existence of a range of approaches to forest management, (3) To alleviate the
pressure experienced by forest resource land owners to convert their land to more intense uses;',
and (4) To alert potential purchasers as to location of forest resource lands, and the nature of land
uses and`activities to be expected witWa such areas.
ni
Section 1 then lists the findings of fact outlining the review process for the Ordinance.
Section 2 of the Ordinance lists the various policies associated with the stated goals to conserve
and encourage existing and future timber production and to protect forest lands of long-tern.;
y
commercial significance from encroachment and incompatible uses.
Sectio of the Ordinance provides definitions of terminology used in the Ordinance.
Section 4 of the Ordinance outlines the criteria used in classifying and designating Corxtrirnercial
F
and Rural Forest Lands, including inholdings and establishment of forest land blocks.
F:
Suction 5 of the Ordinance states that designated and classified Forest Lands shall be identified on
maps prepared by the County.
i
SdSlionof the Ordinance explains the procedure for amending the forest lands designation
within a 120 dayperiod including the process for including or removing Commercial or Rural
t
Forest Lands from the respective designation.
f
i
zo-d
zse� saw e�� uwaww4�r� -oo lrosa��.J3r
iSegion 7 'of the Ordinance outlines development restrictions within designated forest lands,
;inclt}ding the siting of structures adjacent to Forest Lands and within Forest Lands.
cti :of the Ordinance lists uses permitted or conditionally permitted within designated Forest
Lands.
Stion 9'of the Ordinance requires that all platting and development within 300 feet of land
ec
.designated as Forest Land shall contain a notice that the subject property is within or near
I designated long term Forest Lands and susceptible to forest related activities which are not
compatible to residential development.
r � ,
Seciion ` of the Ordinance details the monitoring and compilation of annual reports that will be
` undertaken by the Planning Department.
> ewn 1`l of the Ordinance states that the provision of this Interim Ordinance shall cease to be
effective upon adoption and implementation by the County of a final designation system.
Section l' of the Ordinance is the severability clause.
Section 1'3 and Section 14 of the Ordinance describe the effective date of the Ordinance once
adopted.
. Any person may submit written or oral comments at this public hearing with respect to the
contents and adoption of this ordinance. The full tent of the Ordinance and information relating
to ,the Ordinance and hearing may be obtained from the Jefferson County Long-Range planning
Department at RO. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368, Telephone: (360) 385-9123.
I I ,
Jefferson County
' i f
Board of ssioners
d olt� Ch
II
j
i I
. I I
i I
i
I 1
I
I i
`INTNHH-1A 'fl:l mn..gNq-4-1gr
fit¢ a/6/46
FILE COPY
C crn,mvn$.� an z7�e F�iu�wa4�
rL.O•
r 'I I , & -1 t
1�
UJ�Lu tha �rm&-L.Q- C�
1,22
1� � '1 ► f ;, 1 I
� 1 �
i 1
fI"'t
vol. 22 PAGE 01848
mw WATATAMS
A
VOL 22 FAGS Q 184
12/23/96 XON 14:31 I -AX 360 374 5446 DNR OLYMPIC RGN
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
Natural Resources
December 23, 1996
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
P.O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Subject: Commercial Forest Land Interim Ordinance
Dear Commissioners:
10 002
FILE COPY
JENNIFER M.BELCHER
Commissioner of Public Lands
KALEEN COTTINGHAM
Supervisor
The DNR is supportive of this latest iteration of the Commercial Forest Land Ordinance to meet
the Growth Management Act. This ordinance has adequately addressed the two major concerns
the DNR had with the previous ordinance : 1) net yield and the 2) opt out provision. This
ordinance now has designation criteria that better describes and reflects the map that was
produced identifying commercial forest lands in Jefferson County. This document will better
protect and support commercial forest activities on lands designated by this ordinance.
With your adoption of this ordinance, the DNR looks forward to moving onto review and
providing technical support the County may need in adopting the Comprehensive Plan and final
ordinances.
The DNR is pleased and satisfied with the outcome of the mediation process we worked through
together with Jefferson County. The result is the ordinance you are receiving comments on today.
We look forward to the continued positive working relationship established with Jefferson
County.
In regards to the additional changes proposed by the planning staff received on December 1-6,
1996; the DNR would only comment on the setback requirements. One of the most frequent
phone calls the local DNR unit forester receives is from landowners who have just been allowed
to build their home right up to the property line shared with DNR and they demand "danger
trees" be cut just across the property line on DNR managed lands. These were not "danger trees"
until the adjacent property owner was allowed to build their home right up against the property
line. So please retain setback requirements on property adjacent to commercial forest lands in
section 7.3 of the ordinance and require (do not exempt) residential uses also meet setback
requirements. DNR concurs with the 500 foot setback particularly when the adjoining use on the
commercial forest lands is industrial. If the adjoining use of the commercial forest lands is for
forest management and growing trees, a 200 foot setback (the height of a mature tree) would
reduce safety and liability issues if trees in the commercial forest lands blew down or fell (as they
vol. 22 O I850
OLYMM REGION 1 411 TILUCUM LN 1 FORKS WA 98331-9797 1 FAX: (360) 374-5446 1 TTY (360) 374-2819 1 TEL: (360) 374-6131
ie Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECMED PAPER
12/13/96 MON 14:32 FAX 360 374 5446 DNR OLYMPIC RCN
occasionally do) onto the adjacent property without danger incurred to structures or lives. There
could be provisions for a variance on setback requirement based on the configuration of a lot not
being able to site a residence or structure the adopted setback width (narrow lots, for example). In
that case, the County would include language in the ordinance to require construction as far away
from the commercial forest property line as is reasonable to build the proposed structure.
If you have questions or need clarification on this testimony, please contact me.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerely;
�W qUA46
Martha Hurd
Program Section Manager -Growth Management
For: Tom Robinson
Olympic Region Manager
cc: Hsu, Miller, Huart, Cronin
'1 o. 22 mF Q 1SSI.
Q003
:. =kq. ;: � �
Pope Resources
A Limited Partnership
19245 Tenth Avenue Northeast
P.O. Box 1780
Poulsba, Washington 98370-0239
(360) 697-6626
(360) 697-1156 FAX
December 20, 1996
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Courthouse
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend WA 98368
Re: Proposed Interim Long -Term Commercial Forest Land Ordinance
(November 22, 1996, Edition) with Staff Amendments of December
16, 1996
Gentlemen:
We respectfully offer the following comments on the above -referenced ordinance.
SECTION 1. 10, FINDINGS. A finding should be added that incorporates by
reference all previous testimony, data, reports, and similar public input
accumulated during the past five years of County deliberation on this matter. To
do otherwise leaves the ordinance with a meager factual foundation and ignores
the substantial contributions by so many County citizens and organizations.
SECTION 4.10 CLASSIFICATION AND DESIGNATION. This section is
inconsistent with the Growth Management Act and mandatory statute guidelines
(WAC 365-190) pertaining to forest land and leaves the ordinance unnecessarily
vulnerable to appeal.
• The County is required to utilize predominantly higher DNR forest land
grades. Instead, it uses primarily lower land grades, including Land
Grade 4, the lowest grade soils in the area.
• The County is required to consider the effects of proximity to population
areas and the possibility of more intense uses of the land as indicated
by availability of public services; compatibility and intensity of adjacent
and nearby land use and settlement patterns; local economic conditions
and the history of nearby land development permits. It has not done so.
For example, four parcels on the attached maps (in yellow hash marks)
should not be designated and we hereby request their absence from any
County map which implements the ordinance. Two of the parcels are in
r
,VOL 22 Farc- 0 18�
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
December 20, 1996
Page 2
the Oak Bay area which is proliferated with small suburban lots.
Another is at the intersection of State Route 19 (Beaver Valley) and State
Route 104, the only logical site for a visitors center in all of East
Jefferson County between the Hood Canal Bridge and Discovery Bay
junction. The fourth tract not only adjoins several Shine -Bywater Bay
subdivisions, but contains a complete and paid for PUD water system.
SECTION 6.30, REMOVAL FROM DESIGNATION. The prescription for "area -wide"
removal potentially affecting many landholdings is inconsistent with the
requirement that the only applicant for removal can be an individual "owner."
The requirement that a parcel cannot be removed from designation due to "the
specific characteristics of an individual parcel" directly contradicts SECTION 4.10.
If, on one hand, the specific attributes of a particular parcel govern designation,
they should also constitute the basis for removal. We restate our position that the
designation criteria are incomplete, the maps therefore erroneous, all in
contradiction with the requirements of GMA.
SECTION 7. 10, SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. The County's extreme and
unnecessary restrictions on subdivisions (a "zero density" rule) should be
reconsidered and modified in light of the GMA goal requiring that private property
rights must be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. Nothing
contained in the public record on forest lands supports the action the County
proposes to take.
In addition, Subsection 2 confuses subdivision and conditional use zoning
procedures and should be clarified.
SECTION 8.10, PERAUMD USES. Number 13 should be modified to read,
"Commercial mineral extraction and processing including sand, gravel, quarry
rock, and asphalt shall be allowed on designated forest lands." This more
appropriately fits the places where such activities are close to raw materials, away
from residential areas, and adjacent to main roads.
SECTION 8.20, CONDITIONAL USES. Subsection 5 incorrectly defines "Class III"
forest practices as "conversions."
:vat 22 FnF 01S53
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
December 20, 1996
Page 3
Although we are surprised and disappointed in the content, and believe that the
process by which the draft ordinance was prepared is flawed, we nevertheless
appreciate this opportunity to comment.
Respectfully,
David Cunningham
Vice President, Public Affairs\Government Relations
ph
Attachments (2)
c: Craig Jones, Senior Vice President, Legal Counsel
ML 22 mE OILS54
7
rt: E;M'
tfit,
41P
&FZ
Jefferson County Planning Dept.
Court House
Port Townsend, Wa 98368
Attn: Al Scalf
RE: Proposed Forest Resource Lands
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING DFPARTMFNiT
�-7
JAN Q 61996
JAN Q
I have reviewed the colored map.which shows the different land
designations. The map, if ddoped as it is, takes some of the
land parcels that I own out of timberlands. It takes many parcels
owned by other out also.
I wish to keep my property and I wish to keep it in timberland
classification. I'm sure others feel the same way.
I planted these properties approximately 16 years ago with
douglas fir and a small portion with noble fir for X-mas trees.
I am currently trying to sell off any. property I have that is
not in timberlands classification as the taxes are becoming too
much of a burden.
May I suggest another classification be formed such as Private
Forestlands in which the criteria allows for 20 acre tracts to be
left in timberlands. If one of the goals truely is to keep
lands growing timber.then it seems to me that forcing lands out
of timberlands classification thru mapping and criteria that
cannot be met even though the lands are growing timber does not
make sence and is not fair to the landawners that have put
time and money into their forest -lands.
Please take this suggestion into consideration as the currect
Draft will adversly affect quit a few land owners.
Thank You
�t
Stan Johnston
P.O. Box 176
Brinnon, Wa 98320
CC: John Holgate
ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
WETLAND DELINEATION
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING
December 19, 1996
Jefferson County Commissioners
Commissioner Hinton
Commissioner Huntingford
Commissioner Wojt
Post Office Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
P.O. Box 2199.935 North Fifth Avenue
Sequim, WA 98382
(360) 681-2161 • Fax (360) 683-5310
Toll Free (888) 681-2161
FILE COPY
DEC 2 0 1 _...
996
IEFFEi SON Cis INTY
BOAI�I� OF COMMi�"I�i���:l�
Subject: Pacific Funding Corporation Property Forest Zoning
Dear Sirs:
As of this date, I have not had a formal response from Jefferson County to letters from
our office and George Barber on the subject project. Mr. John Holgate in the Jefferson
County Long Range Planning Office was kind enough to meet personally with me
regarding the letter dated October 16, 1996. However, nothing has been resolved nor
has direction been provided from your office on how to proceed.
I attended the scheduled Public Hearing on December 16, 1996 to be told to come
back December 23, 1996. 1 am at a loss as to how to proceed with Jefferson County to
correct the obvious and apparent mapping errors as described in the attached letters.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
q7nNa y cHenry
cc: George Barber
Al Scalf
John Holgate
Jack Westerman, Jefferson County Assessor
Paul Constantine
Enclosures
.Val 22 ray. 01857
Awn
ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING
October 16, 1996
P.0 Box 2199.935 North Fifth Avenue
Sequim, WA 98382
(360) 681-2161 - Fax (360) 683-5310
Mr. Al Scalf, Director of Community Development
���
Jefferson County Planning Department FILE
Post Office Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Subject: Pacific Funding Corporation Property, Zoning, and the New Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Schaf:
Mr. John Holgate in the Jefferson County Long Range Planning Office suggested that I
contact you regarding the following described land owned by Pacific Funding
Corporation. It appears to us that during Ithe process of updating and completing the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the succeeding comments could be considered
and possibly incorporated into the final document. I will need direction from you on
how to proceed during this process.
BACKGROUND
Pacific Funding Corporation fully understands and agrees with the goals of the Forest
Lands Ordinance #07-0524-95 which are: "...to conserve and encourage existing and
future timber production land uses on those lands that can be economically and
practically managed for such production as a viable land use and as a significant
economic activity within the community; and protect forest lands of long-term
significance from encroachment and incompatible uses."
After reviewing the Interim Growth Strategy Ordinance Map adopted in February 1996,
we would like to propose the following changes described later and are depicted on the
attached exhibit maps in Appendices I and II . The sections of the Forest Lands
Ordinance that are cited in this letter are attached in Appendix III for convenience.
AREA A
The area depicted as "A" in Appendix I, reflects two separate 40 acre parcels that are
under the control of Pacific Funding Corporation. One parcel was recently purchased
by Pacific Funding from W.H. Pedersen and the other parcel from JAL Associates.
..VOL 22 FSG_ 0 -
t
Mr. Al Scalf
Jefferson County Planning Department
October 16, 1996
Page 2 of 3 pages
The existing Interim Growth Strategy Ordinance Map (February 1996) currently shows
these two parcels as Rural Forest Resource Zone. It is in the interest of all affected
private parties to change the zoning map designation to maintain these areas as
Commercial Forest Resource Zoning. I understand that there is a procedure outlined in
Section 6.40 for exchanging parcels of Commercial and Rural Forest Lands. These
parcel zones can be exchanged with "AREA B" described below.
The area depicted as "B" on the attached exhibits is a section on the property which is
limited in commercial forestry by the critical areas in the vicinity such as the river and
steep slopes. Both of these parcels are currently bounded on two sides by lands
designated as Rural Resource Lands. Additionally, these lands do not meet all of the
criteria set forth in Section 4.20.1 to be designated as commercial forestry, as each of
these tax parcel tracts are less than 80 acres in size. Therefore, relying on the
information in Section 6.30 and Section 6.40, the lands established as Commercial
Forest are proposed to be redesignated as Rural Forest lands.
AREA C
The area depicted as "C" on the attached exhibits reflects the land which was platted
as Lords Lake Loop Tracts and recorded June 23, 1992 in Volume 13 of Surveys, Page
223, records of Jefferson County, Washington. A number of these tracts have
subsequently been sold and two of them have been further subdivided. It is apparent
to me that this area has been assigned the proposed zone by mistake. Additionally,
this matter has been brought to the attention of the Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners previously by the attached letter dated February 26, 1996 from Mr.
George Barber, President of Pacific Funding Corporation (Appendix IV).
Sections 3.10, 4.20.1, and 4.20.2 of the Forest Lands Ordinance #07-0524-95 require
It any parcel that meets all criteria is designated as interim forest lands." One of the
criteria requirements is that the parcel must be nominally greater than 40 (forty) acres
in size. Because of the previously legally recorded survey in 1992 establishing
separate parcels of less than 40 acres, the lots in Lords Lake Tracts should not be
mapped as protected lands under the Forest Lands Ordinance.
Finally, Sections 6.00 and 6.20 of the Forest Lands Ordinance describe how parcels
may be removed on the basis of incorrect designation or mapping. Therefore, it
appears it would be in the best interest of the property owners of Lords Lake Tracts and
Jefferson County that the property be taken out of the forest resource zoning and be
designated as a rural residential zone with density such as one home per 10 acres.
,.VOL 22 PAGE 0 185!)
Mr. Al Scalf
Jefferson County Planning Department
October 16, 1996
Page 3 of 3 pages
AREA D
Although it is Pacific Funding Corporation's intentions to utilize the area depicted as "D"
on the attached exhibits as commercial forest lands, they want it brought to Jefferson
County's attention that perhaps a buffering zone of Rural Forest Resource zoning may
be more appropriate adjacent to rural residential neighborhoods. The rationale for this
proposal is due to the less intensive and more "neighbor friendly" nature of this zone.
In closing, please advise me how to proceed to assure that Pacific Funding Corporation
maintains their long-term interest in providing for and protecting commercially
significant forest resources and how the mapping errors can be corrected. Also, I
would like to be placed on the mailing list for notification regarding the workshops and
hearings for the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
CLARK LAND OFFICE
Nan . McHenry
cc: Commissioner Hinton
Commissioner Huntingford
Commissioner Wojt
George Barber
Enclosures
013\022834_Mpacifiorezone. doc
.vol. 22 �Av 01-860
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX I - Exhibit 1 - Excerpt of Current Zoning Map
APPENDIX II - Exhibit 2 - Excerpt of Proposed Changes to the Zoning Map
APPENDIX III - Sections From the Forest Lands Ordinance:
3.10
4.20.1
4.20.2
6.00
6.20
6.30
6.40
APPENDIX IV - Copy of Letter from Mr. George Barber
VOL 22 FAcF 01861
APPENDIX I
:VOL 22 mF 01862
APPENDIX II
,VOL 22 Fac. 0 1864
ME
m
APPENDIX III
OL 22 �Au 0186E
I
i
FOREST LANDS
. VOL 22 FAGF 01867
ORDINANCE #07-0524-95
��� 'Nq��,µLy, t gT�•
L �
T rte'" ��� ✓
Effective June 5, 1995
y
. VOL 22 FAGF 01867
I
2
3 Section 3,00 Definitions
4
5 3.10 "Parcel A legally created lot, parcel, or tract of real property in which the boundary is
6 defined by a deed recorded in the Jefferson County Auditor's Office; or, a legally created lot,
7 parcel, or tract of real property that has been defined by a survey recorded pursuant to
8 Washington State surveying or platting laws.
9
10 3.20 "Designated land"- any land designated pursuant to this ordinance.
11
12 3.30 "Net Yield"- the amount of timber that can actually be harvested from forest land after
13 proper allowance has been made for timber of harvestable age being left standing on a parcel due
14 to state or federally mandated standards requiring the set aside of land for the protection of
1S environmentally sensitive or 'critical' areas.
16
17
18 Section 4.00 Classification and Designation of Interim Forest Lands of Long Term
19 Commercial Significance:
20
21 4.10 Classification- Any parcel that meets all the following criteria is hereby classified as forest
12 land under this ordinance:
.3
24 L A majority of the parcel consists of Department of Revenue Private Forest Land Grades 1
25 through 4;
26
27 2. Is nominally 40 acres or greater i a size;
28
29 3. No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Interim Urban Growth Area
30 Boundary.
31
32 4_ No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of lands characterized as rural or suburban
33 in the Jefferson County Rural Lands Characterization Study (dated November 8, 1994).
34
35 5 Is classified or designated Timber Tax land, or, State or Federal land outside the National
36 Forest Service boundary;
37
38 4.20 1 Designation of Commercial Forest Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance Any
39 parcel that meets all of the followingcriteria is hereby designated
40 Y grated as interim Commercial forest
land of long-term commercial significance:
41
42 1 More than fifty per cent (50%) of the parcel consists of Department of Revenue Private
43 Forest Land Grades I through 4
VOL 22 F4, 01868
1 2 Is nominally 80 acres or greater in size.-
2
ize;2
3 3. Is adjacent to parcels at least 20 acres in size on 75% or more of its perimeter,
4
5 4. A majority of the parcel lies outside any community water system service area;
6
7 5. No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Interim Urban Growth Area
8 Boundary.
9
10 6. No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of lands characterized as rural or suburban
11 m the Jefferson County Rural Lands Characterization Study (dated November 8, 1994).
12
13 7. Is classified or designated Timber Tax land, or, State or Federal land outside the National
14 Forest Service boundary;
15
16 8- Is part of a block of land at least 320 acres in -size that meets the designation criteria for
17 Commercial forest lands contained within this ordinance;
18
19 9. Produces a net yield of 25,000 board feet of timber per acre over a 50 year growing cycle,
20 based on the total age of the tree stand.
21
22 4.20.2 Designation of Rural Forest Lands Any parcel that meets all of the following criteria is
23 hereby designated as interim Rural forest land:
24
25 1. More than fifty per cent (50%) of the parcel consists of Department of Revenue Private Forest
26 Land Grades 1 through 4;
27
28 2. Is nominally 40 acres or greater in size;
29
30 3. Is adjacent to parcels at least 20 acres in size on 75% or more of its perimeter;
31
32 4. A majority of the parcel lies outside any community water system service area;
33
34 S. No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of an Interim Urban Growth Area
35 Boundary.
36
37 6. No part of the parcel lies within one half (1/2) mile of lands characterized as rural or suburban
38 in the Jefferson County Rural Lands Characterization Study (dated November 8, 1994),
39
40 T Is classified or designated Timber Tax land, or, State or Federal land outside the National
41 Forest Service boundary;
42
43 8 Is part of a block of land at least 320 acres in size that meets the Commercial or Rural forest
44 designation criteria contained within this ordinance
45
8
VOL 22 mu 01869
9 Produces a net yield of 15,000 board feet of timber per acre over a 50 year growing cycle,
2 based on the total age of the tree stand.
3
4 Section 4.30 Inholding§: Parcels of land that are entirely surrounded by Commercial or Rural
5 forest lands of long-term commercial significance shall be designated as Rural forest lands of
6 long-term commercial significance except as follows.-
7
ollows:7
8 1. Where said parcels are less than 20 acres in size;
9
10 2 Where an application for development of the parcel is properly vested under Washington
11 Law;
12
13 Parcels designated as Rural forest land under this provision shall be separately identified on any
14 maps prepared by the County.
15
16 Section 4.40 Establishment 'of Forest Land Blocks 120 days from the effective date of this
17 ordinance, the blocks of designated Commercial and/or Rural forest land created through
18 application of the designation criteria contained in subsections 4.20.1 and 4.20.2 shall be
19 established for the duration of the ordinance. While individual parcels may be removed from these .
20 blocks under the Amendment of Designation provisions contained in Section 6.00, the block and
21 its associated forest land designations shall continue to exist. This provision shall apply if the
12 amount of designated Commercial or Rural forest land in the block falls below 320 acres, but not
S if the acreage of the block falls to zero.
24
25 Section. 5 00 Mans• Designated lands shall be identified on maps prepared by the county using
26 the following sources:
27
28 1. Department of Natural Resources maps of Private Forest Land Grades;
29
30 2. Jefferson County Assessors Office parcel maps;
31
32 3. Jefferson County Assessors Office System 36 Data Base;
33
34 4. Jefferson County Integrated Data Management System, GIS Data Bases for Public Service
35 Providers.-
36
roviders;36
37
38 Section 6.00 Amendment of Desi nation:
39
40 Section 6 10 Effective Period: Jefferson County shall allow the submission of petitions for the
41 amendment of forest land designations made by this ordinance from the date the ordinance
42 becomes effective to the date it is replaced by a permanent control
43
9
VOL 22 FAGS 0ILS70
1 6 10.1 Forms With the exception of any required professional reports, all petitions must be
2 made on forms provided by the County and shall be reviewed for completeness prior to formal
3 acceptance
4
5 6.10.2 Fees- With the exception of costs incurred for publishing legal notices in the newspaper
6 of record, no fees shall be charged by the County for processing any petitions made under this
7 ordinance section_ The petitioner shall, however, be liable for thea
8 foresters or other consultants they have retained to prepare materials for heir peent of tittionessional
9
10 Section 6.20 Petitions for Removal from Designation: The owner of any land so mapped as
1 I designated land may petition the County for removal of said designation on the basis of incorrect
12 designation or mapping, which may include inaccuracies in the mapping of Private Forest Land
13 Grades.
14
15 6.20.1 Removal From Designation Due to Low Net Yield: Petitions for removal of land from
16 the Commercial or Rural Forest Land designations, due to failure of the subject property to
17 meet criterion 4.20.1.9 or criterion 4.20.2.9 of this ordinance, shall be accompanied by a
18 report produced by a professional forester which identifies the precise reasons for the parcel
19 producing insufficient net yield. Further, any estimates of land productivity contained in such a
20 report shall be produced using empirical growth and yield tables, timber volumes shall be
21 expressed using Scribner Tables based on 32 foot logs with six (6) inch top diameters, and the
22 effects of set asides due to the presence of environmentally sensitive, or 'critical', areas shall be
23 separately listed.
24
25 6.20.2 Process:
26
27 L At least ten days prior to the Hearing Examiner reviewing a petition to amend designation,
28 A legal notice describing the petition, together with the date, time, and location of the
29 hearing shall be published in the County newspaper of record.
30
31 2. The Hearing Examiner shall hold a public hearing on a petition to amend designation and
32 shall review the petition using the criteria identified in Section 4.00 of this ordinance.
33
34 3 The Hearing Examiner is hereby assigned the functions, powers and duties incident to
35 holding hearings and making recommendations to the Board on the approval or
36 disapproval of petitions to amend designation made under this ordinance.
37
38 4. The Board of County Commissioners shall re
39 view recommendations on petitions to
amend designation made by the Hearing Examiner and approve or disapprove the
40 recommendation.
41
42 5 Where the Board disagrees wi
4' th the recommendation forwarded by the Hearing Examiner,
it may hold a hearing and formulate findings and conclusions using the processes identified
10
iOL 22 Face 0 1871
I in subsections 6.20.2_ I and 6.20.2.2
2
3 6.20.3 Designation Status Following Successful Application
4
5 1. Where the petition for redesignation is successful due to failure of the subject property to
6 meet criterion 4.20.1.9 or criterion 4.20.2.9, the parcel shall be redesignated as follows:
7
8 Commercial Forest Land shall be redesignated as Rural Forest Land
9 Rural Forest Land shall be redesignated as provided under subsection 6.20.3.2
10
11 2. Where the petition for redesignation is successful due to failure of the subject property to
12 meet any of the other designation criteria, the parcel shall revert to its previous land use
13 designation, or, the nearest equivalent under any new regulations that may have been
14 adopted in the interim.
15
16 3. Where removal of forest land designation from the subject property would result in the
17 creation of an'Tnholding', as under subsection 4.30 of this ordinance, the subject property
18 shall be designated as Rural Forest Land under the provisions of subsection 4.30.
19
20 Section 6.30 Petition for Designation as Forest Land - The owner of land classified as forest land
21 under this ordinance may petition the County for inclusion within the Commercial or Rural Forest
22 Lands designations on the basis of either incorrect mapping, or, compliancewith a majority of the
3 designation criteria contained in subsections 4.10 and 4.20 of this ordinance.
24
25 6.30.1 Petition for Designation as Commercial Forest Land: Any land proposed by its owner
26 for redesignation to Commercial Forest Land of must be designated as Rural Forest Land for
27 the petition to be approved by the County.
28
29 6.30.2 Petition for Designation as Rural Forest Land: Any land proposed by its owner
30 for redesignation to Rural Forest Land must meet all the criteria listed in subsection 4.10 of
31 this ordinance for the petition to be approved by the County.
32
33 6.30.3 Process: Petitions for designation as forest land of long-term commercial
34 significance shall be reviewed by the County using a similar process to that identified in
35 subsection 6.20.2 of this ordinance. The County shall, however, review the petition for
36 conformance with the requirements identified in subsections 6.30.1 and 6.30.2 of this
37 ordinance
38
39 Section 6.40 Enhancement of Land Mana eabilit_y: Where adjustments to the shape of long-term
40 commercially significant forest land blocks will enhance the manageability of designated forest
41 land, the owner of forest land may petition the county for the exchange of parcels between
42 Commercial and Rural Forest Land designations.
43
VOL 22 FAGF 01872
1 6.40.1 Provisions The exchange of lands provided for by Section 6.40 of this ordinance shall
2 be allowed by the County subject to the following conditions:
3
4 1. The petitioner must own all the lands identified for exchange by the petition.
5
6 2. The acreage of Rural forest land proposed for redesignation to Commercial forest land
7 must be at least equal to the acreage of Commercial forest land proposed for withdrawal
8 from that designation.
9
10 3. Any land redesignated through this process shall not be eligible for withdrawal from
11 designation under the provisions contained in section 6.20 of this ordinance.
12
13 6.40.2 Process:
14
15 1. All petitions for the exchange of designated land to enhance forest land manageability shall
16 be heard by the Jefferson County Planning Commission, who shall review the petition
17 using the criteria identified in section 6.40.1 of this ordinance.
18
19 2. At least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission reviewing a petition for the
20 enhancement of forest land manageability, the County shall publish a public notice in the
21 newspaper of record, providing information on the petition that includes the description
22 and location of the subject properties, the name of thero
23 location of the public hearing. p per' owner and the time and
24
25 3. The Planning Commission shall produce a report on the petition to the Board of County
26 Commissioners that includes findings and a recommendation on approval or disapproval of
27 the petition.
28
29 4. The Board of County Commissioners shall review the Planning Commission report on the
30 petition for the enhancement of forest land manageability and approve or disapprove their
31 recommendation.
32
33 5. Where the Board disagrees with the Planning Comrnission recommendation, it may hold a
34 hearing and formulate findings and conclusions using the process identified in subsections
35 6.30.2 and 6.30.3 of this ordinance.
36
37 6. For the purpose of promoting administrative efficiency where multiple petitions for the
38 enhancement of forest land manageability are made by a single property owner, the
39 County may combine the petitions for consideration at a single hearing and production of
40 one report.
41
42 7. For the purpose of promoting administrative efficiency where petitions for the
43 enhancement of forest land manageability are made b owners of designated grated long-term
12
von. 22 Far,- 01873
APPENDIX IV
VOL 22 FAG;- 01-874
February 26, 1996
Messrs. Bob Hinton, Glen Huntingford, and Richard Wcjt
JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
P. O. Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 98358
RE: Lords Lake Loop Tracts and Blueberry Hill Subdivision
Erroneous Depiction as Forest Lands on Maps produced under Ordinance No. 07-0524-95
Gentlemen:
In reviewing the provisions of the "Emergency ordinance establishing interim land use controls"
that was recently proposed and adopted by the County, and the relationship between it and the
"Ordinance designating and conserving, on an interim basis, forest lands of long-term
commercial significance" (Ordinance No. 07-0524-95), which, according to the emergency land
use ordinance, "remains substantially intact," it has come to my attention that certain 1 n s
with
which I am associated namely Lords Lake Loon Trncrc nnrl nr„or,o_... Tr_11 _ ,
Sieni�ficance "
I believe this to be incorrect for the following reasons.
• Section 300 Definitions of Ordinance No. 07-0524-95, in paragraph
10,
"Parcel, " in part, as "a Legally created lot, parcel, or tract of real property that hasefines been
defined by a survey recorded pursuant to Washington State surveying or platting laws."
A 1111 11
Commercial Significance:
4.10 Classification: Any parcel that meets all the following criteria is hereby
classified as forest land under this ordinance:
"2. Is nominally 40 acres or greater in size"
Lords Lake Loop Tracts was surveyed into and recorded with the Auditor as 20 acres parcels
on June 23, 1992 (Volume 13, Page 223), which was prior to the removal of the exemption of
20 acre parcels from the subdivision ordinance. On that same date, the Declaration of Protective
Covenants and Restrictions and Easements covering the entire project was likewise recorded with
the Auditor (Volume 378 gag )
Page 32 . Two days later, on June 25, 1992, the conveyance of a
lot out of the project was recorded with the Auditor (Excise Tax No. 68685). From then until
now, file project has been actively marketed and nine additional lots have been sold from one
end of the project to the other with several more in various stages of negotiation. Moreover,
VOL 22 FAGF 01-875
two of the 20 acre parcels in the project are currently in the final plat approval stages of
subdivision into 5 acre parcels. Since virtually all of the above facts and circumstances are a
matter of public record and most were in existence before (lie adoption of the Interim Forest
Land Ordinance, it was no small surprise to see much of Lords Lake Loop Tracts shown on the
Planning Department's map as forest Land. And because of the availability of such clearly
disqualifying information (20 acre parcels) to those producing the maps, 1 could only conclude
that an error was made in the mapping process. Another example of this occurred in Section
10, Township 26 North, Range 1 West, in a 50 -acre project of 5 acre lots named Blueberry Hill,
which received preliminary plat approval in November, 1994 (long before adoption of the Forest
Land Ordinance) and final plat approval in October, 1995, yet is still shown as Forest Land on
the Planning Department's map.
I hereby request that you instruct the Planning Department to correct, and display or distribute
the corrected maps. I hope, for the sake of all concerned, that simple and easily avoidable
mapping errors such as these can be handled in an expeditious and uncomplicated manner.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter
Very truly yours,
George E. Barber
GB:lmz
_VOL 22 FAV 018`76
This sketch is prniTided, without
rrOn, for }IOW
r1,1r� ..,,.IUr�,I'I}tlf rk7t CI
to. :}r �:�. fimr�� 'clu I.1 liwife i
of
,rrr
Y. } ccrc�rnitment c;r pc'I(:� rl.rci�
Ir'� r.,,;na�;.1�i:��.a PSI � ;!.•.
f�}' pany �i7 r' nt.atur ;-I,aur; to this skutch. Reorencall-fT�
should be made to an accurate survey for. furtr
Informatlon.
CURVE rant r- l N
CURvE
C l
RAOlUS
2J0
L ENG
OEL T
A_
C?
00
270.00'
19 O44 '
09'4J'JO -'
CJ
170.00.
7J. 71
----
; B' 11'04"
C4
"0.-
82.91'
27567-i -'
C3
70.00'
87.18'
78'28.0-
5
C6
-
686.20'
6J. 90'
JB 28'01 I
NO /'58'00"E
5 f. J2'
66. J6'
05'12'27' j
NOTES: O
TH/S SURVEY :vA$ PEHiORe(f0 8Y F-I&O
TRAVERSE METHODS. U511VC A TOPCON 5 SECOND r
ELECTRONIC "OTA( STATION AND A CL TAPE ( ;
2 THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON TH£ SECT/ON
ACESUBO58. SHOWN ON VO -UAIf 11 OF SURVEYS•
PAGE 58. AND lot LIME / 1 OF SURr c yS
PAGE 124 & 225. C}
J THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON NE WASHINGTON COORDINAr "E
SYSrE" OF 1927 GRID• NORrH ZONE. ALL 8EARINGS ARE
SA/D
RELATIVCRlED. TO THE GRID AND DISTANCES ARE REDUCED TO
4. THAT PORT/ON OF B(UEBERRY HILL DRIVE CROSSING LOTS
4 AND 5 OF
AT THE COYLE ROAD AND RUNNING
SUUlHEr T A THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THIS PLAT IS
"VD DC7 TOA Pf- NfNT NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF NAY
ANO EASEMENT P NSJRUMFN7S RfCORC) UNDER
'971 .RSON COUNTY AUDITOR-$ rILE .vuMBl.R 2.34069 s.
97191
=INA1. CHECK
-
"LA/ CHECK VA9
DRAWN ay VAli
SFR# 01261q COWAANI-rvl/`IS
60'
A
BL UEBERR Y
A , I AR GL_ LOT SUBDIvlSI(
10 I O V1/N - f !IP 26 NOR/ -/-/t R,
ATFLRSoN COUNTY WA5/_11l'•.
'799.46 1652.43'
O
LOT 1 a
,..; 5. /O AC. # LOT 6
588'07'50"E 5.08 AC.
�o: i:x•" 849.89' 3
286'01 50"E
LOT
5. to AC. # i LOT 7
588.01 '
SO'E 854.72' ? 5.09
09 AC
750' SETBACK j N88'01.50'W
LINE FOR OPEN
SPACE BUFFER ® j
LOT 3 j
j LO
S88'01
855.54
C? LOT 4
y' 5. 10 AC. # J v
cJ
� C4 NB8'Ol -.50 W S LOT 9
788 84' 2
"
01* Y H/( IV J 5.09 AC
C5 5BB'01'5O f J88 84 N88,01'_O N i d(
.s �z 3 A=:Q•
�o LOT 5
5.10 Ac. # ® d LOT 1
857.7 i 0
9 5.09 AC.
j j
60' 88'O 1 '50"E
7. 7•
SEE DETAIL A 1745.94'
R= loo -
5. P(JCET SOUND POWER AND 1-10Hr COMPANY WAS GRANTED EASEMENTS OVER ALL
PRESENT AND FUTURE STREF7 AND ROAD 4/01T JF WAY AND OVER A STRIP pF
(AND 10 FEET WIOE. PARALLEL WITH ANO ADJACENT TO ALL
STREET AND RP
RIGN rS OF WAY AND ALL ACCESS AND UT/(/rY EASEMENTS FQR UNQERCROUNO
4 Ul)/Ir R'SYSTEM By $FILE NUA¢j RSTRU.15�T RfCJR"`rD VNOFR .fEf=`RSON COU,vfY
E 7771
AEE OU/T CLAMT DEED TO JCf f (. RSr)N i r: •N7Y :i)R ROAD PURPOSES Rf1- -0
1/NDFR JfFF�P,SON COUNTY AI/D1LOR'$ Irl; NUMBER r79137 AMLTIGuOUSLr
•)T SC.VIBE$ R/Gt;/
or WAY FOR PORr,ONS Of 'Hr COY(f ROAD IH
'If VF�)N .c 4N APPROX/MATE DUP(:"Alln�, )T A PQ.; rIUN
E JL DILA nQN
ttoil-
Or '"Al alCcrr i% WAY
fIIL •SPF RA IIO.V AND MAIN /(NANl.L IF ,-
)! fH( LOT OWNERS W/fI IIN rl if aI (If T)F:RY)HI L $UHDIVIS/ONL BF '-IF =r
f SPONS.B/L ,
y/o+� 22 PAGF 0 :1..877
UNE TABLE
LINE
L 1
D/RECnON
DISTANCE
[ 1
N62'S6'SJ W
28. J2 •
r LJ
N62 56'57 W
1 23
I t*
NJ5_00' 14 W
100
J9.J7•
_
r L5
S5J•JO- -,
_
62. 34'
L5
SSS'Jo'07•'W
6J. 90'
NO /'58'00"E
5 f. J2'
NOTES: O
TH/S SURVEY :vA$ PEHiORe(f0 8Y F-I&O
TRAVERSE METHODS. U511VC A TOPCON 5 SECOND r
ELECTRONIC "OTA( STATION AND A CL TAPE ( ;
2 THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON TH£ SECT/ON
ACESUBO58. SHOWN ON VO -UAIf 11 OF SURVEYS•
PAGE 58. AND lot LIME / 1 OF SURr c yS
PAGE 124 & 225. C}
J THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON NE WASHINGTON COORDINAr "E
SYSrE" OF 1927 GRID• NORrH ZONE. ALL 8EARINGS ARE
SA/D
RELATIVCRlED. TO THE GRID AND DISTANCES ARE REDUCED TO
4. THAT PORT/ON OF B(UEBERRY HILL DRIVE CROSSING LOTS
4 AND 5 OF
AT THE COYLE ROAD AND RUNNING
SUUlHEr T A THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THIS PLAT IS
"VD DC7 TOA Pf- NfNT NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF NAY
ANO EASEMENT P NSJRUMFN7S RfCORC) UNDER
'971 .RSON COUNTY AUDITOR-$ rILE .vuMBl.R 2.34069 s.
97191
=INA1. CHECK
-
"LA/ CHECK VA9
DRAWN ay VAli
SFR# 01261q COWAANI-rvl/`IS
60'
A
BL UEBERR Y
A , I AR GL_ LOT SUBDIvlSI(
10 I O V1/N - f !IP 26 NOR/ -/-/t R,
ATFLRSoN COUNTY WA5/_11l'•.
'799.46 1652.43'
O
LOT 1 a
,..; 5. /O AC. # LOT 6
588'07'50"E 5.08 AC.
�o: i:x•" 849.89' 3
286'01 50"E
LOT
5. to AC. # i LOT 7
588.01 '
SO'E 854.72' ? 5.09
09 AC
750' SETBACK j N88'01.50'W
LINE FOR OPEN
SPACE BUFFER ® j
LOT 3 j
j LO
S88'01
855.54
C? LOT 4
y' 5. 10 AC. # J v
cJ
� C4 NB8'Ol -.50 W S LOT 9
788 84' 2
"
01* Y H/( IV J 5.09 AC
C5 5BB'01'5O f J88 84 N88,01'_O N i d(
.s �z 3 A=:Q•
�o LOT 5
5.10 Ac. # ® d LOT 1
857.7 i 0
9 5.09 AC.
j j
60' 88'O 1 '50"E
7. 7•
SEE DETAIL A 1745.94'
R= loo -
5. P(JCET SOUND POWER AND 1-10Hr COMPANY WAS GRANTED EASEMENTS OVER ALL
PRESENT AND FUTURE STREF7 AND ROAD 4/01T JF WAY AND OVER A STRIP pF
(AND 10 FEET WIOE. PARALLEL WITH ANO ADJACENT TO ALL
STREET AND RP
RIGN rS OF WAY AND ALL ACCESS AND UT/(/rY EASEMENTS FQR UNQERCROUNO
4 Ul)/Ir R'SYSTEM By $FILE NUA¢j RSTRU.15�T RfCJR"`rD VNOFR .fEf=`RSON COU,vfY
E 7771
AEE OU/T CLAMT DEED TO JCf f (. RSr)N i r: •N7Y :i)R ROAD PURPOSES Rf1- -0
1/NDFR JfFF�P,SON COUNTY AI/D1LOR'$ Irl; NUMBER r79137 AMLTIGuOUSLr
•)T SC.VIBE$ R/Gt;/
or WAY FOR PORr,ONS Of 'Hr COY(f ROAD IH
'If VF�)N .c 4N APPROX/MATE DUP(:"Alln�, )T A PQ.; rIUN
E JL DILA nQN
ttoil-
Or '"Al alCcrr i% WAY
fIIL •SPF RA IIO.V AND MAIN /(NANl.L IF ,-
)! fH( LOT OWNERS W/fI IIN rl if aI (If T)F:RY)HI L $UHDIVIS/ONL BF '-IF =r
f SPONS.B/L ,
y/o+� 22 PAGF 0 :1..877
y
t
r � ,\ } -res • ` � � � �!! � ` .
1 \
AV'davw At
IWO
rL �trY�•L r r ..r<rr � •'RwtA►.✓
� A
U b
flp L T r •rl.r 1: I yy
>. rJ _ c i Q V �. r � YAf` p J\+0•- ; �S►"„ "''moi 1
Ar
••
tn
C •=) L ` nr l w fAC v ° ri •. • r
O= C• . ..ry.�� M.,(/t \ • t..�. + 'r.I yr 1( � sr....r ^ ! � N. �, i r.rr
.J= � TJ �71r" �� ir�� sr �Vr , s gJVr _ >•T► i_.i.<i.•.fir
C J,� ` Jf..JI' � J �,T�.�S ^ �',. n w •r<•� .v sv •. i rI/ 'r.-..fit
y� ti rr n- ti W."o r
� � .=` - _ _ _Z .,r. n� ry � crw v rrrsJ � "�rr.ri •�� rwr�ri - � 1 �
y ._. �•-� ._ -_ _. ,r rte• 7 .r � r � \ � - t.-s ,•r. r 2
'O _ ') L7� t.-q+ •� iti�'y.*-- -,•irvs V� rs•.�r a Fes^ ;. 'i
� r r
'> L^-• LSRN__:� 1 s. �:._ - 7..,. !-A" 1 y �'rv` Z w S _M •! 1 Ar �7 �/` \ f ♦
c .Z-,
OL _ J C U iw.- �j• \� Y .+�♦ ... is y4f•.•., 1 r..M n .!
U C Ar • \ \ Z r_,... i ••r'r J
Ar_ ori.
4>0
�[ rh :J y 1.] .,•'wr�i v � 7w r i Aa K
Are-
At
.. .. :\� r,.7Ner� 7.JlI►•ybfr I •sn
AN
Y
X ♦ � i.<r C � �„ rrAlZ
22
• r. r. >H .•Ksr.r • Y.. _.CLL_.
Ach\
Ne' IgI
= s
r1 I
111du
All-pol-L
Agric"ItAl
NoAgricult-I
10 -P, ist, I -la
goCorfirne
Rural
Winer.
NNEW
Feder
on=
5000, LANDUSE DENSITY COU-N-
JEFFE RSON
TO REVISION I&f'>.x22 Fv "IRIs
SUBJECT ) - Mill)'
IVIII(tl c(
D�;cOvC
131 i11nc)11,
;,nd
WMATION/0,
i
I I
A."
Ach\
Ne' IgI
= s
r1 I
111du
All-pol-L
Agric"ItAl
NoAgricult-I
10 -P, ist, I -la
goCorfirne
Rural
Winer.
NNEW
Feder
on=
5000, LANDUSE DENSITY COU-N-
JEFFE RSON
TO REVISION I&f'>.x22 Fv "IRIs
SUBJECT ) - Mill)'
IVIII(tl c(
D�;cOvC
131 i11nc)11,
;,nd
WMATION/0,
i
I I
Ach\
Ne' IgI
= s
r1 I
111du
All-pol-L
Agric"ItAl
NoAgricult-I
10 -P, ist, I -la
goCorfirne
Rural
Winer.
NNEW
Feder
on=
5000, LANDUSE DENSITY COU-N-
JEFFE RSON
TO REVISION I&f'>.x22 Fv "IRIs
SUBJECT ) - Mill)'
IVIII(tl c(
D�;cOvC
131 i11nc)11,
;,nd
WMATION/0,
:1•if
-44
ELI
!'ijf f.i •Snfai= b .! ,..:: = fi! is :l
1C�Yi•eo' a f•.M�I� .,.. ..a • ..
t''am
n �i!
DNR COUNTY TIMBER REVENUE 1986-1995
1986 4445193
1987 497,570
1988 887,758.
1989 .1)66731047
1990 972,657
1991 321,360
1992 555,904
1993 295,653
1994 424,631
1995 21584,823
r
vol 2 859
—081 6 -
IA
99,
Z9,
091
Cc c o c o 0 0 0
W Ln
laad p-jeos UOIII!VY
voL 22 M!860
.
9
to
N
V
i
IA
w
L
�
'�
�
4-
cu_
V1 M •L.
w
4 {4-0
C 0
—081 6 -
IA
99,
Z9,
091
Cc c o c o 0 0 0
W Ln
laad p-jeos UOIII!VY
voL 22 M!860
.
9
p1
•C
4-0
M CL.-
�
'�
�
4-
cu_
V1 M •L.
w
4 {4-0
C 0
� Qi
++ C �-
C
O
�if
T
�
17
�.. V.
+j
."y Q
%A CL
.N
�.
L
C
Q) �.
+,
tea`^
O
Q'��
��•Cc
CO
Moa�
�� °
I
,
� .0
"o+ LA
•�
•C1 E
m
>
O
m•a
%A
y
c
Z
v ��
E
�'
CL
V1
o %A
O m a-+
■ � >
QGC.CE
m
mop
V
CG
W
1i:mA0
—081 6 -
IA
99,
Z9,
091
Cc c o c o 0 0 0
W Ln
laad p-jeos UOIII!VY
voL 22 M!860
.
9
i
. � I Final
Forest
Resource
Plan
Policy Plan
Developed by the Division of
Forest Land Management
1992
WASI-BNGTON STATE DEPARTN ENT OF
,�� Natural Resources
Man Boyle - Cor^rrm=er of Ftml!c L.onas
Art Slearns - Suaerv:sor
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 'to,*
voi_ 2 2 w,,: 861
Appendix. B
DISCUSSION OF TRUST MANDATE
The department, as trust manager, often finds itself between two competing interests.
The timber industry sometimes claims that any action the department takes beyond
complying with the minimum legal requirements violates a trust duty to maximize
revenue for trust beneficiaries. Some state agencies, tribes and envirorunental groups
believe the department, as manager of state forest lands, has a higher "duty" than
maximizing revenue and should be held to a higher standard of stewardship. Neither
point of view reflects a complete understanding of the department's duties and practices.
The question of balancing greater environmental protection and trust income should be
approached from four perspectives: l) the prudent person doctrine; 2) undivided
loyalty to the trust beneficiaries; 3) intergenerational equity (as opposed to maximizing
current income), and 4) the problem of foreclosing future options.
THE PRUDENT PERSON DOCTRINE
Trust managers are legally required to manage a trust as a prudent person, exercising
such care and skill as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in dealing with his
or her own property. In the department's view, this means, among other things, avoid-
ing undue risk, avoiding tortious acts, etc.
The beneficiaries need a predictable timber sales program that can be executed over
several years. Constantly changing regulations often add to administrative overhead.
Sales prepared under one set of regulations, for example, may be harvested under a
different and more stringent set. These changes (between the time of preparation and
the time of harvest) cause contract disputes with purchasers and may force the depart-
ment to modify planning decisions, thus adding to administrative overhead and
causing further delays.
The department believes it is in the best interest of the beneficiaries to manage the
trusts in a manner that will avoid the type of controversy that has surrounded forest
practices in the last few years. These types of controversies (such as the federal listing of
the northern spotted owl as a threatened species) usually result in ever more restrictive
regulations. In the department's opinion, public concerns regarding wildlife, fisheries
and water quality are likely to escalate and may result in more stringent regulations if
the public perceives that the department and other public land managers are not
considering nontimber resources.
The department believes it is in the best interests of the trust beneficiaries over the long
run to:
1 Manage state forest land to prevent the listing of additional species as threatened
or endangered.
1 Prevent public demand for ever-increasing, restrictive regulations of forest
practices.
Avoid the resulting contract disputes and uncertainty.
VGL
That iS why the department has, in certain policies, retained the freedom to exceed
existing Forest Practices Act regulations if necessary to protect a public resource on state
forest land.
Policv No. 30 (Silviculture Activities), for example, allows the department in cases
"warranting special attention" to accept a reduction in current income or return on
investment if necessary to provide extra protection for public resources.
UNDIVIDED LOYALTY
The department believes that the common law requirement of undivided loyalty to trust
beneficiaries is fundamental. This principle requires that trust land and its assets not be
diverted to benefit others at the expense of the trust beneficiaries without compensation.
There is, however, no requirement to avoid providing others with collateral benefits. The
trustee simply must make all decisions with the beneficiaries' interest first and foremost
in mind.
For example, the timing, sequence, unit size and spatial distribution of timber sales may
be modified to benefit wildlife, water quality or fisheries without violating the principle
of undivided loyalty. Managing trust assets principally to provide wildlife habitat,
however, would violate that principle.
Another example is Policy No. 6 (Western Washington Ownership Groups). In the past,
the department computed harvest levels for Forest Board Transfer lands in Western
Washington by consolidating all 16 counties into one, large ownership group. The
department now intends to calculate harvest levels on Forest Board Transfer land by
individual county.
This change is beneficial to local communities and to the department as well, but over
the long run it is revenue neutral to the trusts. The change, as proposed by the depart-
ment, is permissible under the undivided loyalty standard.
On the other hand, allotting a portion of the timber for local purchasers, who can only
pay a lower price than full market value, would benefit some hard hit, timber -dependent
communities but would do so at the expense of the trust beneficiaries and would there-
fore violate the principle of undivided loyalty.
INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY VERSUS
MAXIMIZING CURRENT INCOME
The department believes this issue is frequently misunderstood. Nothing in trust law
(statutory or common law) requires the department to maximize current income. Com-
mon lav requires that a trustee make trust property productive without unduly favoring
present beneficiaries over future beneficiaries.
Most of the criticism of the Forest Resource Plan on this issue is based on the timing of
income, not the amount. The policies that defer harvest for a variety of reasons, particu-
larly those related to the northern spotted owl, and the "off -base policies," have attracted
the most concern. The department, however, believes these policies are consistent with
its trust duties.
Policv No. 4 (Sustainable, Even -Flow Timber Harvest) is an example of providing for
intergenerational equity. The policv requires the department to manage state forest land
to produce a sustainable, Even -Flow harvest of timber. It prevents major fluctuations
between decade harvest levels and prevents the department from favoring one genera-
tion of beneficiary over another.
. B-2
n
vo►_ 221ac�'860
The trusts include the entire forest ecosystem and are perpetual. The department,las
trustee, must therefore manage the trusts to ensure equal treatment for all generations.
Setting a rotation age for timber at 40 or 50 years, for example, would prefer the present
generation over the future. It would result in high harvest levels in early years and
much lower levels in future years. On the other hand, setting the rotation age at 100
years or more would severely reduce harvest levels for the first few decades, and
depending on the age selected, either reduce the total harvest at all times, or else result
in a higher level of harvest in 80 years.
Modest deferrals (the 19,400 acres proposed in the plan) represent about one (1) percent
of state forest land. These deferrals help maintain the department's future options.
FORECLOSING FUTURE OPTIONS
The department does not know all the ways there are to generate income from state
forest lands. The department believes it is prudent to manage these trust assets so that
at least reasonably foreseeable future sources of income are not foregone by actions
taken today.
Policy No. 8 (Special Forest Products), for example, which encourages the department
to market and sell specialty products from state forest land, illustrates the point. Some
products, now thought to be of little value, may have substantial value in the future
and may help generate substantial income for the trusts.
Another example is Policy No. 13 (Special Ecological Features). The policy requires the
department to identify state forest lands with special ecological features, and to seek
legislation and funding to remove these lands from trust ownership. In the past, funds
appropriated from the legislature for this purpose have allowed the department to set
aside properties as Natural Resources Conservation Areas. See Appendix E for a list of
these properties.
In 1988 and 1989, for example, the legislature appropriated $151.5 million to purchase
special lands from the trusts. These properties were removed from trust ownership and
placed in protective status. A portion of the funds were put in the common school
construction fund for the appraised value of the timber. With the remaining funds, the
department purchased productive replacement forest land to maintain the state forest
land base. The department expects this type of program to continue in the future. The
purchases illustrate the range of future options available to the department.
Policy No. 15 (The Genetic Resource) also illustrates this principle. The policy requires
the department to consider the genetic resource on state forest lands as a trust asset. As
one part of the overall strategy, the department has deferred indefinitely from harvest
about 2,417 acres of gene pool reserves (native seed sources). These reserves have been
removed from the commercial harvest base to ensure that native genetic material, well
adapted to local conditions, will be available to the department in the future.
To preserve future options, the department must also avoid actions that are likely
to have a negative impact on long-term productivity of trust lands. Although the
department believes its staff knows a good deal about forest productivity, it does not
have all the answers. The policies in the Forest Resource Plan reflect a prudent and
conservative management approach which will allow the department to harvest timber
on a sustainable, even -flow but still protect the range of public resources found on state
forest lands.
f
pp�+
V01- 22 A { ; Old B-3 nmwakk ::
4
Appendix C
LEGAL FRAMEWORK Of STATE FOREST
' TRUST LANDS
FEDERAL LAND GRANT TRUSTS
Federal land grant trusts are endowments of land by the United States to the state of
Washington to be sold, leased or managed to support designated beneficiaries in
perpetuity.
The Federal grant lands were granted in 1889 to Washington in the Congressional
Enabling Act providing for admission of the territory of Washington as the 42nd state.
These granted lands were expressly reserved in the Act for the following purposes:
support of the common schools; construction of public buildings for legislative, execu-
tive and judicial use; for a state university (University of Washington); the use and
t support of an agricultural college (Washington State University); the establishment and
maintenance of a scientific school (Washington State University); for state normal
schools (now regional universities); and for state charitable, educational, penal and
reformatory institutions.
These lands are held in. trusts for the various beneficiaries. The Washington State
Legislature has designated the Department of Natural Resources as manager of these
trust lands. Of the five million acres currently in the trust, approximately 2.1 million
acres are covered by this Forest Resource Plan.
FOREST BOARD TRUSTS
Forest Board trusts are forest lands acquired by the state by gift, purchase or transfer by
the county to perpetuate the forest resource in Washington.
There are two types of Forest Board properties: 1) Forest Board Transfer land; and
2) Forest Board Purchase, land. Forest Board Transfer lands are tax -title (See Glossary)
lands that the legislature by statute directed each county to transfer to the state to be
managed as state forest lands. Forest Board Purchase lands are lands gifted to the state
or purchased by the Board as authorized by law to be managed as state forest lands.
Forest Board lands may not be sold. The legislature has directed that Forest Board
Transfer Lands and some Forest Board Purchase lands be held in trust and adminis-
tered and protected as other state forest lands.
The nature of the Forest Board "trust" has recently been the subject of judicial review.
In County of Skamania v State 102 Wn.2d 127,685 P.2d 576 (1984), the court held
that RCW 76.12.030 imposes upon the statefiduciary duties similar to those imposed
upon it by the Enabling Act.
THE WASHINGTON STATE ENABLING
The Congressional Enabling Act of 1889, which admitted Washington o tth
he Union,
limits on the sale, lease and management of trust lands. This Act has been amended byt
Congress on numerous occasions.
Trust lands may be disposed of only at public sale, and at fair market value. Trust lands
may be exchanged for lands of,equal value and as near as possible to equal area.
Mineral, hydroelectric power devel0
,pp3nent agrazing lands maybe leased pursuant
to regulations set forth by the legisiatd're.
VOL. 22 FAu %5 C-1
THE WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION
The Constitution of the state of Washington further limits and directs the sale, lease and
management of federal land grants. According to the constitution, trust lands may not be
disposed of unless the fair market value is paid or safely secured to the state. They may
be sold only at public auction to the highest bidder. No more than 160 acres may be sold
in one parcel. Land inside or within two miles of an incorporated city and worth more
than $100 an acre must be platted. Such lands may not be sold in larger than five -acre
blocks; only one block per parcel may be sold.
Article IX of the constitution establishes the Common School Fund and the Common
School Construction Fund. The Common School Fund is permanent and irreducible. Its .
varied sources include the principal of all funds gained from sale of Common School
grant lands. Revenue from the Common School fund is applied to support Common
Schools. The Common School Construction Fund consists of proceeds of the sale of
timber and other crops from Common School grant lands and other sources. This fund is
used to finance construction of common school facilities. Funds surplus to construction
needs may be used for general support of the common schools.
Article XVI of the state constitution provides that all public lands granted to the state are
held in trust for all the people. This provision must be interpreted in the context that
Congress intended. The designated beneficiaries must derive the full benefit of the grant.
County of Skamania v State 102 Wn.2d 127,685 P.2d 576 (1984). Lassen v. Arizona
365 U.S. 458 (1967).
WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATION
The legislature has directed the department of Natural Resources, as the manager of
trust lands, to observe basic standards. These include statutes relating to multiple use,
sustained yield, and transfer of lands out of trust status.
Multiple Use
The 1974 Legislature directed the department to use the concept of multiple use manage-
ment where it is in the best interests of the state and the general welfare of the citizens, is
consistent with the trust provisions of the lands involved, and is compatible with activi-
ties necessary to fulfill the financial obligations. of trust management.
Multiple uses may include recreation, educational or scientific use, maintenance of rights
of way, greenbelts, scenic and historic areas, and watershed protection. Educational or
scientific use includes such use by students of educational institutions which are also
designated beneficiaries of specific trust lands. These uses will be allowed to the extent
they are compatible with trust obligations.
Sustained Yield
In the Multiple Use Act, ch. 79.68 RCW, the legislature"directed the department to
manage those state-owned lands under its jurisdiction capable of growing forest crops
on a sustained yield basis when compatible with other legislative directives. To this end,
the department will periodically adjust acreages designed for inclusion in the sustained
yield management program. "Sustained yield," as defined by statute, means forest
management to provide continuing harvest without prolonged curtailment or cessation.
Transfer from Trust Status
The legislature has established procedures to transfer federally granted trust lands to
general public uses. In each situation, the affected trust must be compensated for the fair
market value of the land. These are contained in RCW Title 79.
The Hydraulic Approval Act, RCW ch. 75.20, is part of the fisheries code. The Act
requires that a person or government agency desiring to construct any form of hydraulic
project or other work that will use, divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of
any river or stream, or that will use any of the waters of the state or materials from the
streambed, may not commence such activity without approval from the Departments of
Fisheries or Wildlife, as appropriate. Under the Hydraulic Approval Act, if the depart-
ment conducts any activity on trust lands which falls within the Act's purview, it must
first obtain a permit. Similarly, purchasers of state timber sales which include activities
falling within the scope of the Act, must first obtain hydraulic approval.
The Surface Mining Act, RCW ch. 78.44, is administered by the department as part of its
overall regulatory function. The Act requires an operator to obtain a permit from the
Department before engaging in surface mining. This Act affects management of trust
lands in that it requires an operator who has authority to conduct surface mining on
trust lands to obtain a permit before engaging in the surface mining activity.
COMMON LAW DUTIES OF THE TRUSTEE
The duties of a private trustee have been described in various ways and include: a duty
to administer the trust in accordance with provisions creating the trust, a duty of undi-
vided loyalty to the beneficiaries, a duty to manage trust assets prudently, a duty to
make the trust property productive without unduly favoring present beneficiaries over
future beneficiaries, a duty to reduce the risk of loss to the trusts, and a duty to keep and
render accounts. Several of these duties have been discussed by the courts specifically in
the context of federal land grant trusts.
CASE LAW PERTAINING TO FEDERAL LAND
G RANT TRUSTS
Five cases show how the courts have applied some of the above principles to the sale,
lease and management of federal grant trust lands.
In Ervien v. United States, 251 U.5.41 (1919), the U.S. Attorney General sued for an
injunction to prevent the New Mexico Land Commissioner, acting as trustee of New
Mexico grant lands, from spending trust earrings for unauthorized purposes: to publi-
cize the resources and advantages of New Mexico.
The New Mexico Land Commissioner argued that this advertising was a proper admin-
istrative expense because it could increase the value of the trust lands. The U.S. Supreme
Court, however, granted an injunction prohibiting these expenditures. It ruled that the
trusts were individually created to support public institutions specified in New Mexico's
Enabling Act. Therefore, the trustee could not use proceeds from a specific trust to
benefit the state generally, even if the trust also might be indirectly benefited. The Court
held that Congress intended that the trustee apply,the trust earnings to the fund created
to "support" the public institution designated in the Enabling Act.
In Lassen v. Arizona, 385 U.S. 458 (1967), mentioned above, the Arizona Highway
Department sued the Land Commissioner, as the trustee of grant lands, to condemn a
highway right of way. The Arizona department argued that it need not compensate the
trust because a highway across trust lands wouldenhance the value of remaining trust
lands in an amount at least equal to the value of the trust lands taken. The U.S. Supreme
Court rejected the argument and agreed with the Commissioner that the department
must pay the trust for the property taken.
11
> .,. C4 VOL 22 Fareou
`7 , ;
GENERAL STATUTES `
Congress and the legislature have set forth many other general statutes governinguse
and management of land, including environmental laws. Federal environmental lws
include the Clean Water Act, 33 USC (1251-1387, Clean Air Act of 1973,42 U.S.C. 7401,
et seq., and the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1973,16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.) State
environmental laws include the State Environmental Policy Act, ch. 43.21C RCW, the
Forest Practices Act, ch. 76.09 RCW, the Hydraulics Act, RCW 75.20.100, the State Water
Pollution Control laws, ch. 90.48 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act, ch. 90.58 RCW,
and the Surface Mining Act, ch. 78.44 RCW. Recognizing the principle that laws duly
passed by the legislature are presumed valid, the department follows general statutes
which are applicable to state agencies.
The federal CleanWaterAct, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., establishes numerous provisions
relating to research; federal grants for water pollution control planning and other
activities, water quality standards, and regulation of pollution discharge. Generally, the
State Forest Practices Act regulations, discussed later in this section, provide the means
by which forestry activities, including those undertaken by the department, comply
with the Clean Water Act. These regulations have been certified by the Federal Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "best management practices" as part of EPA's
approval of the state areawide waste treatment management plan under 33 U.S.C. 1288.
The federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., establishes provisions relating to air
quality standards, emission controls, methods of achieving attainment or preventing
deterioration, and protection of visibility. The principal impact of this act is on the
department's burning activities for silvicultural purposes. The department administers
the Washington State Smoke Management Program, a cooperative effort of state and
federal agencies. In managing trust lands, the department must obtain necessary
permits and comply with the program and those laws regulating burning. The Federal
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq., with some stated exceptions, prohibits
specific acts relating to endangered and threatened species designated under the Act.
The department, in managing the trust lands, abides by this Act by planning its timber
sales and other land use decisions in compliance -with the act.
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW Ch. 43.21C, directs that, to the fullest
extent possible, policies, regulations and laws of Washington are to be interpreted and
administered in accordance with the policies set forth in SEPA. All branches of govern-
ment, including state agencies, are to follow the guidelines and procedures specified in
RCW 43.21 C in planning and decision-making. The department, as a state agency, must
comply with the requirements of SEPA.
The Forest Practices Act, RCW ch. 76.09,
laws and regulations governing forest pereates a comprehensive statewide system of
ractices on private and public lands. The forest
practices regulations establish minimum standards for forest practices. The department
must comply with the Forest Practices Act. Forest practice regulations relating to water
quality promulgated by the Department of Ecology and the Forest Practices Board also
afford compliance with water pollution control laws.
The Shorelines Management Act of 1971, RCW ch. 90.58, administered by the state
Department of Ecology, declares it a state policy to provide for the management of
shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate
uses. A permit system is the main vehicle for enforcement of the Act. Local government
administers the permit system and local master programs approved by the Department
of Ecology. In practice, when the department conducts a management activity on
trust land which falls within the purview of the Act, it obtains a permit if a permit
is required.
VOL 22 �X-
C-3 m,<:::
The Court in Lassen stated:
The,Enabling Act unequivocally demands both that the trust receive the full
value of any lands transferred from it and that any funds received be
employed only for the purposes for which the land was given. First; it
requires that before trust lands or their products are offered for sale they
must be "appraised at their true value" and that "no sale or other disposal
shall be made for a consideration less than the value so ascertained .......
Second, it imposes a series of careful restrictions upon the use of trust funds.
As this Court has noted, the Act contains a "specific enumeration of the
ilu exclusivepoesfor which the lands were granted and the enumeration is necessar-
y of any other purpose. Ervien v. United States 251 U.S. 41,47.
The Court continued:
'The Act,thus specifically forbids the use of "moneythin f
or g o value directly
f or indirectly derived" from trust lands for any purposes other than those for
l which that parcel of land was granted. It requires the creation of separate
trust accounts for each of the designated beneficiaries, prohibits the transfer
of funds among the accounts, and directs with great precision their
administration.
"Words more clearly designed ... to create definite and specific trusts and to
make them in all respects separate and independent of each other could
hardly have been chosen." United States v. Ervien 246 F. 277, 279. All these
restrictions in combination indicate Congress' concern both that the grants
provide the most substantial support possible to the beneficiaries and that
only those beneficiaries profit from the trust.
See also ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish 490 U.S.605 (1989).
- --- • �u..0 =1L rerr !.ount Washington, 293 F. Supp. 1042
(E.D. Wash. 1968), aff d 435 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam), is a Washington case
adopting the principles set forth in Ervien and Lassen. The United States government
sought to acquire state school trust lands for a federal irrigation project. The United
States argued that, as trust grantor, it was permitted to take the land without paying for
it. The court disagreed stating:
The school lands provisions of the Enabling Act further a liberal policy of
school support.. . In this context the principle of indemnityr requires that no
land or proceeds be diverted from the school trust unless the trust receives.
full compensation. This principle is explicitly a part of the Washington
Enabling Act.
The district court concluded that donating school trust lands to the United States would
constitute a breach of trust by the trustee (state of Washington). The court ordered the
United States to pay the trust the full market value of the land.
In State v. U
Q ni versi ty of Alaska 624 P. 2d 807 (1981), the state of Alaska sought to
include university grant land within Chugach State Park. The university opposed this
action and sought a declaratory judgment as to whether the land could be used other
than to support the University.
VOL 22 rat:. 8�
C-5 maw,,