Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM121018 - to include Hearing Comment re: Proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the JC Code w/Commercial Shooting Facilities Ord. No. 12 1102 18ON �`SEfI NG,�O MINUTES Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting — Monday, December 10, 2018, 9:00 a.m. Jefferson County Courthouse — Commissioners' Chambers 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA CALL TO ORDER: Chair David Sullivan called the meeting to order at the appointed time in the presence of Commissioner Kathleen Kler and Commissioner Kate Dean. Chair Sullivan invited everyone in attendance to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made by individuals in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions. • Comment regarding a recent Climate Action Committee meeting and reports. • Comment regarding Consent Agenda Item No. 6 re: Animal Services Fund. • Comment regarding no budget in 2019 for electric vehicles and a recent inspection conducted by the Department of Community Development. • Comment regarding the polar ice caps melting in 20 years and effects that would have on the planet. • Comment regarding an enforcement compliance issue in Quilcene. • Comment regarding the Tarboo Ridge Coalition, the proposed Cedar Hills facility in Quilcene, commercial shooting facilities noise complaints. • Comment regarding an enforcement compliance issue in Quilcene. • Comment regarding noise from the Port Townsend gun range and submittal of an additional petition page. • Comment regarding a proposed resolution regarding health and the upcoming annual homeless count. The Commissioners and County Administrator addressed comments and concerns raised during the Public Comment Period. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Prior to approval of the Consent Agenda, Commissioner Kler noted that it was pointed out during the Public Comment Period that the balance of the Animal Service Fund was slated to go to the General Fund. County Administrator Philip Morley advised the Commissioners to approve the Consent Agenda first, then they could discuss the disbursement of the funds afterwards. Commissioner Dean moved to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 64-18 re: Certifying the Levies for Collection of Taxes in the Year 2019 2. RESOLUTION NO. 65-18 re: Activating Fund 109 - Noxious Weed Control Fund Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2018 3. RESOLUTION NO. 66-18 re: Activating Fund 149 - Homeless Housing Fund 4. RESOLUTION NO. 67-18 re: Inactivate Fund 177 - Special Projects Fund 5. RESOLUTION NO. 68-18 re: Inactivate Fund 304 - HJ Carroll Fund 6. RESOLUTION NO. 69-18 re: Inactivate Fund 629 - Animal Services Donation Trust Account and Inactivate Fund 630 — Animal Services O&M Donations Fund 7. AGREEMENT re: Collective Bargaining and Trust Participation for Sheriffs Office Command Staff; Teamsters Local Union No. 589 and Washington Teamsters Welfare Trust 8. AGREEMENT, Amendment No. 2 re: Prevention Services; Additional Amount of $65,455 for a Total of $285,455; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Health Care Authority 9. AGREEMENT re: Medicaid Administrative Claiming; No Dollar Amount, Fee for Service Only; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Health Care Authority 10. AGREEMENT re: Engage the Washington Conservation (Ameri)Corps Crew in Restoration & Maintenance Projects; In the Amount of $12,900; Jefferson County Environmental Public Health; North Olympic Salmon Coalition 11. AGREEMENT re: Rural Health Network Development Planning Program; In the Amount of $100,000; Jefferson County Public Health; Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 12. AGREEMENT re: Community Health Assessment; In the Amount of $38,645; Jefferson County Public Health; Kitsap Public Health District 13. AGREEMENT re: Oak Bay Mats Mats Pollution Identification and Correction Project; Department of Ecology (DOE): $260,353 plus Jefferson County Clean Water District with a 25% Match of $86,784.33 for a Project Total of $347,137.33; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Ecology 14. AGREEMENT, Amendment re: Public Defense Services; In the Amount of $1,824,866; Jefferson County Central Services; Jefferson Associated Counsel 15. Advisory Board Appointment re: Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee; Four (4) Year Term to Expire December 10, 2022; District 2 Citizen Representative, Joanne Pontrello 16. Advisory Board Appointment re: Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (JCPRAB); Two (2) Year Term to Expire December 10, 2020; District 2 Representative, Marianne Walters 17. Payment of Jefferson County Vouchers/Warrants Dated November 29, 2018 Totaling $1,420.92 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with vouchers approved and signed by the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners are retained by the Jefferson County Auditor and Public Works Department.) 18. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated December 5, 2018 Totaling $882,671.82 and A/P Warrants Done by Payroll Dated December 5, 2018 Totaling $829,891.80 DISCUSSION re: Inactivate Fund 629 - Animal Services Donation Trust Account and Inactivate Fund 630 — Animal Services O&M Donations Fund (Consent Agenda Item No. 6): Commissioner Kler moved to direct staff to take funds from inactivated Fund 629 and transfer them to the Jefferson County Humane Society. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. DISCUSSION re: Preparing Action -Only Meeting Minutes for Board of County Commissioner Public Hearing Testimony: Deputy Clerk of the Board Carolyn Gallaway met with the Board to discuss the preparation of Action -Only meeting minutes for public hearing testimony. A recommendation will be submitted for consideration by the Board during the Regular Meeting on December 17, 2018. 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2018 The meeting was recessed at 9:48 a.m. and reconvened at 9:57 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. DELIBERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION re: Adoption of the 2019 Jefferson County Budget: Central Services Director Mark McCauley and County Administrator Philip Morley gave a presentation which outlined the summary of proposed changes to the 2019 Budget. The Commissioners and staff noted that the online links to the material were not working, but were posted online for the meeting held on December 3, 2018. After deliberation, Commissioner Dean moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 70-18 re: Adopting the 2019 Budget for the General Fund and Other Funds, and the 2019 Jefferson County Road Construction Program and 2019 County Capital Improvement Program. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. DISCUSSION re: POTENTIAL RESOLUTION re: Adopting a Salary Schedule for the FLSA and Union Exempt Management and Professional Employees for 2019: Due to the informational links not working at the time of the meetings, this item will be resubmitted for consideration during the December 17, 2018 Regular Meeting. CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS AND POSSIBLE ACTION re: Adoption of the Periodic Update of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code (UDC) Amendments: Department of Community Development Planning Manager Austin Watkins, Lead Associate Planner Joel Peterson and County Administrator Philip Morley gave a brief overview of the lengthy process regarding the Periodic Update of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments. After deliberation, Commissioner Kler moved to approve ORDINANCE NO. 14-1210-18 re: Adopting the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Adopting Amendments to the Unified Development Code, and Repealing Ordinances Relating to the 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The ordinance was approved at 10:26 a.m. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION re: Recommended Changes to Program Materials and Initiating the 2019 Conservation Futures Fund Application Cycle: Natural Resources Program Coordinator Tami Pokorny and Chair of the Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee (CFCOC) David Wilkenson gave a presentation, reviewed proposed changes from the previous year and scoring process of the CFCOC. After review, Commissioner Kler moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 71-18 re: Establishing a Conservation Futures Program Application Period, Setting an Estimated Amount of Conservation Futures Funds Available, and Approving Program Materials for Use in the 2019 Conservation Futures Funding Cycle. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners reviewed the following: • Miscellaneous Items • Calendar Coordination The meeting was recessed at 10:50 a.m. and reconvened at 11:30 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2018 EXECUTIVE SESSION: An Executive Session was scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Chair Sullivan announced that the Executive Session will be held from 11:31 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. with the County Administrator, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Community Development Director regarding Attorney -Client Privilege, Potential Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board resumed the regular meeting at 11:45 a.m. Chair Sullivan announced that the Board will be extending Executive Session from 11:46 a.m. to 11:51 a.m. The Board concluded the Executive Session and resumed the regular meeting at 11:51 a.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION: An Executive Session was scheduled from 11:45 a.m. to 11:55 a.m. Chair Sullivan announced that the Executive Session will be held from 11:54 a.m. to 12:09 p.m. with the County Administrator and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney regarding Attorney -Client Privilege, Actual Litigation under exemption RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) as outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board concluded the Executive Session and resumed the regular meeting at 12:09 p.m. Commissioner Dean moved to give the County Administrator and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney authority to finalize a settlement and authority to execute the Settlement regarding the Fager case. Commissioner Kler seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at 12:10 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. • Preliminary Discussion re: Commissioner committee assignments in preparation for 2019 • Special Meeting set for Thursday, December 13, 2018 for an Executive Session regarding potential litigation • Special Meeting set for Friday, December 14, 2018 at the Northwest Maritime Center 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. regarding deliberations on the proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 • Miscellaneous Items • Calendar Coordination; upcoming legislative sessions • Port Hadlock Sewer Project; legislative proposal request • 2019 Newly Elected Officials; County orientation The meeting was recessed at 3:07 p.m. and reconvened at 3:17 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION - Continued: County Administrator Philip Morley reviewed the following with the Board. MOTION re: Board of Health Appointment: Commissioner Kler moved to appoint Denis Stearns to the Board of Health. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Denis Stearns' position is at At -Large Community Representative with a term expiring May 31, 2021. 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of December 10, 2018 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS re: EXECUTIVE SESSION: An Executive Session was scheduled from 3:23 p.m. to 3:55 p.m. Chair Sullivan announced that the Executive Session will be held from 3:23 p.m. to 3:55 p.m. with all three Commissioners regarding Personnel; Review the Performance of a Public Employee. The Board concluded the Executive Session and resumed the regular meeting at 3:55 p.m. NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kler moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:56 p.m. until -the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. Commissioner Dean seconded the`rfi6 ii}n which carried by a unanimous vote. p } • PJ ; +Or JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARrr'(fi'o O ISSIONERS SEA: �• David, Chair ATTEST: Kathleen Kler, Member Carolyn Gallaway, CMC Ka Dean, Member Deputy Clerk of the Board 5 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Patty Charnas, Director of Community Development Austin Watkins, Planning Manager Emma Bolin, Planning Supervisor Philip Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney DATE: November 26, 2018 RE: Hearing Notice on a proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Board of County Commissioners is asked to set a special meeting and approve a Hearing Notice for conducting a public hearing on Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:00 P.M. in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend, Washington, for the purpose of taking oral and written testimony regarding a proposed ordinance harmonizing Title 18 "Unified Development Code" of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12-1102-18. In addition, written testimony submitted on or after November 28, 2018 and received by the Board of County Commissioners up through the end of the hearing on December 10, 2018 will be part of the hearing record. ANALYSIS: On December 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) approved a one-year moratorium (Ordinance No. 05-1218-17) on new and expansion of existing commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County. The moratorium was for up to one year, expiring at the end of December 17, 2018. Ordinance No. 05-1218-17, as modified by Ordinance 01-0220-18, contained a workplan for developing an ordinance for the permitting, development and operation of commercial shooting facilities that: (1) provides for and promotes safety by establishing a permitting procedure and rules for the siting, design and operation of commercial shooting range facilities that safeguards participants, spectators, neighboring properties and the public; (2) does not prohibit or expressly regulate the discharge of firearms; (3) involves measures designed to make the discharge of firearms safe; (4) protects the environment; (5) ensures compatibility with neighboring land use; and, (6) promotes the continued availability of shooting facilities for firearm education, practice in the safe use of firearms, and recreational firearm sports. On September 10, 2018 the BoCC referred to the Planning Commission and staff the development of a draft ordinance under Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code ("JCC') otherwise known as the Unified Development Code ("UDC'). The draft UDC ordinance was described in an August 23, 2018 staff report. On September 17, 2018 the Planning Commission heard a presentation describing potential loopholes in the UDC that would be closed by amending the UDC. A second staff briefing to the Planning Commission took place on October 17, 2018 when a draft UDC ordinance was proposed. On November 2, 2018, the BoCC adopted a Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance (Ordinance No. 12-1102-18) amending Chapter 8.50 of the Jefferson County Code, and retitling it "Shooting in the County." The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 7, 2018, accepting verbal and written testimony on proposed companion amendments to Title 18, the Unified Development Code. The Planning Commission accepted written comments on the Title 18 amendments from October 24, 2018 through November 16, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Planning Commission deliberated on the hearing record, and voted to recommend to the BoCC a draft ordinance modifying Title 18 JCC relating to shooting facilities. The findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission were approved by unanimous vote of the Planning Commission at that meeting. The ordinance amending Title 18 recommended by the Planning Commission is now the subject of a new hearing by the County Commissioners, proposed for December 10, 2018. The Board of Commissioners must hold its own hearing to be able to consider any changes to the Planning Commission's proposal. A proposed Hearing Notice is attached for Board approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Holding a public hearing at The Commons on December 10, 2018, will cost the County approximately $2,000, plus staff overtime, the cost of advertising, and other incidental expenses. Depending on whether or not there will be sufficient under -expenditures in other line items in the Non -departmental budget, the expense of this hearing and other prior hearings could require a small fourth quarter supplemental budget appropriation. RECOMMENDATION: That the BoCC schedule a special meeting and approve the attached Hearing Notice for a public hearing on December 10, 2018 at 6:00 P.M. to take oral and written testimony on the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance. REVIEWED BY: Philip Morley, unty Administrator Date 2 Please Publish Twice: November 28 and December 5, 2018 Bill: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Non -Departmental #15829 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting and public hearing is scheduled by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for Monday. December 10`x. 2018, at 6:00 p. m. in The Commons at Fort Worden State Park, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. The purpose of the public hearing is for taking written and oral testimony regarding a proposed ordinance harmonizing Title 18 "Unified Development Code" of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12-1102-18. In addition to the December 101 Public Hearing, written testimony may also be submitted any time starting November 28, addressed to the BoCC at P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 or by email at jeffbocc@co jefferson.wa.us, as long as it is received by the Commissioners by the end of the Public Hearing. The proposed ordinance would revise development regulations in Title 18 of Jefferson County Code (JCC) to harmonize Title 18 with Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County, as follows: Section 1. of the proposed ordinance, if enacted, would adopt an Appendix A: • amending, deleting or adding definitions for "armed forces" (JCC 18.10.010), "commercial shooting facility" (18.10.030), "firearm" (JCC 18.10.060), "indoor facility" (JCC 18.10.090), "non-commercial shooting facility" and "NRA source book" (JCC 18.10.140), "outdoor shooting range" and "outdoor commercial shooting facility" (JCC 18.10.150), "paramilitary organization" and "projectile" (JCC 18.10.160), and "shooting range" (JCC 18.10.190); • amending 18.20.380(8) "Outdoor Shooting Ranges" and retitling it "Non-commercial shooting facilities" • adding 18.20.430 "Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities;" and • amending Table 3-1 "Allowable and Permitted Uses" in Section 2. of the proposed ordinance, if enacted, would adopt findings of fact. Section 3. of the proposed ordinance, if enacted, would declare the provisions of the ordinance separate and severable. Section 4. of the proposed ordinance, if enacted, would repeal and replace relevant provisions in Title 18 JCC, and bind existing legal nonconforming uses to JCC 18.20.380(8) as it presently exists. Section 5. of the proposed ordinance, if enacted, would set an effective date. The public can view the complete text of the proposed ordinance online at www.co.jefferson.wa.us. Signed this 261 Day of November, 2018. Jefferson Co oard of Commissioners David ullivan, C air -ON r: JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 y 360-379-4450 1 email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us http://www,co.jefferson.wa.us/580/Planning-Commission To: Board of County Commissioners From: Planning Commission Date: November 19, 2018 Subject: Planning Commission recommendations on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code, Title 18 relating to shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County Honorable Commissioners Sullivan, Kier, and Dean: The Jefferson County Planning Commission is pleased to transmit to the Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC') our recommended draft ordinance modifying Title 18 JCC relating to shooting facilities. The findings and recommendations presented in this transmittal, were approved with a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission on November 19, 2018. This report summarizes the process and the work product related to the proposed ordinance. Process On December 18, 2017, the BoCC approved a one-year moratorium on new and the expansion of existing commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County. The moratorium was passed in order to protect the public safety and ensure future viability of commercial shooting facilities. The moratorium prohibits the "submission, acceptance, processing or approval of any Jefferson County permit application for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the siting, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility, during the period of development of an ordinance." Jefferson County Ordinance No. 05-1218-17. The moratorium defines a commercial shooting facility as a "commercial facility have one or more shooting ranges that for use of the facility require a contract, charge a fee, or require membership." Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 contained a workplan that required establishment of a review committee to advise to staff in the development of a commercial shooting facility ordinance ("CSFO"). The workplan required presentation by staff of a draft CSFO to the BoCC by August 23, 2018. The review committee established by Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 met 16 times over a number of months for a total of over 40 hours and developed a draft CSFO under Title 8 JCC, the Health and Safety Code, requiring an operating permit for any new or established commercial shooting facility in unincorporated Jefferson County. The detailed history of the work of the review committee is at nttps://co 1effer.son.wa.us/1291/Commercia - Shooting -Facility -Review -Comm. The draft CSFO ordinance was transmitted to the BoCC by staff as Appendix 1 to an August 23, 2018 Staff Report. The August 23, 2018 Staff Report described the review committee process and the draft CSFO ordinance. The BoCC was briefed by staff twice on the staff report and draft CSFO ordinance, once on August 26, 2018 and again on September 9, 2018. On September 10, 2018 the BoCC referred to the Planning Commission and staff the development of a draft ordinance under Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code ("JCC") otherwise known as the Unified Development Code ("UDC')_ The draft UDC ordinance was described in the August 23, 2018 staff report. The proposed ordinance amending the UDC relating to shooting facilities did not require that the CSFO be adopted before considering draft UDC ordinance. The draft UDC ordinance clarifies definitions, clarifies the small-scale tourist and recreation uses, and updates allowable and prohibited uses under the PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners JCC 18.15.40 Table 3-1 "Allowable and Prohibited Uses". The draft UDC ordinance could be considered independently of the proposed CSFO. However, on November 2, 2018, the BoCC adopted a CSFO in Ordinance No. 12-1102-18. On September 17, 2018 staff made a presentation to the Planning Commission describing potential loopholes in the UDC that would be closed by the draft UDC ordinance. A second staff briefing to the Planning Commission took place on October 17, 2018 when a proposed draft UDC ordinance was provided. The Planning Commission accepted written comments from October 24, 2018 until November 16, 2018 regarding the draft UDC ordinance. Public Hearing The Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepting verbal and written testimony, on the proposed draft UDC ordinance on November 7, 2018. Proposed Amendments to Unified Development Code 1. Summary of Proposal and Amendments • Selected definitions are updated, improved, and consistent. Outdoor commercial shooting facilities become a Conditional Use Permit (Type 111) in Commercial Forest, Rural Forest, and Inholding Forest. • Non-commercial shooting facilities continue to require a Conditional Use Permit (Type III) in Commercial Forest, Rural Forest, and Inholding Forest. This changes JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1, Allowable and Prohibited Uses from 'outdoor shooting ranges" to "non-commercial shooting ranges This use still requires compliance with the small-scale tourist and recreation use criteria. • Consistency updates to the small-scale tourist and recreation use criteria, JCC 18.20.350(8). 2. Definitions (underlines are additions and striket#roughs are proposed deletions) 18.10.030 C definitions. "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms. whether open to the public open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington: (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners 18.10.060 F definitions. "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short -barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition: or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. 4921(a)(2).. 18.10.0901 definitions. "Indoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure. 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shooting facility" means any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the private) owned wnedproperty or to any other person. "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association, 18.10.150 O definitions. ?. .a - ec •es "Outdoor commercial shooting facility" means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility. 18.10.160 P definitions. "Projectile" means an object fired from a firearm. 18.10.190 S definitions. "Shooting range" consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges. 3. Table 3-1, Allowable and Prohibited Use Table ("Use Table") (underlines are additions and stfikethraaghs are proposed deletions) PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners 4. Modifications to the small-scale tourist and recreation uses (JCC 18.20.350(8)) (underlines are additions and striket#roughs are proposed deletions) (8) RangesNon-commercial shooting facilities. 0UtdQQF S1100tiAg FanqesNon- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of ammuMiGnproiectiles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The Natio Sections I and II of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used as minimum guidelines in the design, and construction and operation of shooting ranges; (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; Resource Lands Other ZonesTypes Forest – Other Zones Where J Other Zones Where No Agricultural Commercial, Only Indoor Shooting Facility Allowed – Prime and Rural Commercial Shooting Local and Inholdin Facility Allowed Specific Land AG CF/RF/IF Rural Residential –1 Resource-based Industrial, Use DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Light Industrial/Commercial Rural Residential –1 (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), DU110 Acres (RR 1:10), Light Rural Residential – 1 Industrial/Manufacturing DU120 Acres (RR 1:20), (LI/M), Heavy Industrial (HI) Convenience Crossroad (CC), Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC), General Crossroad (GC), and Recreation, Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Parks, Preserves and Recreation PRR Indoor commercial No C C No shootin facilit Outdoor No C No No commercial shootin facilit 9utdeer-sh—f,r+g ,ranges I No 6 No No Non-commercial No C No No shooting facility 4. Modifications to the small-scale tourist and recreation uses (JCC 18.20.350(8)) (underlines are additions and striket#roughs are proposed deletions) (8) RangesNon-commercial shooting facilities. 0UtdQQF S1100tiAg FanqesNon- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of ammuMiGnproiectiles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The Natio Sections I and II of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used as minimum guidelines in the design, and construction and operation of shooting ranges; (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners (d) The shoatO areasshaoting ranges shall be surrounded by an eight -foot -high noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, or be located in a minimal eight -foot deep depression; (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet, or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; (f) No structure or she oting ranges associated with a shoat+sig rar►genon-commercial shooting facility shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line, (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All shootir-g-areasshootincl ranges must be completely fenced, and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. Required Findings In support of this recommendation for the Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments, the Planning Commission enters the following findings and conclusions: (. Required findings; adapted from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b)(i-iii) (i) Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan's implementing regulations (Title 18, Jefferson County Code / Unified Development Code) require updates to ensure consistency, improve usability, and close loopholes. Circumstances have substantially changed in the County requiring these updates. On November 2, 2018, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") passed Ordinance No. 12-1102-18, the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance ("CSFO"), which adopts health and safety regulations relating to commercial shooting facilities in the County. (ii) Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid; or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that new information relating to shooting facilities is available, which was not considered in the adopted Comprehensive Plan, nor the draft Comprehensive Plan periodic review and update. Information includes application of development regulations and their impacts on the County. PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners (iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? The Planning Commission finds the proposal reflects currently widely held values. The Planning Commission received extensive public comment on this proposal. Unlike the public comment asserts, this proposal expressly names an potential unnamed use (commercial shooting facility), limiting the proposed use's location to the rural forest, commercial forest, and inholding forest zoning classifications as a conditional use permit. Under the current development regulations, an unnamed use may be located in substantially more zoning classifications than this proposal. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal reflects currently widely held values. II. Required Findings from JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii) Growth Management Indicators i) Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? The Planning Commission finds that in part that development is occurring slower than envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? The Planning Commission finds that the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not diminished or increased relating to this proposal. iii) Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? The Planning Commission finds there is sufficient urban land as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. iv) Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid? The Planning Commission finds that all assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are valid. V) Are there changes in the county -wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement? The Planning Commission finds that the county -wide attitudes have changed since the last adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, major amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are currently being deliberated by the BoCC, including amendments to the Comprehensive Plan's Vision Statement. Changes in county -wide attitude necessitate the proposal. vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that changes in circumstances require the proposal, which updates the Comprehensive Plan's implementing development regulations. This PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners includes changes in county -wide attitudes relating to commercial shooting facilities, siting issues, and potential loopholes in the current UDC. vii) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County? The Planning Commission finds that there are no inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan, GMA, and County -wide Planning Policies. III. Additional Findings from JCC 18.45.080(1)(c)(i-vii) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal. The proposal is not site-specific. 11. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal requires all site specific proposals to be processed as Type Ill Conditional Use Permit, which requires the site specific proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in its entirety. III. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not result in probable significant adverse impact county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features. All site specific commercial shooting facilities, will be processed as a Type III Conditional Use Permit, requiring compliance with the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria and the State Environmental Policy Act. IV. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Access; b. Provision of utilities, and c. Compatibility with existing and planning surrounding land uses; The Planning Commission finds that this criteria is not applicable to the proposal. V. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole, PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners The Planning Commission finds that the proposal will not create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal limits potential future pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. VI. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Pian; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not materially affect the land use and population projects that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. VII. If within an unincorporated urban growth area ("UGA"), the proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; The Planning Commission finds that this criteria is not applicable to the proposal. VIII. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County -Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter -jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, GMA, the Jefferson County county -wide Planning Policies, and other applicable regulations, rules, or statutes. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal requires all site specific proposals to be processed as Type III Conditional Use Permit, which requires the site specific proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in its entirety. [end of required findings] PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners Recommendations Based upon formal deliberation concerning these proposed amendments reviewed under MLA18-00098, the Planning Commission recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners include the following: 1. The proposed changes to 18.30.0 definitions are recommended as approved. 2. The proposed changes to 18.60.F definitions are recommended as approved. 3. The proposed changes to 18.90.1 definitions are recommended as approved. 4. The proposed changes to 18.140.N definitions are recommended as approved. 5. The proposed changes to 18.150.0 definitions are recommended as approved. 6. The proposed changes to 18.160.13 definitions are recommended as approved. 7. The proposed changes to 18.190.S definitions are recommended as approved. 8. The proposed changes to 18.20.350(8) are recommended as approved, as modified as follows: a. 18.20.350(8)(d) should be modified to read: The shooting ranges shall be surrounded by a minimum sixteen -foot high above grade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm, or wall.; and, b. 18.20.350(8)(h) should be modified to read: All shooting ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. 9. The proposed changes to Table 3-1 Allowable and Prohibited Uses for Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities are recommended as approved. 10. The proposed changes to Table 3-1 Allowable and Prohibited Uses for Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities are recommended as approved, except as follows: a. Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Residential — 1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR 1:20) should be listed as "No" in the column for Other Zones Where Only Indoor Shooting Facility Allowed; and, b. Resource-based Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M), Heavy Industrial (HI) should listed as "C" in the column for Other Zones Where Only Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed. 11. Additional requirements should be added to Title 18 JCC as follows: a. 18.010 A definitions should be amended to add a definition of armed forces as follows: "'Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." b. 18.160 P definitions should be amended to add a definition for paramilitary organization as follows: "'Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of a the armed forces. c. A new section "18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be added as follows: 18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited at any commercial shooting facility or any non-commercial shooting facility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shooting facility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a minimum 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. A revised proposed ordinance is attached as Appendix 1. The Planning Commission wishes to thank the Board for the opportunity to work in our communities and bring forward these recommendations. We look forward to working with the Board on the implementation projects that follow from the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners Transmitted File Location The transmitted files that accompany these finding and recommendations are located in the Community Development Laserfiche repository, accessible with the following web link: http t to t,_Lv jetfc�scatt_�v ,us wckalink��tcEn �l 0 101 189Bt I ftu,., 1.a"p\ Sincerely, Michael Nilssen Planning Commission Chair 10 PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners APPENDIX 1 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF WASHINGTON An Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 JCC } with the Commercial Shooting Facilities } ORDINANCE NO. 12-1102-18 Ordinance No. 1 WHEREAS, on December 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopted Ordinance No. 05-1218-17, an Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County (the Moratorium); and, WHEREAS, staff recommended changes to Title 18 JCC in order to harmonize Title 18 JCC with the new draft Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a hearing and has received public comment on the draft ordinance proposed by staff that improves 1 itic 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendations to the BoCC regarding the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission's consideration of the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves 7 itle 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC, the BoCC has held a hearing and has received public comment on the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, in response to the public comment and testimony, additional improvements to the proposed ordinance that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained that: Section 1. Modification of 1 itle 18 JCC. Title 18 JCC shall be modified as set forth in Appendix A, including as follows: a. —Approve the use of indoor commercial shooting facilities that improves Title 18 JCC and would comply with the new commercial shooting facility ordinance, the followingzones with as a conditional use: Convenience Crossroad (CC) General Crossroad (GC), Heavy Industrial (HI), Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C) Light Industrial (LD Light 1 of 12 Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/MA Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC)Parks Preserves and Recreation (PRR) but not allowed in the following zones: Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1.5) Rural Residential — 1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10) Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR 120 J* , 6r F@Setlr e based"-6r"light industrial" 2of12 ill 01.11"Fr. ..11PARWITIVI M-05 &MIN a ATM ..pm un IS MME MULWALIMIN 2of12 Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.090: "`Indoor facility' means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure." Add definitions to Title 18 JCC needed for consistency with the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance. For example, a definition of commercial shooting facility that incorporates the definition in the new commercial shooting facility ordinance shall be added to -1 itle 18. Specifically: i. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.030: "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington; (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. ii. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.060: "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short - barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.4 1.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition; or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. '921 (a)(2). iii. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.140: "`Non-commercial shooting facility' means any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person." 3of12 iv. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.140: "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. V. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.150: "`Outdoor commercial shooting facility' means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility." vi. Delete the definition of "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.10.150. i. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.160: "`Projectile' means an object fired from a firearm." ii. The definition of"shooting range" in JCC 18.10.190 shall be changed to "`Shooting range' consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges." Modify JCC 18.20.350(8) for small-scale recreation and tourist uses and other provisions of "1 ]tic 18 JCC that improves it and would be consistent with the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance, while preserving their limitations for uses in effect before adoption of the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance. Specifically: i. Change "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8), to "non-commercial outdoor shooting ranges." ii. Change "ammunition" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) to "projectile." Change "NRA Range Manual" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(b) to "NRA Source Book." iv. Change "shooting areas" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(4), JCC 18.30.350(8)(f), and JCC 18.20.350(8)(h) to "shooting ranges." V. Change "shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8)0 to "non-commercial shooting facility." Modify Table 3-1 in Title 18 that improves it and would be consistent with the new commercial shooting facility ordinance and the Growth Management Act (GMA), while preserving their limitations for uses in effect before adoption of this ordinance. Specifically: 4of12 Change "outdoor shooting ranges" used in Table 3-1 to "non-commercial shooting facilities." ii. Add "indoor commercial shooting facilities" to Table 3-1 in the following zones as a conditional use: Convenience Crossroad (CC) General Crossroad (GC), Heavy Industrial (HI), Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Liaht Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M), Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC) Parks Preserves and Recreation (PRR), but, not allowed in the following zones: Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Residential — 1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1.10) Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR resetffee based" OF "light WU ii. Add outdoor commercial shooting ranges to Table 3-1 as a conditional use in RF, CF and IF zones only. f. Add the following provisions as recommended by the Jefferson County Planning Commission on November 19. 2018: i. The proposed changes to 18.20.350(8) are recommended as approved as modified as follows: (a) 18.20.350(8)(4) should be modified to read: The shooting ranges shall be surrounded by a minimum sixteen -foot high above grade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm, or wall.; and, (b) 18.20.350(8)(h) should be modified to read: All shooting ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. ii. 18.010 A definitions should be amended to add a definition of armed forces as follows: "'Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." 18.160 P definitions should be amended to add a definition for paramilitary organization as follows: "'Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure tactics training subculture and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of a the armed forces. iv. A new section "18.20.4-230 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be added as follows: 5of12 18.20.4330 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited any commercial shootingfacility acility or any non- commercial shooting facility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shooting facility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility_ (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. Section 2. Findings. The BoCC hereby adopts the above recitals (the "WHEREAS" statements) as its findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared separate and severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, then the remainder of this Ordinance or application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances shall remain valid and unaffected. Section 4. Repeal and Replace. The changes authorized above are to repeal and replace the relevant provisions in Title 18 JCC. However, legal nonconforming uses that have been established prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall continue to be bound by the requirements in JCC 18.20.350(8) as it existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption (SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE) 6of12 ADOPTED this day of SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Gallaway, Deputy Clerk of the Board 7of12 2018, at a.m. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Kathleen Kler, Member Kate Dean, Member APPROVED AS TO FORM: Philip C. Hunsucker, Date Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney APPENDIX A PROPOSED ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO DEFINITIONS: 18.010 A definitions. "`Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." 18.10.030 C definitions. (1) "Commercial shooting facility' means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington or any political subdivision of the State of Washington; (b) Any portion of arip ivately-owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely y its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. 18.10.060 F definitions. "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or proiectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol rifle short - barreled rifle, shotgun short -barreled shotgun machine gun and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition; or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(2) 8of12 18.10.090 I definitions. "Indoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shooting facility" means any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. 18.10.150 O definitions. "Outdoor commercial shootingfacility" acility" means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility. 18.10.160 P definitions. "`Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces but which is not included as part of a the armed forces. "Projectile" means an object fired from a firearm. 18.10.190 S definitions. "Shooting range" consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shootingfacility acility may include multiple shooting ranges. PROPOSED CHANGES TO JCC 18.20.350(8): (8) Outdoor Shooting n.,ngesNon-commercial shooting facilities. Outdoor shooting r e Non- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of afnFaunifieffprojectiles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The National Rifle ^ c ation's Range Ma Sections I and II of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used in the-devele. I eper-atien-ef r-anges; Af4ieles 1, 2, 2, and 3 e the safety reee__e.lations f ow I ,ranges shall b used as minimum guidelines in the design,, and and operation of shooting ranges; 9of12 (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; (d) The sheeting area shootin ranges shall be surrounded by an eigksixteen-foot-high above grade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, or be ;created in a minimal eight feet 00 depression-, (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet, or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; (f) No structure or shoeting area shooting ranges associated with a shesfing-raigenon- commercial shootingfacility acility shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line; (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All shooting ar-easshooting ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet; and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. 18.20.420 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited any commercial shootingfacility acility or any non-commercial shooting facilites (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shooting facility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shootingfacility acility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. 10 of 12 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE USE TABLE: Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses. 11 of 12 Resource Lands Other Zones Types Forest — Other Zones Where Only Other Zones Where No Agricultural Commercial, Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed — Prime and Rural Shooting Facility Allowed Local and Inholdin Specific AG CF/RF/IF Convenience Crossroad Rural Residential — 1 Land Use (CC), General Crossroad DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), (GC), Heavy Industrial Rural Residential —1 (HI), Industrial, Light DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Industrial/Commercial Rural Residential — 1 (LI/C), Light Industrial DU/20 Acres (RR (LI), Light 1:20 Industrial/Manufacturing industrial, g#t (LI/M)), Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban , Light indust Growth Area (UGA), (m), Lit Neigh borhoodNisitor Crossroads (NC), Parks, (MA4), 4) u,,ayy industrial Preserves and Recreation f (PRR\D,,,..,1 Resodenteal 1 ilii/5 A. res (RR 115), Rural Residential — 1 , Rural Residential 1 DUQO A . res (R 1!20), Conven*enee Crossroad (CC)-, C-FOSsr-oa s (NC- General Crossroad (CC)-, and POO Hadoeli Urban Growth Area 7 Indoor No C C No commercial shooting facility Outdoor No C No No commercial shooting facility 11 of 12 9utdeer Shooting fanges No E No No Non- No C No No commercial shootina facility 12 of 12 JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN TITLE: Public Hearing re: Proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 DATE and TIME: Monday, December 10, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: The Commons, Fort Worden NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS (Not Required) CITY of Required) H, t;-, \n VV\ ?ifnl� � i JJ ff J / "j e ir• -4\ LL cd oL e�j�o,� '"le kj A�, Iv,V 1qA Z � / b,�' 1<65 Z- t -A /6 T6Wnsp14 �Vlj,,IjLa J/P lq' /A13 1- E- A rek U � C( JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN TITLE: Public Hearing re: Proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 DATE and TIME: Monday, December 10, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: The Commons, Fort Worden NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS of Required) CITY of Required) I\j i CGLC F-Dx Chv-e Enz i P� 144 fed / ! ♦ �' / / ^1 V 4FIg- CA �. r" L /0 t hA0 0 kv) v A -L (v C C AA5ON r Vv� M We JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN TITLE: Public Hearing re: Proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 DATE and TIME: Monday, December 10, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: The Commons, Fort Worden NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS of Required) CITY (Not Required) 0 u.Ss! 0�1 JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN TITLE: Public Hearing re: Proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 DATE and TIME: Monday, December 10, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: The Commons, Fort Worden NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS of Re uired CITY of Required) F] JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN TITLE: Public Hearing re: Proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 DATE and TIME: Monday, December 10, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: The Commons, Fort Worden NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY �ee(Nof Required) of Required) JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN TITLE: Public Hearing re: Proposed Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 DATE and TIME: Monday, December 10, 2018 @ 6:00 p.m. PLACE: The Commons, Fort Worden NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY (Not Required) of Required) a a From: (jeorgette 5emicK <gsemicK(cuyanoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 11:03 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments re: Recommended change to county code to prohibit military training at county based facilities I am appalled to hear that the county planning commission is recommending that military training be prohibited at county facilities. This is clearly regressive code enforcement and should be stopped in its tracks. Training our military and our law abiding citizens is in the best interests of our nation, our state and clearly our county. The continuing prohibitions against weapons and tactical training within our county is a clear infringement of property, business and individual rights. I see this as a continuing restriction of our freedoms, far exceeding the boundaries of the County Commission's jurisdiction. Georgette Semick <gsemick@yahoo.com> From: Judith Lucia <judithlucia7@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 4:16 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Ridge - Too much at stake To: Kate Dean, Kathleen Kler, and David Sullivan, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners We don't want a commercial shooting facility in the Tarboo area. A military and law enforcement training facility in this area goes against everything we've been working for in the south county. We are a rural, quiet farming community and support natural, organic farmlands. We are working hard to maintain the natural ecology of our area with on-going conservation activities. We include many veterans with PTSD. Eco -tourism is beginning to grow. There is no "harmony" possible with a threatening person pushing to profit from a military training facility, who is already clearly breaking the law and due process as reported in the Peninsula Daily News on 11/23/2018. Please stop this process and ban military and law enforcement training at any new commercial shooting facility. Respectfully, Judith A. Lucia Jeffrey M. Lucia P.O. Box 321 Quilcene, WA 98376 judithlucia7@gmail.com (360) 765-3782 �tAPING November 27, 2018 David Sullivan, _._vanCommissioner P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA. 98368 As concerned full time residents and property owners for almost 30 years on Snow Creek near Crocker Lake, we are totally against the paramilitary shooting range proposed on Tarboo Ridge. We are not anti -gun being gun owners ourselves. However, we are alarmed that such a facility would destroy our quiet way of life and negatively affect the natural environment and our property values. A county ordinance regarding gun ranges should responsibly address the issues and RIGHTS of the families, wildlife and farms that exist in the area. It is disturbing that the Commissioners as a whole seem to be capitulating to Mr. D'Amico in fear of a law suit. We urge the Commissioners to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission but we feel those are not restrictive enough. We firmly believe that the following stipulations need to be incorporated in the regulations of new gun ranges and stringently enforced: *New gun ranges need to be INDOORS and thoroughly SOUND -PROOF to prevent Pollution, noise & wildfires from impacting people, pets, livestock, and wildlife. The ordinance should carefully address the appropriateness of a site! in our opinion, the Tarboo site is NOT APPROPRIATE for such a facility, period! *Allowing military training activities at a private facility should not be allowed. Who wants to live in an area that sounds like Viet Nam /Afghanistan with noise of guns and heliocopters echoing off the surrounding Olympic foothills on a daily basis? And having lived in the area as long as we have, trust me, we know all about how noise bounces off these hills. * ALL SHORELINES should be given special protection. Permits should not be issued to projects that are potentially destructive to habitat on every level possible. From the history of Mr. D'Amico's violations at Discovery Bay, possible environmental violations going on presently on Tarboo ridge, and the recent comments he has made to bully others by throwing his weight around legally, it is obvious to us that he cares nothing about others, the environment, rules and regulations and will continue to act above the law at the new site. His proposed facility does not make us feel safe. It makes us feel, as Americans, our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being threatened. Jim and Nancy Higgins 203 Mt. View Dr. Quilcene, Wa. 98376 (Phone: 360-765-4433) effbocc From: Virginia Nixon <nixonvirginia@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 9:15 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo gun facility Thanks for accepting public comment without our pushing into and trying to speak to what can be a rather hostile crowd! You are courageous to serve us in this kind of challenging circumstance. Thank you! I grew up with guns on our farm. I do see legitimate gun usages, however I believe the proposed Tarboo shooting establishment cannot be trusted and has goals much beyond what this county should even consider allowing. I live in Port Ludlow so will not hear any Tarboo guns, but we chose to live here in Jefferson County because of its peaceful reputation. I have grandchildren not far from this proposed facility, and it is the antithesis of peaceful in their young lives!!! Please be courageous and rise above the fearmongering and threats and act to protect Jefferson County from actions that in the name of "promoting business and free enterprise" actually threaten what is core to most of us here in Jefferson County. We are counting on you to establish and enforce the strong amendments proposed for shooting facilities. Local law enforcement needs training, yes. It needs to be limited to LOCAL, and the locals near Tarboo CAN have their values and property protected. Please let us continue to see your courage to act on OUR behalf ... And on behalf of our young people. Your courageous approach to this issue will live on in Jefferson County long after you and we are all gone. Please Virginia Nixon Port Ludlow Sent from my iPhone occ From: Virginia Nixon <nixonvirginia@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 9:36 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: P.S. to my comment just sent I just now read the letter to the editor written by George Esveldt. I do not know this person but his words stimulated a serious question as I read it to my husband. Why NOT take this issue to our citizenry!?Why can we NOT table the whole thing until an election referendum can give voice to the folks you represent? You are hearing from a motivated few. If "the people" decide, you need not bear this responsibility alone. In the meantime, let them sue! The wheels can then turn slowly. We pay taxes for a peaceful place to live. Investing it in a lawsuit on this matter could invest my tax money wisely. Virginia Nixon Port Ludlow Sent from my iPhone jeffbocc From: Sent: To: Attachments: Thank you for reading our letter. Bill and Roxianne Sent from Mail for Windows 10 bill morris <wilmor5l@hotmail.com> Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:12 PM jeffbocc Letter to BOCC make changes.docx Jefferson County Board of Commissioners; November 29, 2018 We are writing in concern about the proposed paramiltary training facility at Tarboo Lake. Jefferson County does not need another gun range. You need to make the following amendments to the gun range current draft. Jefferson County does not need another gun range. There is already one, Jefferson County Sportmans Club, near Port Townsend that serves the local police needs. This one will ruin the pristine waters of Tarboo Lake and the inhabitants in and around it with contaminants a 500 yard set -back would help. The water usage alone could diminish the lakes' water level to not support fishing at some point in time. However, even with a 500 yard set -back, you could not fish this lake or use it recreationally, EVER. The noise would be extremely close and damage your hearing. A true attraction for people to come to our county would be lost. You must limit the hours of shooting to between 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. People in the area have a right to quiet and a relief from the perpetual sound of gunfire -which can be extremely upsetting if you have any PTSD. Landing aircraft of any kind should not be allowed to take off or land at any time. They do not own the airspace. The noise would affect more than just the immediate area. The aircraft coming from Seattle would be heard in in the Port Ludlow area and beyond. You alone have the power to make the changes necessary and truly represent what the people in this county want and need. They do not need a paramilitary training facility. Please adopt the recommended changes by the Planning Commission to the current draft. Thank you William and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon WA 98320 • From: bill morris <wilmor5l@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:12 PM To: jeffbocc Attachments: Letter to BOCC make changes.docx Thank you for reading our letter. Bill and Roxianne Sent from Mail for Windows 10 • • • Jefferson County Board of Commissioners; November 29, 2018 We are writing in concern about the proposed paramiltary training facility at Tarboo Lake. Jefferson County does not need another gun range. You need to make the following amendments to the gun range current draft. Jefferson County does not need another gun range. There is already one, Jefferson County Sportmans Club, near Port Townsend that serves the local police needs. This one will ruin the pristine waters of Tarboo Lake and the inhabitants in and around it with contaminants a 500 yard set -back would help. The water usage alone could diminish the lakes' water level to not support fishing at some point in time. However, even with a 500 yard set -back, you could not fish this lake or use it recreationally, EVER. The noise would be extremely close and damage your hearing. A true attraction for people to come to our county would be lost. You must limit the hours of shooting to between 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. People in the area have a right to quiet and a relief from the perpetual sound of gunfire -which can be extremely upsetting if you have any PTSD. Landing aircraft of any kind should not be allowed to take off or land at any time. They do not own the • airspace. The noise would affect more than just the immediate area. The aircraft coming from Seattle would be heard in in the Port Ludlow area and beyond. You alone have the power to make the changes necessary and truly represent what the people in this county want and need. They do not need a paramilitary training facility. Please adopt the recommended changes by the Planning Commission to the current draft. Thank you William and Roxianne Morris 3261 Duckabush Rd Brinnon WA 98320 0 From: Ramona Gault <sheepyspinner@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 1:17 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: paramilitary training facility Dear Ms. Dean, Ms. Kier, and Mr. Sullivan: As a frequent visitor to Jefferson County, I've been following the proposal of Joe D'Amico of Security Services Northwest to establish a large commercial shooting facility in your county. The scale and planned activities are mind-boggling: when completed, 40 acres with seven gun ranges, cabins, a clubhouse, two helicopter landing pads on Tarboo Lake. Over the past two decades, I've camped in Jefferson County, shopped in the towns and villages, attended museums and concerts. I could do similar things in Seattle, but overall it's the natural beauty, mountains, waters, forests, and peaceful quiet of Jefferson County that underline these other attractions and make them worth my trips. I can't imagine wanting to camp, hike, or attend an outdoor concert at which the sound of gunfire was the background. If you look at the big picture, I hope you'll agree that Mr. D' Amico's proposal would degrade the environmental quality of Tarboo Lake and the surrounding area, not to mention increase stress for the people who invested their money and time in establishing homes and businesses there. Some would have to move away, for gunfire noises would travel far and destroy the natural ambience. People with added stresses such as PTSD and anxiety disorders would find the noise increases their mental health symptoms. An estimated 350 families live in the area, and many more enjoy recreational activities at Tarboo Lake. They are all at risk from stray bullets from the proposed shooting ranges, and the proposed facility's location on the lake would compromise the environmental quality of the lake, which belongs to the citizens of Washington state. It appears Mr. D'Amico is trying to move this project through your legal process by dividing it into smaller parts and applying for permits for the parts. Please keep the big picture in mind. Our US military does a great job of protecting us abroad. Our police, state troopers, and National Guard are well trained and active on our behalf. We don't need paramilitary training in Washington state. Though Mr. D'Amico's Fort Discovery facility had a stated purpose of training for anti -terrorism, such facilities have the potential of attracting extra -legal groups that may pose a threat to civic order. I hope you'll consider the long-term consequences of such a facility, and the message it would send about Jefferson County. Thank you, Ramona Gault Seattle I ieffbocc From: Levi Ross <armsprollc@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2018 1:07 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Gun Range Ordinance Attachments: Gun Ordinance Response 1222018.pdf Please see attached. Thank you for your consideration. Levi Ross (360)390-8018 armsprol lcg igmail. corn Armspro.com Now Posting - https://www.facebook.com/ArmsproGUNS A not so short story about the new Jefferson County Shooting Range ordinance and how we got in this mess. Some of the details might be wrong and I don't want to be accused of spreading "fake news". But, this is how it appears to me. First we have Joe D'amico and his desire to locate a gun range and training facility in Jefferson County. Joe is a reasonable business man who has operated a commercial security service in our community for many years. He saw an opportunity to grow his business by offering a place and service to train his own and other security service personnel. After all, the commercial use of lethal force tactics most effectively requires the ability to shoot a firearm under various conditions quickly and accurately. You have to train to acquire these skills. You have to have a place to train. He saw he could offer this type of place and service and add some income to his self-employment portfolio. There were two significant problems with this first attempt at setting up such a training facility. He chose a piece of property that was close to and on the west side of Discovery Bay. And, Joe is not fond of following land use planning and permitting guidelines. So, he ran afoul of wealthier land owners who had built their waterfront homes on the west side of Discovery Bay and didn't want to hear the sound of gun fire that bounced and echoed off the surface of Discovery Bay. He also started to make some enemies in the local Dept. of Community Development and on the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Joe thought he might have a solution. He found a piece of property in the woods, up near Tarboo Lake. He thought this place would be far enough away from any noise averse neighbors and he would run his plan by the authorities having jurisdiction first. These steps were an attempt to solve the first two problems encountered at his initial location. But, there were neighbors in the Tarboo Ridge area who also objected to the thought of having the sound of a commercial firearm training facility near them. Joe's plans showed a number of features that concerned them, including multiple shooting ranges, a helicopter landing location, places for RVs to park in support of visiting trainees and a body of water which supports a variety of wildlife that they wanted to maintain and protect. These neighbors seemed to have sought and received outside help in organizing and setting up a resistance to Joe's development plans. They formed the Tarboo Ridge Coalition and marched into the county courthouse to show their displeasure to our county commissioners. The commissioners, doing their duty to represent their constituents concerns were duly impressed and recognized that there were not any good ways to regulate Joe's efforts. So, under pressure from the well organized TRC decided to impose a temporary moratorium on the development or improvement of any shooting ranges in Jefferson County to give themselves time to try to come up with some planning guidelines that could be used to try to control the development of Joe's shooting range and help satisfy the TRC group. While the target was and always has been Joe and his proposed shooting range and training facility, the commissioners and their support staff recognized they couldn't just target their decision at Joe because that would leave them open to legal action. Joe has been known to file suit when challenged. The commissioners recognized they had to come up with generic language, in case any other entities also decided to try to locate a shooting range here. So began the development of the newly proposed Jefferson County Shooting Range Ordinance to be ensconced in the County Code language. The TRC and their support had formulated and offered a number of policy statements they wanted to see in the new code language. All of these policy statements and proposed requirements were designed to make it so expensive to develop and control Joe's proposed shooting range, that he would have no choice but to give up on his project. These proposed requirements included things like an 8 foot perimeter fence around the whole 40 acre facility, 16 foot high acoustic barriers around any shooting ranges, limiting shooting hours to between 8am and 5 pm, no night shooting, no law enforcement or military training of any kind, no firing from helicopters or drones while ascending or descending, no shooting within 500 yards of any body of water up to 20 acres, as well as a few others. The job to compose the new ordinance was given to the prosecuting attorney's office and specifically to Phillip Hunsucker. In his work, Mr. Hunsucker surveyed, at least Kitsap County, where there have been some significant attempts to control and shut down already established shooting ranges. Since there were some legal challenges that Kitsap County had to endure in their attempts, Mr. Hunsucker's job was to weave such an ordinance that it could withstand legal challenge. One of the features that was to help in this regard was to make sure that such code language would apply to all shooting ranges, new or existing. That way, Joe couldn't argue that he and his project were being singled out and Jefferson County's new code language couldn't be legally attacked on those grounds. Mr. Hunsucker didn't include all of the desired TRC want list in his initial draft ordnance. The TRC wasn't happy and felt the new ordnance didn't go nearly far enough. Since there were no other newly proposed shooting range facilities in Jefferson County, the new code language wasn't likely to be challenged by any other entity seeking to site such a shooting range here, the new code language should do its job. Joe would have to give up on his project and the TRC would be satisfied. Enter the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association and its shooting range located on Sun Club road on Jefferson County property next to the Jacob Miller road waste collection and processing facility. The JCSA range was first constructed in 1962, incorporated in 1964 and has been continually managed and run by dedicated volunteers, all without any costs to Jefferson County taxpayers. The "range" offers a multi station rifle only, range with 100, 200 and 300 yard shooting positions, a second multi station 50 yard range for both rifle and handgun shooting, a three bay, multi position handgun only range used for shooting sports competitions, a shotgun trap range with multiple trap houses and 5 stand shooting positions, a competition class woodland trail archery range, a field archery range, a clubhouse with kitchen and bathrooms used for meetings and community gatherings, an educational building used for firearm and archery education and training. All of the development and construction over the last 56 years has been permitted, that is, after permitting started in our county in about 1972. All of it has been funded by membership dues and donations as well as a few well-placed grants from state and national shooting sports organizations. All of the development, construction, maintenance and management has been performed by the dedicated volunteers. In the, over 50 year history of this range there has never been a safety violation or complaint related to personal or community safety. There have been neighbor complaints about the noise of gunfire from those who have moved into the neighborhood well after the range became established. While those complaints are significant, and the increased residential development in recent years mean people have moved closer to the noise, they come from those who purchased their property knowing the gun range already existed. In 1962 the range was over 3 miles from the closest concentration of Port Townsend residents and among farmsteads, woodlands and the local dump. The development came to the range, rather than the range coming to the development. The managing board of the JCSA has done a very good job of range management, including working with the Wa Dept of Ecology to effectively identify, monitor and manage lead containment, and reclamation. The best recognized shooting range construction and management recommendations have been used to guide the way the range has been constructed and is managed to control and contain bullets, water run-off, and other potential contaminants produced by the shooting sports. Recently, a new grant is being sought to increase sound control by funding the installation of acoustic barriers. The board and volunteers are continually working to improve the range facilities and minimize the impacts on surrounding residents. The unspoken mandate is to be good neighbors while providing the best and safest possible shooting environment for those in our community who shoot for sport or in the performance of their jobs. The JCSA range is used by Wa Fish and Wildlife for required hunter education training, by local and regional bench rest target shooters, by residents wanting to shoot and train on their individual firearms and archery equipment, by national and international shooting sports organizations for competitive shooting matches, by the YMCA, 4-H and the Boy Scouts for youth shooting and archery activities, by trap shooting enthusiasts, by the Jefferson County sheriff and Port Townsend police departments for training and qualifications. The range has been used by the Wa State patrol, the Coast Guard, the state park service rangers and the Border Patrol for firearms training. The JCSA range is widely recognized as one of the best, if not the very best shooting venue on the North Olympic Peninsula. During the development and adoption process for the new shooting range code language, Mr. Hunsucker did a pretty reasonable job of crafting language that might dissuade Joe from continuing with his project and, while onerous, was something the JCSA board and volunteers thought they could comply with. Although there was some significant concern that the process was being pushed through to stop Joe and his project and that JCSA was going to be collateral damage due to the need to protect against legal challenge. During the consideration and public meeting process the TRC and their supporters managed to get out of the blocks first and plugged the county commissioners public hearing, so that almost no dissenting voices from JCSA members could be heard. At the second public hearing, the commissioners recognized the need for a larger venue so that more comment could be accommodated. They moved to the superior courtroom where the JCSA members joined the TRC and their supporters, where so many participants tried to hear and comment, that the courtroom was filled to overflowing. After taking many hours of public comment and adjourning the meeting for consideration of the public input, it was determined that a court challenge was imminent because not all potential participants were able to fit into the chosen venue. All spoken comments had to be removed from the record and a new meeting had to be scheduled so that everyone could attend and speak. McCurdy Pavillion at Fort Worden was chosen and accommodated over 300 JCSA members and supporters as well as the TRC supporters, in somewhat fewer numbers. The JCSA membership and supporters requested that a volunteer run, historically used and established, non- profit organization and facility such as the JCSA range not be considered a commercial range and be exempted from the code language clearly aimed at Joe and his range. Of, course, to protect their legal position the county commissioners could not allow such a position. After consideration the commissioners voted 2 to 1 to adopt the ordinance language, as written by Mr. Hunsucker, even though the public comment seemed to favor further work on the code language to protect operation of the JCSA range. Next, the ordinance language was submitted to the Jefferson County planning commission to make sure it could be "harmonized" with existing land use codes and policies. This action gave the TRC another opportunity to make sure their desired code language could be inserted into the ordinance. They weren't happy with Mr. Hunsucker's first draft because it didn't go for enough to shut down Joe's project. The TRC seemed to find friendly ears on the planning commission and one member, in particular, who seems to be on record stating that they are going to get that guy. Although I haven't been able to confirm that language or who may have spoken it. I don't want to forward any "fake news" here. But, the result of the planning commission review is to reinstate the requirements for an 8 foot perimeter fence, 16 foot sound barriers, shooting hours limited to 8 to 5, no law enforcement or military training, no shooting from helicopters or drones and no shooting within 500 yards of a body of water up to 20 acres. There are some other wording changes proposed also, seemingly to make sure that JCSA and any other potential ranges are included as non-commercial entities. There is other language to define law enforcement and armed forces or military, etc. Unfortunately, the politics of gun control have been injected into the process over the requirments for real evaluation of the need and desires for equal representation. Two of our county commissioners are on record and being "opposed to guns". One is a true politician and is not showing his cards. However, he did vote to approve the proposed ordinance language. At least one of the planning commissioners appears to have a personal inclination to oppose any shooting range development proposed by Joe. Now, I, personally am a progressive, politically. But, I'm also a realist. Suns and the desire for a large part of our population to own and shoot their guns are a protected right in our national and state constitutions. I'm not against working to reduce gun violence and ways to make sure that persons who are a danger to our communities or themselves do not have access to firearms. But, REALITY is, that guns exist and we as a mixed community of gun owners and shooters and non gun oriented individuals must come to an agreement as to how to approach managing individual gun rights and the need to reduce criminal and irresponsible gun ownership and use. My contention is that the best thing a community can do to promote effective and responsible gun ownership, use and gun control is to provide a safe, designated and well managed venue where individuals who do own guns and desire to shoot them for personal reasons, competition sports and professional training requirements can receive education, training and have a place to shoot. The new initiative 1639 at the state level mandates such education and training for any and all persons who wish to purchase a semi-automatic rifle. The problems I see with the current shooting range ordinance and the adopted and proposed language are that it may stop Joe and his proposed commercial operations. But, it would summarily cause the JCSA range to have to shut down due to lack of available funding to comply with the requirements. JCSA is a non-profit, volunteer operation with an annual budget of under $50,000/yr and only limited options to seek any grant funding for expensive and unnecessary modifications and operational changes that would be required. More specifically, an 8 foot fence around the current 17 acre JCSA range would completely consume the club annual budget, at a minimum. In over 50 years there has never been a documented incident of trespassing on the existing range. I'm not sure if the proposed fence is to keep intruders out or keep shooters in. But, the existing blackberries that ring the property and the barbwire fencing and danger posting signs around the property seem to be doing the job. What purpose is such a fence supposed to perform? It will keep the local wildlife from migrating through the property. It won't stop noise. It won't stop errant bullets from unintended discharges. Perhaps an environmental impact study should be done about what impacts such a fence would produce. It seems to have no function other than to wring additional dollars out of the pockets of shooters and range operators. Second, a 16 foot earth berm or fence for acoustic control may seem like a good idea. But, imagine the cost of engineering and building a 16 foot fence of solid acoustic attenuation material. It's not just a fence. It's a sail that will catch and obstruct all the wind that might hit it. Engineering and construction requirements would be extreme. There is no experiential evidence of such a fence, I can find, showing that a 16 foot height is required. This also seems to be an arbitrary requirement subject to legal challenge. Earth berms are not so hard to do and the JCSA ranges two and three already have earth berms that comply with this requirement, but the rifle range and shotgun ranges do not. It would take many thousands of yards of trucked in fill to complete such a berm around those two ranges. Then there is the WA state RCW that states the noise from shooting ranges is exempt from noise ordinance requirements by local jurisdictions unless specifically approved by the director of the state Dept of Ecology. Of course, there are timing allowances here about some 90 day time period where if a DOE determination is not made the ordinance can be enacted anyway. So maybe there is another opening for legal challenge. The point here is that there are good options for sound control at gun ranges and significant industry experience at what materials can be used and how to use them in ways that are not an arbitrarily required 16 foot high fence. JCSA is already working to find solutions to reduce noise impacts from the existing gun range. This is another requirement that may or may not stop Joe from developing his shooting range. It will condemn the JCSA range with the club's inability to fund such a project. Third, the proposed shooting hour requirements will restrict the ability of JCSA to offer club members the ability to shoot after their work hours during the summer shooting season. There are many club members who enjoy coming to the range during the late summer daylight hours to get in some range time after they clock out of their regular jobs. If the JCSA range shooting hours are restricted, those shooters will disperse throughout the various private property and incidental, unmanaged and uncontrolled shooting places in the county. The amount of late afternoon and early evening shooting may be reduced, but, it won't all be stopped. My thought is that it is much better to have as much of that shooting as possible, contained in a safe and well managed shooting venue rather than not. The current JCSA shooting times have been much reduced since the club's beginnings when allowable shooting times were from 7 am to 10 pm or dawn to dusk depending on the available daylight. No night shooting has ever been allowed except by special permission for law enforcement training and very rare night shooting competitions. At present, JCSA shooting hours are limited to 9am to dusk on Tuesday through Friday, 10 am to 5 pm on Saturday and Sunday. On Monday, the shooting times are controlled by the needs of law enforcement training, as the range is set aside specifically for such training on Mondays. Such law enforcement training is almost always contained within the daylight hours. This JCSA shooting time schedule has been worked out to help be good neighbors by waiting until 9 or 10 to start shooting activity and by limiting such shooting time to 5 on weekends, but to also allow shooting to continue until dark during the longer daylight times of the year to accommodate those shooters who desire and need to practice their sport after normal employment and working hours during the week. Fourth, No law enforcement training of any kind. OK, but where are our local law enforcement officers and deputies going to get to qualify and train with their guns? This may help deter Mr. D'amico and reduce the potential income from his business plan so that he will have to abandon his project. But, JCSA is and has been used for many years as a law enforcement qualification and training venue for our police officers, sheriff's deputies, state park rangers, border patrol agents, state police officers, coast guard law enforcement personnel and retired law enforcement organizations that maintain firearm qualifications and training for retired officers. The closest comparable training venues for local law enforcement is the Wa State Patrol facilities in Shelton and similar training facilities in Redmond and across the sound. What impact is this requirement going to have on the local sheriff's and police department budgets for required officer training and qualifications? Doesn't it make more sense for them to be able to reduce travel time and time away from their community protection duties to continue to train at the JCSA range? In this case the JCSA range should be considered critical infrastructure. The intended impacts to stop or limit shooting may be served, but the unintended impacts on local and already strapped law enforcement budgets should be considered here. JCSA has for years set one day each week aside specifically for law enforcement training and use. This use should be maintained. Finally, gun ownership and use in the general population and for professional purposes is a REALITY in our community. My estimate, if national trends can be extrapolated to Jefferson County, is that one out of every four people are gun owners. Not all of those owners are also active in the shooting sport. But, all of them must be afforded a place and opportunity to become educated in firearm safety and use. It is not real to think that gun ownership and use can be stopped or curbed or reduced unless and until national and state constitutional changes are made. It doesn't matter how a person or representative personally feels about the issue of gun ownership and use in our community. Personal feelings must not form the basis of representation in the best interest of the whole community. What matters is that guns exist. And, to best further the cause of gun control and responsible firearm ownership and use, we must provide the ability for sport shooters and professional shooters to have a safe and well managed place to shoot. The currently proposed ordinance does not fully take into account the needs of the shooting community and does not further the cause of safe firearm use and gun control. The recommended additions to the current language by the planning commission are clearly aimed at attempting to impose costs on shooting range operators that would shut them down. The unintended consequences will be to push the community of gun owners and shooters out to the private properties and state managed lands where shooting is allowed or at least occurs at incidental locations that are not necessarily safe, not managed and tend to accumulate garbage and create a much wider spread of gun shot noise and the potential for shooting accidents and damage to occur at neighboring properties. Costs to local law enforcement agencies will increase, probably substantially. Further division between those who seek reasonable gun control and those who are intent on asserting their constitutional rights will increase. The current commissioner's march to get something, anything adopted before the current moratorium ends on December 17" should be stopped and the whole issue revisited. Put forward another 6 month moratorium, if necessary. But, don't rush headlong into adopting this as such a flawed document. While I am not an advocate for Joe D'arnico and his proposed project, I am also not opposed to him being able to pursue a business that serves the education and training needs of security personnel. The county code language should include and allow for the development of shooting ranges for this purpose. It may take more time to find the right place. It will definitely take more time to find the right language. But, that time should be put in and a document that serves the needs of all the people in the county should be produced. However much time it takes. Levi Ross d 1t"o l 'N'.. . From: Frederick Ziel <fhziell5@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 1:34 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: "harmonizing" the new commercial gun range regulations I am a tax paying resident of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. I am not a traveling advocate from another county. I speak ONLY to support and preserve the existing Jefferson County Sportsman's Assoc facility and protect this existing community asset from onerous new regulations and encourage meaningful compromise between the regulators and the Assoc. I have no opinion whatsoever about any proposed NEW gun facility in the county. I read with concern the PT leader of Nov 28 and the additional new amendments staff of the Jefferson County Planning Commission want to add back into our newly passed commercial gun range regulations. It insults ALL of the essential law enforcement entities who use the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association facility and would damage the core firearm competencies of ALL the law enforcement entities Jefferson County residents interact with. Moreover unwillingness to compromise over expensive physical faculty infrastructure addition requirements is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to close down the Sportsman's Association. These "harmonizing" additions to the new regulations would in the long run HARM public safety in the county by decreasing law enforcement competency and driving BOTH archers and shooting enthusiasts from a safe controlled environment to dangerous and unregulated sites in the county and national forests where accidents occur. I am not a hunter. I am a recreational archer and shooter and for that reason a many -year member of the Jefferson County Sportsman Assoc. where I can target practice with both my bows and firearms safely. It is one of the many reasons I love living in PT and Jefferson County. I speak in opposition to the "harmonizing" additions and ask that the county commissioners do nothing further to damage a long-standing community asset. Sincerely, Frederick Ziel MD Sent from my iPhone to �:ii. 14� K.P From: Daniel Molotsky <kdmolotsky@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:46 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Please Adopt the harmonized land use rules for gun ranges! Dear County Commissioners, I urge you to please adopt the recommendations of the Jefferson County Planning commission. Their job was to "harmonizing" Title 18, "land use" rules for gun ranges, with the already -adopted Title 8 "safety" ordinance for gun ranges. They urge the commissioners to add the following amendments to the proposed ordinance: 1. Prohibiting military and law enforcement training at commercial shooting facilities; 2. Requiring the restricting of shooting hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; 3. Prohibiting landing an aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or a drone at a commercial shooting facility; 4. Requiring a 500 -yard setback of shooting areas around any lake greater than 20 acres; 5. Requiring a 16 -foot -high noise barrier above grade at shooting ranges; and 6. Requiring all shooting areas to be fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. I believe these amendments take a step toward an ordinance that genuinely is about taking care of the citizens of our county. Thank you, Daniel and Kathryn Molotsky 2710 Thomas St. Port Townsend WA, 98368 I From: Sonia Story <soniaCumoveplaytrhrive.com> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 12:26 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Why no mediation and why the secrecy? Greetings Kate Dean, David Sullivan and Kathleen Kler, I urge you NOT to finalize the new shooting range ordinance until the public is given full information about what went on in the meetings between Mr. D' Amico, his attorney, and the county commissioners. Question 1: Why has there been no appearance before a mediator even though mediation was agreed upon? Question 2: Why are the records from the weekly meetings between D' Amico and the county being withheld from the public? We require transparency, and full disclosure. The county public must also be given a full voice in this matter. I am formally requesting an answer to the above questions. Thank you, Sonia Story 360-732-4356 Eaglemount road, Chimacum From: Kathleen Wacker <kathleenwacker@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 1:45 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting Range Ordinances To: Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County, Washington 0effbocc(c coJefferson.wa.us From: Kathleen Wacker 267 Skidder Hill Road Quilcene, WA 98376 (360) 765-0081 RE: Shooting Range Ordinances December 6, 2018 Dear Commissioner Kler, Commissioner Dean and Commissioner Sullivan, I am deeply concerned about the direction we are headed in regards to the new shooting range ordinances being developed for Jefferson County. I am writing to you today to ask for two things: 1. Imagine the new Cedar Hills Recreational Shooting Facility is proposed to be built in YOUR neighborhood ... near YOUR home ... and vote accordingly. Make all new shooting ranges anywhere in the county indoor ranges only. Do not allow any new business to negatively impact residents, the environment we love, or to paralyze the government we depend on to represent us all. 2. Be transparent in all you do, and have done, with this process of creating new ordinances. We all will have to live with whatever you vote for. I have felt for some time now that Joe D'Amico has the County in his back pocket. Whether that's because of his numerous lawsuits (and/or threats of new law suits), or if it's the dollars that could be added to the County's revenue stream from new shooting ranges ... perhaps a bit of both ... it really remains to be seen. 1 have no doubt that eventually it all will be clear because there are many who insist on transparency and will accept nothing less. These soon-to-be new ordinances have the power to completely change what Jefferson County will become in the future. I choose to live here now because I have always seen it as a peaceful county where we respect our neighbors, and where we adhere to laws and regulations for the good of the community and for the environment in which we live. May it always be so. Sincerely, Kathleen rrom: Joe Nole Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 2:10 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Law Enforcement Training Prohibition Attachments: Range Costs.pdf Dear Jefferson County Commissioners, In response to the Jefferson County Planning Commission's recent recommendation that law enforcement training at commercial shooting facilities be prohibited in Jefferson County I have attached a document that details some of the financial burden such a prohibition will place on the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. I had planned to speak at the December 10th public meeting, but will be out of town at training that date. Please consider the attached document before making a final decision prohibiting law enforcement training at commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County, particularly as it relates to the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association firearms range. As an agency we have been shooting at the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association firearms range for over 25 years and it is more than adequate to meet our training requirements. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Joe Nole Detective/Sheriff-Elect Jefferson County Sheriff's Office 79 Elkins Road Port Hadlock, WA 98339 360-385-3831, ext. 747 Range Costs (Outside County) Bremerton Range — Located in Belfair near Gold Mt. Golf Club. Almost all Kitsap law enforcement and military shoot at this range and scheduling is done through the Bremerton Police Department. Limited availability. Approximately 45 miles from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office with an approximate 1 hour drive time one way. Allowable shooting hours 0800- 2200. • $4000 — yearly range costs. $200/day assuming 20 total range days per year. We train/qualify quarterly with approximately two range days per quarterly session currently. Additional range days are associated with night shoots which usually take up 3-4 range days due to limited lighting. Additional shoots for make -ups and remedial training figured into 20 day total. Currently several deputies are able to train while on duty which will not be possible given the travel requirements for this range. This will require at least one additional range session per quarter to accommodate those individuals who currently work on scheduled range days. • $35,955 —Travel costs for OT. Calculated using OT hourly rate for step F deputy. This figure was used as it's a close median between corrections lower pay rate and administrator's higher pay rate. Using 2 hours travel time per session based upon Google maps estimate and Deputy CBA which dictates travel pay for training outside the county. Costs were calculated using 8 sessions instead of 20 as not everyone will attend 20 sessions. Fuel/Mileage and additional vehicle wear -tear are not included and will be of additional cost. • $5,394 — Additional overtime for instructors calculated for 4 additional range days per year as described above. Calculated for two instructors at step F deputy for 12 hour days. Two is a bare minimum needed to run a live fire training session and any complex training scenario will require the presence of an additional range safety officer which will be of additional costs. Port Angeles Range — Located in West Port Angeles by the landfill. Almost all Clallam County law enforcement and military shoot at this range and scheduling is done through the Port Angeles Police Department. Approximately 48 miles from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office with an approximately 1 hour 10 minute drive time. Allowable shooting hours are 0800-1800 hours. Low Light shooting would have to be done at an additional cost at another range facility. PAPD uses a limited distance, local indoor range at an additional cost for low light shooting. It also appears they do not train low -light annually as is best practice and required by 1CSO policy for liability and accreditation. "Maximum distance is 50 yards at this range. Our qualifications/training, specifically with rifle, include distances of up to 100 yards due to the rural environment in our jurisdiction. With the possibility of adding a designated marksman program due to the rural nature of our jurisdiction a range with at least 200 yard capabilities such as the current sportsman club would be needed. • $650 —yearly range costs. This fee is annually and does not limit uses however scheduling is limited due to multiple agencies using this facility. Travel costs for the Port Angeles range will be approximately the same as Bremerton given similar distance. As mentioned above, currently several deputies are able to train while on duty which will not be possible given the travel requirements for this range. This will require at least one additional range session per quarter to accommodate those individuals who currently work on scheduled range days as well as additional Instructor overtime. Approximate Additional Yearly Costs Bremerton Range $45,349 Port Angles Range $41,999 ** "Additional costs will need to be added for appropriate low light venue annually. Additional Considerations/Costs There are additional factors and efficiencies in current practice that will add to the above estimates but are difficult to place a specific number on. Current practice allows us to use the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association range on almost any day. This allows us to utilize the range during times that are the most efficient for use of personnel and help minimize overtime costs. It is current common practice for many on -duty personnel to attend one of the range training sessions while working during normal duty hours and remaining available for emergencies. This is possible due to the ability of the deputy to remain available for emergency calls while attending the training in Jefferson County. Due to the location and flexibility of the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association range it is also current practice to schedule remedial training for times which put a priority on minimizing overtime costs. Other associated costs in relation to travel will also need to be considered. Again these factors are difficult to put a hard number on, however they will undoubtedly lead to an increase of costs above and beyond the estimates given above. Trainina and Liability With new laws being enacted by the Washington State Legislature, such as Initiative 940, it is imperative that local governments place a larger priority on proper, adequate training of their law enforcement officers, especially those associated with tools and equipment such as firearms that are used in deadly force applications. Federal case law such as City of Canton v. Harris and Zuchel V. Denver have established clear guidelines that a municipality is liable for violations of rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, where violations result from the municipality's failure to train its employees. In regards to firearms training, the court ruled in Popow v. City of Margate that firearms training had to realistically reflect conditions that officers face while working. The days of standing in a line at specific distances and shooting at static paper targets are no longer considered to be adequate under this constitutional analysis. Firearms training must incorporate many additional facets of realism including stress indoctrination, movement, decision making, force de-escalation, scenario/reality based training, shoot/don't shoot training, use of cover/concealment, low -light considerations and urban/rural considerations, to name a few. These factors need to also be taken into consideration as the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office has already invested a large amount of time and money into the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association range facility to ensure we can train in an efficient and realistic manner. The most effective way to avoid agency liability is through proper, thorough, and documented training. Joe Nole Jefferson County Sheriff -Elect December 6, 2018 jeffbocc ;�. �° �`:� 5 From: njfried@cablespeed.com Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 8:45 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: RE: The JCCC recommendations for "harmonizing" Title 18 Dear JCCC members We have read the ordinances and would like the following suggestions incorporated with regard to the commercial firing facilities We particularly do not want: 1. any military training at commercial shooting facilities 2. no discharging of any firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial facility Plus, out of respect to nearby residents we think: 1. Shooting hours should be between 8 am and 6 pm 2. There should be appropriate set backs, noise barriers and fenced shooting areas We hope you will be able to juggle the wishes of the sports shooters with the needs of the larger community. Thank you, Norma Fried Dorn Campbell From: Eric Brookens <ericbrookensart@gmaii.com> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 1:56 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Protect Tarboo Lake Watershed Attachments: TarbooLake.pages Dear public leaders, Below I have attached a letter. Please give it your attention. Many thanks, Eric Brookens jeffbocc From: jeffbocc Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 3:44 PM To: 'Eric Brookens' Subject: RE: Protect Tarboo Lake Watershed Attachments: TarbooLake.pages Importance: High Hi Mr. Brookens, Your attachment can not be opened. Please resubmit so it can be included in the Hearing Comment Period. Thank you, Julie Shannon Executive Secretary II Jefferson County Commissioners Office 360 385 9100 From: Eric Brookens <ericbrookensart@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 1:56 AM To: jeffbocc <jeffbocc@coJefferson.wa.us> Subject: Protect Tarboo Lake Watershed Dear public leaders, Below I have attached a letter. Please give it your attention. Many thanks, Eric Brookens From: Kathleen Wacker <kathleenwacker@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 11:09 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shooting Ranges in Our Midst To: Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County, Washington ieffbocc ,co.jefferson.wa.us From: Kathleen Wacker 267 Skidder Hill Road Quilcene, WA 98376 (360) 765-0081 RE: Shooting Ranges In Our Midst December 7, 2018 Dear Commissioner Kier, Commissioner Dean and Commissioner Sullivan, I am a resident of Jefferson County. I own, and live full time, on property in the Community of Snow Creek Ranch, at Crocker Lake, in Quilcene. My home is approximately, as the crow flies, a mile and a half from Tarboo Lake and the proposed weapons training facility that one of my neighbors is planning to build. Never in a million years did I think I would be living in close proximity to seven gun shooting ranges and two helipads. I urge you to keep the gun ranges in Jefferson County small and recreational. Please consider and adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations for the following amendments to the current draft shooting range ordinance and land use codes: No military or law enforcement training on new ranges • Add a 500 yard set -back from any public lake • Limit hours of shooting from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (I would add at least one day of no shooting to give those of us that will have to listen to that racquet at least one day of peace and quiet. Better yet - require new ranges to be indoor ranges only.) • No aircraft, of any kind, allowed to take off or land, and no shooting from aircraft. A weapons training facility with multiple shooting ranges, and helipads, running day and night does not belong in an established community, or anywhere near enough to established communities, as to completely alter the environment that we presently enjoy. Not just our little Snow Creek Ranch community but everyone within the vicinity. We all be impacted by the building of this facility if it develops as it is currently proposed. And what's to deter anyone else from creating additional businesses of this sort in other areas near other residents and established communities? If that becomes the reality for Jefferson County I won't continue to live here - that's not the kind of retirement I want for myself. Please require new recreational, private and commercial, shooting ranges to be indoor ranges - that solves the problem of lead pollution and also contains noise pollution. Surrounding counties have wisely adopted this requirement - we should too. It would also solve the outdoor night shooting issue - turn the lights off in the indoor range and they can practice in the dark. Please require that new recreational, private and commercial, shooting ranges be just that - recreational shooting only. No helipads. No military training. My federal taxes already pay for the government to train our military personnel. They've been doing a fine job and they do not need to train at private weapons training facilities in my neighborhood. Seriously - would you want this, on a steady basis, in close proximity to your property, children, family, pets, livestock and wildlife? Please don't let this happen. Protect Tarboo Lake! And all the other beautiful places we folks, and the tourists who come here, like to visit in Jefferson County. Set backs should be required - the bigger the better. While we all like to think that shooters are following rules and paying attention to where their bullets are flying I know of bullet holes in a house on Crocker Lake that were put there by duck hunters hunting on the Lake and shooting toward the houses. Another reason to require new ranges be indoors only - projectiles will be contained. Lastly, please know that establishing more shooting ranges in the area will not put a stop to the shoot -em -up sites that already take place in the woods in the county. Those folks will not go to a facility where they have to pay a fee to shoot. Those types of shooters are not practicing their skills - they are only out to shoot stuff into oblivion, and to party while they are doing it. It is a mind -set that no shooting range will ever change. Thank you again for taking the time to read my letter, Kathleen jeffbocc From: Tom Thiersch <tprosys@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 11:39 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: Planning Commission Desk Subject: TESTIMONY for December 10, 2018, Public Hearing This is written testimony for the December 10, 2018, Public Hearing regarding a proposed ordinance harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12- 1102-18 FIRST: Fort Discovery Corp. (aka, Fort Discovery Inc.) filed a lawsuit on November 21, 2018, against Jefferson County based in part on the absurd allegation that its Second Amendment rights are violated by the newly -enacted Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance. Corporations are not people. They have no 2nd Amendment rights. 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of theep op/e to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." SECOND: The county responded to the threats of litigation from Fort Discovery Corp. by hastening the development of the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance, and subsequently pressured the Planning Commission into acting too swiftly. Those hurried processes have produced an Ordinance and proposed harmonizing legislation which inadequately address the needs of Jefferson County residents. THIRD: Now that the threatened litigation has commenced, the county no longer needs to act out of fear and can, instead, renew / extend the existing moratorium for at least six months. The moratorium can be extended by a vote of the BoCC any time prior to December 17, 2018, with a public hearing on the matter then held within 60 days. Doing so will to allow more time for the controversial issues extant to be addressed; if more time is needed, the moratorium can be further extended. The county needs to do this rioht, not fast. Tom Thiersch Jefferson County Julie Shannon REAPIN r*- From: Sent: To: Subject: David Sullivan Friday, December 07, 2018 10:06 AM Julie Shannon FW: Title 18 From: Susan Feeeman Sent: Friday, December 7, 2o3.8 io:oS:So AM (UTC-o8:oo) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: David Sullivan Subject: Title 3.8 Dear David, Thank you for considering these comments on title 18. This is a very important issue and I appreciate your time and commitment to making this a good and strong ordinance. I urge you to accept the recommendations of the Plannina Commission. There are lots of important points but I want to address a few that have a big impact on the Tarboo Watershed. The County, State and Federal governments have put thousands and thousands of dollars into the Tarboo Watershed to preserve it and have it be a shining example of what can be done to protect salmon and our waterways. It's been amazingly successful. The Tarboo Watershed is one of the most pristine watershed in Puget Sound. Oysters eggs can be grown here because of the high water quality - this is one of the few places that is clean enough to do this. We should all be proud of this project and there are things we can do to protect this investment. Adopt a Soo -yard setback from lakes and other shorelines. This reduces the possibility of lead and copper leaching into our waterways. Why would we jeopardize the watershed that we, as taxpayers, have put so much money into protecting. Lead contamination is powerful and deadly. Support nuisance noise regulations. Why would our taxpayers put so much money into saving a watershed and then allow a high intensity gun range to operate on the banks of a public waterway and the headwaters of the Tarboo Creek? This is where wildlife has returned. It is very important to not allow a private, for profit organization to train our military. This increases the intensity of the gun range greatly. There are millions of acres of Federal Military land that can be used for this. This is not appropriate for our rural Jefferson County. No aircraft or helicopters should be allowed at a gun range in Jefferson County. This is not what is in keeping with our Growth Management Act and the passed Vision for Jefferson County. Finally, I support the growing momentum behind requiring new shooting facilities in Jefferson County to be located indoors. Indoor ranges solve all three problems associated with gun ranges efficiently and effectively. Public safety is enhanced because stray bullets are contained. Lead, copper, and other contaminants are contained, increasing environmental protection. Noise is contained, allowing gun ranges to be good neighbors. Again, thank you for your attention and careful work in crafting this legislation. It might make sense to extend the moratorium to think this through more carefully to do what best for Jefferson County - not what's best to avoid a law suit. Susan Freeman 68o Old Tarboo Road From: Brent Zado <bjzado@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 9:00 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: I oppose more gun ordinance Good Morning - I recently wrote and submitted a response opposing the new ordinance regarding commercial shooting ranges. I write to you again today regarding the language in county code 18.20.430 which attempts to "harmonize" other existing ordinances. Let me first reintroduce myself. I am Brent Zado, retired USCG law enforcement officer, member of Jefferson County Sportsmans Association (JCSA) and patron of Jefferson county establishments. I strenuously urge you to reconsider the proposed language to not allow the training of law enforcement or military of any kind. JCSA is the primary training facility for no less than 6 federal and state law enforcement agencies. The consequence of removing this vital resource will have long reaching negative impacts. The public expects that all law enforcement officers maintain a professional level of proficiency in tactics and firearms usage. Officer and citizen safety depends on it. If this resource is removed, where will these agencies train? The answer is simple, they will be forced to drive extended distances to meet department training mandates and sacrifice actual proficiency for just meeting qualification standards. This is NOT the level of training you want in the officers patrolling our local area. Nor can already strained agency budgets absorb the additional cost. I understand this language may be a carryover from the extreme opposition of the new fort discovery training facility and their ability to train military units. Conducting training for law enforcement officers is significantly different than military training and should NOT be banned from JCSA. Next, permitting shooting only between the hours of 8am — 5pm also needs to be given a serious reconsideration. If only allowed to utilize JCSA between those hours you are again negatively impacting citizens and law enforcement officers who use the range on their way home from work or when needed for low light training. Please consider the intended and unintended consequences of the language in your ordinance. Responsibly armed citizens, sportsmen and families need a safe and accommodating place to shoot and training. Thank you for you time. Brent Zado From: Stan Sayles <sndsayles@olympus.net> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 12:58 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Shoot;ing Range. Leave it as it is. It has run for years without any government intervention. Stan Sayles ;VIA: 1-,pv,`19 jag' dj- From: SeaRick S <richardhschurman@gmail.coin�� tl��agi j f Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 1:48 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Jefferson Co Sportsman's Club First, our club is a 501(c)3 and not subject to your ordinance regardless of your interpretation of IRS regulations which clearly state we are a membership -only club not a commercial business Second, this ordinance is clearly outside of the scope of your charter and therefore patently illegal Finally, your proposed regulation WILL be challenged in court and each of you will be sued individually in addition to being sued as a body. Are you prepared to waste taxpayer money wasting time fighting your clearly illegal ordinance? If you pass this ordinance and shutdown our private club then you WILL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE in the next election - THINK ABOUT IT. From: Sent: To: Subject: shammond46@reagan.com Saturday, December 08, 2018 6:00 PM jeffbocc Gun Ranges a Subject: Our Commissioners and the Shooting Range Ordinance It was evident from the first "gun range" meeting on that "The County Staff' liked the idea of "Do anything to get rid of guns". They chose to design a draconian ordinance to solve a "safety" problem that does not exist and likely prevent any gun range from operating in the county. The police can practice in some other county. Another move for growth and jobs. And our currant commissioners decided against facts and logic to pass this draconian ordinance just to confirm their love of progressive excess over reasoned thought. If they could delay their political expediencies a bit and bother to look at the demographics and economic forecasts for Jefferson County they would see a future without enough kids, not enough affordable housing, not enough jobs and a financial disaster for the county. But what is their priority? Getting rid of gun ranges. Wow, that's "real" leadership for you. No matter, ignorance is bliss. Their stupid decision will thrill progressive voters totally unaware of the economic disaster in the making... but so pleased the commissioners are nailing those "bad" gun advocates. And they'll be pleased right up to when the county economy goes into the dump. What excuse will the commissioners give voters when that happens? Who will they blame? Cowardly businesses and people who abandoned Jefferson County? Or maybe global warming? ....that might work. Our commissioners are sadly continuing the pattern of ideological conceit, incompetence and cowardly leadership that has kept this county a loser. So sad when you consider the fantastic potential of this county. Steve Hammond Port Ludlow, WA 'effbocc � • �;� � �� ', E From: Kenneth R. Long <ken@landsendlane.com> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 6:41 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comment on proposed ordinance to get revenge at D'Amico For those who pay attention it is obvious that this proposed ordinance is nothing more than a vindictive effort by some in the county government to punish Mr. D'Amico for exercising his constitutional rights to get information from the county by having to use the Freedom of information act. There is no basis to change the culture of this area by this drastic, disturbing effort to take away the rights of citizens. BTW It is obvious you will enact the ordinance regardless of the public response. Respectfully, Kenneth Long who lives within sound of the gun clubH From: Karen Farr <karenfarr@cablespeed.com> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 7:02 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Our local gun range ................ If it ain't broke, why fix it? Why all these restrictions on our wonderful, local gun range. You will just be driving people away from doing things local. If we can't shoot local, we won't buy local. If we can't shoot local, who is going to be proficient? Isn't it better for gun safety to have people who actually know how to use their guns? Who is going to drive to Shelton for a gun range when our local one shuts down because of all the restrictions you are imposing on a range that has been operating well for 50 years? I can see restrictions on NEW ranges, but leave our existing range alone. These are onerous requirements you are imposing. Back off. Leave them alone. They are doing very well, thank you. Karen Farr Port Townsend From: Gene Farr <GeneFarr@cablespeed.com> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 7:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance Attachments: BOCC Gun Ordinance Letter December.pdf BoCC, Here are my thoughts on what you must do relative to the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance. Gene Farr J. Eugene (Gene) Farr 570 McMinn Road Port Townsend, WA 98368-9646 (360) 379-3203 genefarr@cablespeed.com Jefferson County December 8, 2018 Board of County Commissioners 1620 Jefferson St Port Townsend WA 98368 Commissioners, The Planning Commission's recommended "health and safety" ordinance changes must be rejected. This is totally outside the land use scope of their charter and does not follow the "Harmonizing" directive given by the BoCC. Also, the proposed ordinances must be modified so as to not cause more problems. There have been and there clearly are no problems with the operation of the one volunteer run, non-profit shooting range located here in Jefferson County to even suggest that additional regulations are needed. For the 50+ years the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association has been in operation, they have had an exemplary safety record, provided excellent environmental stewardship for their range area and provided a valuable service to our county. This shooting range is a valuable asset for the people of our county, just as are the marinas, golf courses and parks. Also, having a local shooting range provides our residents a place to learn gun safety and shooting safely without endangering people, property, animals or the environment. If our local law enforcement officers have to go to a range a hundred miles away for training and proficiency maintenance that will cost the city and county much in travel expenses and reduce citizen protection while they are out of town. The requirements of the proposed shooting ordinances are so overwhelming they will kill this non-profit, volunteer shooting range to the detriment of safety and wellbeing in our county. Grandfathering in the JCSA is not an acceptable long- term solution, as it inhibits modernization and improvements. You must work with the JCSA to eliminate all the overwhelming and micro managing provisions of the proposed ordinances. J. Eugene Farr Concerned Resident, Taxpayer and Registered Voter of Jefferson County n ksr LA xx From: rose wilde <mysterybayrose@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2018 10:39 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed Shooting Range and Ordinance Thank you for regarding public comment in this matter. As a neighbor among many within earshot of said facility I concur with the advisory boards' recommendations regarding shooting range regulations. Please consider them strongly, for they reasonably protect property owners and others in the vicinity of any gun range. I am concerned that the original intent for shooting ranges to be available for local recreational use is moving towards great expansion, outside of the realm of what serves the people who would be subject to it's effects. I was very concerned upon hearing of many closed special interest meetings and in addition that the public records were blacked out. And the intent of harmonizing a new ruling to an older one without holding to the intent or to the care of the people of this county. The people deserve an explanation and the advocacy of you, their elected officials. We live in this county for it's quality of life. We are deeply invested in it. Thank you, Rose Wilde Sent from my iPhone From: rose wilde <mysterybayrose@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 8:19 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Re: Proposed Shooting Range and Ordinance Correction: Harmonizing an existing ordinance to a new one much less aligned with the greater number of people living here. Thank You, Rose Wilde Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 8, 2018, at 10:39 PM, rose wilde <mysterybayrose@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for regarding public comment in this matter. > As a neighbor among many within earshot of said facility I concur with the advisory boards' recommendations regarding shooting range regulations. > Please consider them strongly, for they reasonably protect property owners and others in the vicinity of any gun range. > I am concerned that the original intent for shooting ranges to be available for local recreational use is moving towards great expansion, outside of the realm of what serves the people who would be subject to its effects. > I was very concerned upon hearing of many closed special interest meetings and in addition that the public records were blacked out. > And the intent of harmonizing a new ruling to an older one without holding to the intent or to the care of the people of this county. > The people deserve an explanation and the advocacy of you, their elected officials. > We live in this county for it's quality of life. We are deeply invested in it. > Thank you, Rose Wilde > Sent from my iPhone From: Paul Moseley <moseley007@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 10:59 AMr ° To: jeffbocc Subject: Shorting range The shooting range should be left alone and no regulations added to it. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If this local range is shit down or over regulated that results in the shut down. The first shooting accident or incident while people resort to other less safe areas will fall squarely on your shoulders. Paul 360-301-9962 ieffbocc From: Tanya Denver <tcdenver@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 12:42 PM To: jeffbocc� Subject: Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance Folks This shooting range is a valuable asset for the people of our county, just as are the marinas, golf courses and parks. Having a local shooting range provides a place to learn gun safety and shooting safely without endangering people, property, animals or the environment. We have many times driven down roads where we see people target shooting on government property and otherwise. Do you think this is a safer method of practice? Would you then prefer to go for a nice a walk in the woods just to find people target shooting randomly? We have seen this and I did not feel safe! I have seen our local law enforcement officers practice at this range. I have felt very safe here. And why would we want our officers go to a range a hundred miles away for training and proficiency maintenance? It will cost the city and county much in travel expenses and reduce citizen protection while they are out of town. Regarding - RCW 9.41. 300(2)( a) provides an exception to RCW 9.41. 290 under which a county may, by ordinance, restrict the discharge of firearms in any portion of its jurisdiction where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. AGAIN, this is a well run, professional facility). We could all be "jeopardized or threatened" walking downtown Port Townsend or anywhere else! This range is safe and is run professionally. They provide a valuable service to our county. Sincerely, Tanya (& Dan) Denver 360 301-288 or 301-2911 From: Sent: duncd <duncan_duvall@yahoo.com> Sunday, December 09, 2018 1:37 PM F _, r �• To: jeffbocc r X11 Cc: Duncan Duvall; rangemaster@JeffersonCountySportsmen.org Subject: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners on the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: As a long time member of the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association and it's attendant shooting range, I am again writing in opposition to your drastic proposed changes to the existing governing county ordinance that we have operated under for some 50+ years. As a member of the subject JCSA these thoughts are provided for your consideration: The Planning Commission's recommended "health and safety" ordinance changes must be rejected. The shooting range is not nor has it ever been a commercial shooting facility. These recommendations are totally outside the land -use scope of the Planning Commission's charter and does not follow the "Harmonizing" directive given by the BoCC. Also, the proposed ordinances must be modified so as to not cause more problems. There have been and there clearly are no problems with the operation of the single, volunteer -run, non- profit shooting range located here in Jefferson County or to even suggest that additional regulations are needed. For over half a century the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association has been in operation, they have had an exemplary safety record, provided excellent environmental stewardship for their range area and provided a valuable service to our county. This shooting range is a valuable asset for the people of our county, just as are the marinas, golf courses and parks. Also, having a local shooting range provides our residents a place to learn gun safety and shooting safely without endangering people, property, animals or the environment. If our local law enforcement officers have to go to a range a hundred miles away for training and proficiency maintenance that will cost the city and county much in travel expenses and reduce citizen protection while they are out of town. The requirements of the proposed shooting ordinances are so overwhelming they will kill this non-profit, volunteer shooting range to the detriment of safety and well-being in our county. Grandfathering in the JCSA is not an acceptable long-term solution, as it inhibits modernization and improvements. The BoCC must work with the JCSA to eliminate all the overwhelming and micro managing provisions of the proposed ordinances. Respectfully, Duncan Duvall (signed) Member JCSA #1909 65 Bayview Ln Port Townsend, WA 98368 From: Nancy Wyatt < nancywyatt50@gmaii.com > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 2:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: YESH Planning Commission's recommendations Dear Commissioners: It has become very clear that our Planning Commission, who represents the citizens of Jefferson County, have made the appropriate suggestions for changes to the gun range ordinance regarding Title 18. I beg you to accept their recommendations: 1. Prohibiting military and law enforcement training at commercial shooting facilities 2. Requiring the restricting of shooting hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 3. Prohibiting landing an aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or a drone at a commercial shooting facility 4. Requiring a 500 -yard setback of shooting areas around any lake greater than 20 acres 5. Requiring a 16 -foot -high noise barrier above grade at shooting ranges 6. Requiring all shooting areas to be fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. It has also become obvious that there has been a lack of transparency on the part of the County which has resulted in a lack of trust by your constituents. The entire process starting with the Moratorium seems flawed from the very start, and at the least, the proposed ordinance, recommendations and "legalese"are confusing and lacks citizen support. Please extend the moratorium to study it further and to get it right. To accept and endorse this ordinance as it is can only result in more lack of faith and perhaps, disastrous results to the beautiful and peaceful place we all enjoy. Please take some time to appreciate some recent photos of Tarboo Lake: l v e 4" ` ! n r� f 1 Regards, Nancy Wyatt 360-531-2037 1661 Dabob Rd. Quilcene, WA From: Michael Hamilton <mhamilton@olympus.net> Sent:I r i 3 _ �'n"' ja►, Sunday, December 09, 2018 2:14 PM To: jeffbocc ` Cc: Michael Hamilton; andrealawson@olympus.net Subject: ZON18-00036 and any other code numbers pertaining to land use and zoning Importance: High Respected members of the Board of County Commissioners, Do not allow development of any new or additions to existing commercial or non-commercial shooting range, target practice, paramilitary or military facilities on private or commercial land in Jefferson County unless any and all associated noise and contaminants are constrained to sound proof and environmentally contained purpose built structures. It is completely and totally unfair to the land owners of Jefferson County to consider allowing any outdoor shooting range development. How will families cope with the major impacts such developments would/will have on their property values, existing businesses and the life style which we all moved to Jefferson County to enjoy. Do not bait and switch here!!!! Our Nation already has too many individuals with PTSD from foreign wars. We do not need the residents of our County to become victims of PTSD simply because they chose to live here many years ago. Even if a code or regulation could be designed and written that will ensure absolutely no harm (financially or physiologically or psychologically) will come to our residents our county does not have resources to employ a county code violation administrator so it is impossible to enforce any regulation which could be written. Additional development, of this type, cannot be seriously considered economic development considering the negative impact to existing small businesses! Our County Commissioners cannot seriously believe that once they allow the continued development of Cedar Hills Recreational Facility or any like minded operation that the operators will simply follow regulations and when they do not, then we, the tax payers, will have to pay for the Commissioners lack of vision, careless guardianship of precious county resources and the rights of all our county citizens in trial court. NOT PRUDENT MANAGEMENT! Do remember who pays your salary. Sincerely, Michael Hamilton POBox 306 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 A 43 year county resident ieffbocc From: P E Conner <peconner@hotmail.com> $ *.r Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 2:45 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: D'Amico/Cedar Hills Recreational Facility TO: Kate Dean; Kathleen Kler, David Sullivan So much of what the public reads about Joe D'Amico's plan (Cedar Hills Recreational Facility in Quilcene) makes it sound as if it is simply another shooting range like the one in Port Townsend. I am not concerned with what the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association Gun Club in Port Townsend has been doing, and from what I can tell, many of their neighbors aren't either. Most of us can feel empathy for the financial constraints this new ordinance would place on them, and appreciate the value of enabling law enforcement and others to practice there. It appears to me that the only reason they've been included is because the county council felt the need to make a "harmonious" rule so Joe D'Amico wouldn't feel singled out. Yet his proposals for the Quilcene facility are singularly more impactful to the whole area than the JCSA Gun Club in Port Townsend. Naming it a "recreational" facility is very misleading to the public, and pressuring officials by filing for permits during the moratorium and preparing lawsuits to bully his way into the area, and stirring up "pro" gun folks against "anti" gun folks shows that he has no one's interests at heart but his own. The D'Amico plan is a whole different facility from just another shooting range. The JCSA Port Townsend Gun Club should not be lumped in with this... let them continue to operate as they always have, to nearly everyone's apparent satisfaction, without new costs. If D'Amico is allowed to go through with his plan, think of the precedent that will be set. Any other individual or group that is interested in private militia training can similarly pressure our elected officials, despoil the land further, and operate with impunity no matter what the surrounding neighbors are made to suffer. Also, what if such an enterprise were eventually sold to someone even more questionable or with unknown agendas... even a foreign entity? We're at the top edge of a slippery slope. There has been almost no news coverage about the military -type training (day or night), the helicopters, the military -type vehicles that are planned. Residents who bought land here for the quiet woodsy setting, farmers raising livestock, wild game, waterfowl, and other creatures seem not to have not been adequately considered. However, this would affect the entire county, not just the neighbors in Quilcene. I'm sure D'Amico is counting on the timing of this, being during the holidays, working to his advantage. Everyone is distracted, with one councilmember retiring, and no one wants to think about lawsuits and strife at this time of year-- and the council seems to be going along with this. Learning that D'Amico has been at the table while the policy is being written, and that hundreds of pages of communications have been redacted out of public view is completely infuriating. Are our County Councilmembers three apparently cowed, tired, threatened officials buckling under pressure from a bully and the potential training of a private army? That's how it looks to me (and I voted for you people!). The Council either hasn't done its homework, or they have deemed getting this checked off their list before Christmas (their stated goal is by December 17!) to be more of a priority than protecting the greater interests of all the people of Jefferson County. I find this outrageous. Leave the JCSA Port Townsend Gun Club alone, and keep Joe D'Amico's plan out of Quilcene and out of Jefferson County. PE Conner Port Hadlock ieffbocc From: Riley Parker <rileyparker072@gmail.com>4„�;' fest' "�"" Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 5:30 PM #� :��.:•� 1:r ,t► .f = f To: jeffbocc' d 1 Cc: Riley Parker Subject: Commercial Shooting Facilities in Jefferson County Title 8 and Title 18 Dear Commissioners, As you know I was a District 3 Representative on the Review Committee for drafting a Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance in Title 8. Now that I look at the Title 8 Ordinance I would like to provide you with my observations. The new Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance does not limit the number of facilities, the number of ranges on each facility, the number of active shooters at any given time, does not adequately protect the public, the environment or our aquatic and forest resource lands. This is a giant step backward from the existing Small Scale Recreation and Tourist regulation. The siting of unlimited Commercial Shooting Facilities on forest resource lands is incompatible with the Washington State Growth Management Act. This type of activity is simply not a forest practice. Skagit County found this out when it tried to site a shooting facility near lake Cavanaugh in the Cascade Foothills. We should Team from their mistake. Our forest lands are publicly subsidized by the taxpayers by providing forest owners with very low tax rates. We value the open space and the economic benefit they provide to the citizens of Jefferson County. We as taxpayers should not asked to subsidize a private commercial shooting facility on forest lands. Also as I look back I do not believe there was an out cry from the public stating that we needed more Private Military Training Facilities in Jefferson County. Quite the opposite is true. For some time now there has been opposition to the noise from the growing military training presence. From the Growler training flights from Whidbey Island, the electronic warfare training in the Olympic National Park to the training exercises on our shores. Do the majority of the citizens of this county want more military training noise or do they just want a little peace and quiet? Don't get me wrong I am a veteran as many of my neighbors are too. Many veterans went overseas to fight in battle so that the home front was secure and peace could prevail. There was a promise that should they come home there would be peace and quiet. Many suffer from the effects of Post Traumatic Stress. This Ordinance does not honor that promise. This Ordinance does not protect our Lakes from the effects of a nearby Commercial Shooting Facility. When Kitsap County created their Shooting Ordinance they added a 500 yard setback from their lakes. Why not Jefferson County? Are our lakes less important? Is it ok to sacrifice them for one persons personal gain? I have heard that the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance was built under the influence of a pending litigation. I also keep hearing that we shouldn't worry because our concerns will be addressed under the State Environment Permit application, SEPA, and the Conditional Use Permit process. If this is the case then the Ordinance provides no useful public purpose. Ordinances are created to provide guidance to what can be built where and the specific requirements. They do not hide behind unspecified requirements! In closing I want to support the adoption of the recommendations from the Jefferson County Planning Commissioners by the Board of County Commissioner. Thanks in advance, Riley Parker Sent from my iPad ieffbocc Sent: nday From: Su , December 09, Julie 2 18 1 S7 07 PM 60k k To: jeffbocc Subject: public comment Dec. 6, 2018 Jefferson County Commissioners Re: Harmonizing Shooting Range Code The Planning Commissioners have been diligent in their recognition of the testimony of the residents of Jefferson County regarding the building and operation of commercial shooting ranges in Jefferson County. Particular attention to noise, lighting, safety and limiting the type of training that can occur is very important for the well being of all residents. Indoor facilities would be the safest and most quiet for the future. Continuing use by local law enforcement people seems prudent. However, local gun range uses must not include training events for corporate security organizations, military personnel, paramilitary groups and soldiers of fortune; such uses are not in keeping with this rural county recreation, culture and traditions. In the Nov. 28, 2018 Leader Jay Towne, representing the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association, indicated the need for more space to "...take some of that law enforcement pressure off." Referring to local police and sheriffs, I have lived within ear shot (so to speak) of the Jacob Miller gun range for forty years. I could also hear the helicopters and artillery fire at Joe D'Amico's range on Discovery Bay. I am unaware of a perceptible increase in shooting noise at the Jacob Miller range since Joe moved his operation to Sequim. It could be that the military is able to train personnel at gun ranges located on military bases. I talked with Josh Atchison at the Port Townsend Police Department to gain some understanding of their use of the Sportsmen's Club range: • About 17 officers stay in practice with firearms • One day per quarter the range is reserved for training for all officers. • Each officer is allocated a box of bullets every so often to practice shooting when and where s/he chooses • The department apparently does not pay anything to the Sportsmen's Club for use of the range • The officers go through a $3200 Criminal Justice Training course that includes arms training. • Officers are regularly sent to special training out of the area and out of the state This information is similar for the sheriffs department with about 20 officers. They may also use the informal range at the gravel pit in Discovery Bay. This is the kind of training and practice the law enforcers of Jefferson County participate in locally. The military bases in and around Jefferson County have helicopter landing pads and shooting/artillery ranges to train military personnel and therefore have no need to take over civilian facilities in Jefferson County. It is practical and realistic to limit activities and hours at commercial shooting ranges inside Jefferson County because: • there are myriad military shooting/artillery ranges throughout the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula area; • there is access to an unknown (to this writer) number and type of shooting ranges on the Olympic Peninsula • the Jacob Miller range accommodates the very limited training days needed each quarter by local law enforcement; • many residents of Jefferson County have requested the county not impose military activity In the county; • the people who choose to live in rural areas desire dark skies, limited noise and traffic. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Julie Jaman Quimper Peninsula AZ From: Lynn Hisey <Ihisey@earthlink.net> c' t'; �'.'���'► Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 7:54 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed changes to the gun range ordinance December 9, 2018 To the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners: The Planning Commission's recommendations to the gun range ordinance must be rejected and I am requesting that you modify the proposed ordinance to allow our Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association to remain operational and allow law enforcement training as supported overwhelmingly by residents in this county. The premise of the Planning Commission's recommendations is for the health and safety of our community, yet the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association has operated for over 50 years with an exemplary safety record, and their main purpose is to provide safety training, and a safe place for gun and archery recreation and practice. Neighboring properties have had this locational obsolescence factored into their original prices and owners would have purchased their properties at a discount over properties with no locational or external obsolescence. These owners should not have made the purchases with ever having an expectation that they could silence or put this community resource out of business. It is closed to the membership on Mondays so law enforcement from all over the area have the opportunity to practice gun skills and safety. If you force the closure and restrict our law enforcement, they will need to leave the area for their needed range practice requiring time and travel, and straining even further budgets and coverage of our local police, sheriff and state patrol. It has been made clear to you that you would be regulating the Jefferson Co. Sportsmen's Association out of existence. Why would you want to effectively cause the closure of a facility that provides safe gun training and a safe practice ranges for citizens and law enforcement? With an estimate of over 2/3 of the residents in Jefferson County being gun owners that appreciate the services and safe environment the gun range offers, where would they go? Both of the public hearings held had passionate support in keeping the Sportsmen's club open as a non-profit volunteer facility and not subject to the regulations this ordinance would impose. As our representatives, it is incumbent that you work with the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association to keep this facility operational and make modifications that would satisfy the large majority of your Jefferson County constituents. Linda (Lynn) Hisey, Jefferson County Resident, Taxpayer and Voter 1 ieffbocc From: Ron Gregory <builder@cablespeed.com> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 8:00 PM " �� �'� To: jeffbocc Subject: Planning commission IF YOU FOLLOW THESE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU WILL BACK IN COURTJ RON GREGORY PORT LUDLOW ieffbocc From: Danille Turissini <danillet@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 8:44 PM 'C.,ar*%af"rryj`e To: jeffbocc Subject: OPPOSE - BoCC Commercial Facility Ordinance Updates Attachments: 9DEC18—Oppose BoCC Commercial Facility Ordinance Updates_Turissini.pdf To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners David Sullivan, Kate Dean and Kathleen Kler From: Danille A. Turissini Port Ludlow, Washington 98365-9707 c 360-301-4134 • danillet@gmail.com OPPOSE Ordinance Updates on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of )efferson County A few years ago, I decided to purchase a firearm because I felt vulnerable due to the increase in criminal gun violence. I applied and was approved for a concealed weapons permit and I purchased a firearm. Initially, I carried my firearm without bullets because I'd never owned a gun before and didn't feel confident in my ability to safely use it, should I need it for self-defense. It was important to me that I attended a gun -safety training before I even considered carrying a loaded concealed weapon. I enrolled in a special eight-hour gun -safety class for women being offered at a Federal Way shooting range. I learned a lot and was definitely more comfortable with my firearm, though, still not entirely ready to carry a loaded gun. I began to seek out options for practicing closer to home. A friend and experienced firearms safety instructor offered to work with me at the Jefferson County Sportsman Association (JCSA) site. Like owning a gun, this was a first for me. I had never been to a sportsman club before and didn't know what to expect. The first thing I observed about the JCSA was there were a lot of posted rules, and they were sticklers about enforcing them! This was further reinforced last year when I became a member, which came with a prerequisite to attend a thoroughly detailed safety and grounds -use orientation. Thanks to my firearms instructor and the benefits of having the JCSA facility nearby, I was able to effectively practice and can confidently say I have reached what I consider a responsible level of skill and safety. While visiting the JCSA facility was a first for me, it was not the first time I had the opportunity to go target practicing. About five years ago, a friend invited me to go shooting at a federal land location in Jefferson County. Unlike the JCSA complex where there are well-defined safety standards, target -shooting boundaries, and you are required to pick up after yourself (including your casings), the federal land location had I no such criteria. I can't imagine how forcing sportsman to practice in the woods is going to be in the best interest of public safety and/or the environment. All things considered, I was extremely disappointed when I heard the Jefferson County Commissioners were seeking to impose a series of new regulations on the JCSA that would make it impossible for them to continue to provide a safe and structured environment for people like myself to practice shooting their firearms. I was dismayed when I read the initial Ordinance on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County because the proposed regulations seem to be based on ideological presumptions, not facts. The updated version is no less erroneous. The proposed ordinance is unjustified and unreasonable because most of the requirements aren't even relevant to the JCSA, and will do the exact opposite of its stated objective. I fail to understand why our Jefferson County Board of Commissioners are so hard pressed to penalize the JCSA, a longstanding organization that has done no harm and the law-abiding Jefferson County citizens who benefit from the JCSA services I hope the Jefferson County Commissioners will think long and hard about the impacts these unnecessary and burdensome ordinances will have on the Jefferson County Sportsman Association, its members and the community it has faithfully served for over 56 years. Respectfully, Danille REQUEST WRITTEN RESPONSE from Jefferson County Commissioners David Sullivan, Kate Dean and Kathleen Kier. 2 December 9, 2018 To: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners David Sullivan, Kate Dean and Kathleen Kier Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98365 From: Danille Turissini 40 Puget Loop, Port Ludlow, WA 98365 OPPOSE Ordinance Updates on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County A few years ago, I decided to purchase a firearm because I felt vulnerable due to the increase in criminal gun violence. I applied and was approved for a concealed weapons permit and I purchased a firearm. Initially, I carried my firearm without bullets because I'd never owned a gun before and didn't feel confident in my ability to safely use it, should I need it for self-defense. It was important to me that I attended a gun -safety training before I even considered carrying a loaded concealed weapon. I enrolled in a special eight-hour gun -safety class for women being offered at a Federal Way shooting range. I learned a lot and was definitely more comfortable with my firearm, though, still not entirely ready to carry a loaded gun. I began to seek out options for practicing closer to home. A friend and experienced firearms safety instructor offered to work with me at the Jefferson County Sportsman Association (JCSA) site. Like owning a gun, this was a first for me. I had never been to a sportsman club before and didn't know what to expect. The first thing I observed about the JCSA was there were a lot of posted rules, and they were sticklers about enforcing them! This was further reinforced last year when I became a member, which came with a prerequisite to attend a thoroughly detailed safety and grounds -use orientation. Thanks to my firearms instructor and the benefits of having the JCSA facility nearby, I was able to effectively practice and can confidently say I have reached what I consider a responsible level of skill and safety. While visiting the JCSA facility was a first for me, it was not the first time I had the opportunity to go target practicing. About five years ago, a friend invited me to go shooting at a federal land location in Jefferson County. Unlike the JCSA complex where there are well-defined safety standards, target -shooting boundaries, and you are required to pick up after yourself (including your casings), the federal land location had no such criteria. I can't imagine how forcing sportsman to practice in the woods is going to be in the best interest of public safety and/or the environment. All things considered, I was extremely disappointed when I heard the Jefferson County Commissioners were seeking to impose a series of new regulations on the JCSA that would make it impossible for them to continue to provide a safe and structured environment for people like myself to practice shooting their firearms. I was dismayed when I read the initial Ordinance on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County because the proposed regulations seem to be based on ideological presumptions, not facts. The updated version is no less erroneous. The proposed ordinance is unjustified and unreasonable because most of the requirements aren't even relevant to the JCSA, and will do the exact opposite of its stated objective. I fail to understand why our Jefferson County Board of Commissioners are so hard pressed to penalize the JCSA, a longstanding organization that has done no harm and the law-abiding Jefferson County citizens who benefit from the JCSA services I hope the Jefferson County Commissioners will think long and hard about the impacts these unnecessary and burdensome ordinances will have on the Jefferson County Sportsman Association, its members and the community it has faithfully served for over 56 years. Respectfully, REQUEST WRITTEN RESPONSE from Jefferson County Commissioners David Sullivan, Kate Dean and Kathleen Kier. 'e� ffbocc From: Reed Aubin <reed@understory.org> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 8:53 PM To: jeffbocc Or J ,y„ Subject: *� Sub 1 Supporting Title 18 shooting amendments R r �"�'4 , , �' � a ,�.. , ,. ,►'`� %x Commissioners Sullivan, Kler, and Dean: I am writing to express my support for the amendments to the gun ordinance proposed by the Jefferson County Planning Commission to the BoCC, as regards harmonizing with Title 18. I believe that the following amendments are good policy that will lead to the long-term vitality and character of the county where I was born and bred, and where I still choose make my home. 1. Prohibiting military and law enforcement training at commercial shooting facilities. I'd like to add that I support the local gun club's work in training law enforcement and understand that this rule would not apply to their existing operations, as a non-commercial entity. 2. Requiring the restricting of shooting hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., which seems reasonable, although if I were to have authored the amendment, I would have advocated for 9 a.m. as a start time. 3. Prohibiting landing an aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or a drone at a shooting facility. I believe that aircraft use in connection with shooting is outside of the scope of the recreational shooter. 4. Requiring a 500 -yard setback of shooting areas around any lake greater than 20 acres. I believe this setback is a reasonable minimum to avoid disturbance to the concentrated wildlife activity and human enjoyment around public bodies of water. 5. Requiring a 16 -foot -high noise barrier above grade at shooting ranges seems like a great idea to me, although I would advocate for indoor shooting facilities in order to minimize the impact that regular shooting activity may have on wildlife, neighbors, and their stock and domestic animals. 6. Requiring all shooting areas to be fenced to a minimum height of eight feet, seems like a bare minimum. These recommendations go a long way toward preserving the county's unique character for all is residents. I'm prepared to pay more taxes if I need to, for the county's legal defense against any who would try to use legal action as intimidation in order to push through an ordinance that, without these amendments, would prioritize narrow commercial opportunity over the broader good of the county, its people and our natural areas. Finally, I would further like to request that the BoCC release minutes from meetings held by the committee and mediation proceedings over the past year, as a matter of public record in the development of the revised ordinance. Thank you for your commitment to public service and democratic process. Reed Aubin Irondale ieffbocc From: Janet and/or Willi <aloha@olympus.net> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 10:03 AM jeffbocc; Philip Hunsucker r sa ;�,, Subject: Comments on PC Submittal Attachments: PC Comments.doc Please include this document in your review and deliberations on the Planning Commission submittal for revisions to Title 18. Janet Welch Date: December 9, 2018 To: To: Members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Philip Hunsucker, and Philip Morely From: Janet Welch RE: Planning Commission Recommendation on changes to Title 18 I am writing to encourage the BOCC to adopt, with modifications, the Planning Commission's Draft changes to Title 18 pertaining to shooting facilities. Additional Criteria While I share some of the concerns that underly the additional criteria proposed by the Planning Commission, I concur with the sentiments in the staff report regarding the inadvisability of adopting standards that exceed the County's authority. I am sympathetic to the concerns of residents who would be impacted by shooting activities and I share their concern that the requirements for the Conditional Use application in the Shooting Ordinance might not provide adequate protection to their quality of life. Unfortunately, the county would be ill served to adopt an ordinance that would fail under legal scrutiny, especially since such scrutiny is a virtual certainty. We have little choice but to take a legally defensible stance. Residents of Jefferson County are being asked to place our faith in the Conditional Use process and the ruling of the Hearings Examiner, and I am cautiously hopeful that the faith will not be ill placed. The very tight timeline for the adoption of these revisions prior to the end of the moratorium period may have curtailed deliberations that could address the concerns of both the citizens who are concerned about impacts from shooting facilities and supporters of the existing Sportsmen's Club. It is my hope that, in the future, we could revisit the CSFO to look at potential revisions that would better meet the needs of both of those groups. And while I do not believe Jefferson County is under any obligation to become the training ground for regional military, paramilitary, and law enforcement units, I do believe it is important for our local law enforcement organizations to be able to train locally. The Planning Commission recommendation would have eliminated this option for our Sheriffs office and Police force. I believe, and fervently hope, that the provisions in Title 8 require the necessary disclosures in the permit application to enable a full assessment of the impacts from whatever intensity and nature of use is proposed for a commercial shooting facility. What is a commercial facility? In their deliberations of this complex issue, it appears that the Planning Commission grappled with a shifting landscape about what is, isn't, could be, and is exempt from being considered a commercial shooting facility. I am supportive of the definitions and changes contained in the Staffs Appendix 2, "One Standard". I won't elaborate on the chaos that both the Planning Commission recommendation and Appendix 1 would create in trying to define and regulate three different types of shooting facilities, but simply state that adoption of either of those options would be terrible mistake. Of the three choices, Appendix 2 is the only one that creates consistency in the way that shooting facilities would be defined and addressed. It assures (we hope) that that the review of all proposed facilities utilize the standard for application contained in Title 8. It wisely integrates changes into the Home Business and Cottage Industry standards to prevent shooting facilities from being considered under either of those less rigorously administered activities. Finally, it also removes "Shooting Facilities" entirely from the Small Scale Recreation and Tourist Uses category and puts it appropriately under the correct land use heading of "Commercial Uses". Indoor Facility Zones The footnote for the proposed Table 3-1 for Appendix 2 defers to the BOCC the decision about whether indoor shooting ranges should be considered in residential zones. I support the Planning Commission's recommendation because it prohibits that use in all Rural Residential Zones. While indoor facilities certainly don't create the noise impact of outdoor facilities, allowing such an obviously commercial activity outside of commercial zones makes little sense and would be vulnerable to a Hearings Board appeal. Beyond the Planning Commission recommendation, however, I believe that indoor facilities should also be prohibited in Parks and Preserves zones, for rather obvious reasons. There is also a subtle reason --that zone doesn't have a maximum building size. This would certainly create a loophole if the zone were opened for commercial uses! In addition, it may be impractical to consider indoor facilities, which would tend to be rather large buildings, in the Neighborhood/Visitor and the Crossroads commercial zones which have maximum building size of 5,000 to 7,000 square feet, respectively. The second staff footnote warns that the Planning Commission recommendation to allow indoor facilities in industrial zones might violate GMA. That, unfortunately, may be true for the majority of the industrial zones, but I believe that Light Industrial/Commercial would be found to be an acceptable zone. Kudos Finally, I want to thank the BOCC and Staff, and particularly Philip Huntsucker's efforts to tackle one of the thorniest issues to ever land at the feet of our county staff, and to do it under an extremely tight timeline. I believe that this may be one of the most significant actions the county has taken to preserve the quality of life of the citizens of our county. There is always the opportunity to improve the CSFO and to fine tune Table 3-1 of the UDC, but I believe that these revisions get us most of the way to where we could all live with the results. jeffbocc From: Connie Gallant <cg@conniegallant.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 10:29 AM To: jeffbocc Cc: -Connie -Gallant Subject: Tarboo Ridge Gun Range proposal -additional E6miie6tnxue JI `�t-1 . -V December 10, 2018 Dear BOCC: I am writing once again to urge you to consider your decisions very carefully about the Tarboo Ridge gun range proposal. If you must decide on anything, at the very least postpone it for another 6 months to allow the designated departments more time to research further into the number of environmental damages, and the ultimate costs to the county (taxpayers), such a facility would incur. The majority of the taxpayers in Jefferson County opposed to such a facility believe that: 1. Getting threats of a lawsuit is not sufficient reason for throwing the county residents under the bus. Simply because the threat (bordering on blackmail) is made does not mean a court of law would uphold its claims. 2. The costs of cleaning up sites with lead pollution are far bigger than a $100 million threat. 3. The medical costs to the taxpayers of Jefferson County, particularly South County, are bound to increase due to risks from residual lead, which can poison humans, contaminate water in nearby wells, and damage protected wetlands, wildlife, and soil. 4. There are approximately 7000 gun ranges throughout the U.S. that produce a staggering amount of debris. 5. The US Geological Survey indicates that an individual range can go through between 1.5 to 20 tons of lead shot and bullets annually. Outdoor ranges as a whole may use more than 80,000 tons in that same period. 6. It is well known that whenever a gun range facility closes, the taxpayers are left with the enormous task of footing the cleanup bill. How can anyone argue against the validity of these facts? Are you willing to ask the taxpayers of our county to be prepared to cover all of these expenses for the benefit of a proposal that very few want or need, and which is located in a forestry zone? Forestry activities that expose and disturb bare soil can lead to contamination of water bodies with errant nutrients via soil erosion. It is, indeed, your fiscal responsibility to make certain the county does not fall through a dark hole of debt. However, it is also your fiscal responsibility to consider not only the financial burden in tax increases for all your constituents but also the health and environmental impact such a facility would create, to the detriment of all. I urge you to review once again the research paper that I submitted to the BOCC and Planning Commission several weeks ago. Please do not betray the trust we have all placed in each one of you to make the right decisions on our behalf. Respectfully, Connie Gallant PO Box 490, Quilcene effbocc From: Dave and Shirley Tarr <ddt220@cablespeed.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 10:40 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: shooting ranges Dear Commissioners, We are strongly opposed to any regulations that would impair the operation of shooting ranges in Jefferson County. In particular, the JCSA range on Jacob Miller is an essential resource for maintaining our safety and proficiency of firearm use, a right guaranteed by our United States Constitution. In addition, the JCSA range has an enviable safety record over its 50 years of operation. The health and safety concern of this and other proposed ranges is totally unfounded. Shooting is also an enjoyable and satisfying sport, with competitions furthering its popularity. Witness the Olympic Shooting competitions. You as our commissioners, bear the responsibility of representing and protecting the rights of all the citizens of Jefferson County, not just a vocal few. Please protect our right and access to convenient shooting facilities, not just at Jacob Miller Road, but Tarboo Ridge as well. These businesses and facilities have just as much right to exist and prosper as any other business or facility in our county. Thank you. David and Shirley Tarr From: Donald Mazzola <dmazz1952@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 11:58 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Ordinance comments Dear Board of County Commissioners, December 10, 2018 f We apologize if some of my comments do not fall within the purview of the current code "harmonization" for commercial shooting ranges, so we will simply say what I have to say for you to consider: ALL shooting ranges should be required to be indoor shooting facilities. Prohibit military and law enforcement training. Require shooting hours to be restricted to 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Prohibit landing aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or drone. Require a 500 foot setback around any lake greater than 20 acres in area Require 16 foot high noise barriers above grade. Require a minimum of 8 foot high fences. Thank you. Donald Mazzola and Lu Goodrum 543 Q Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360.344.2946 effbocc From: John Hamilton <jwhamil_55@msn.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:17 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: "Cedar Hills Recreational Facility." Dear Commissioners; I am opposed to the development of the "Cedar Hills Recreational Facility" as a recreational gun range. It is clear the intent is not for local recreational use, but for an independent owner to allow for military, para -military and corporate security training facility. While these organizations need a place for training the Tarboo Ridge property is not the appropriate location for such activities. The area is one of quite residential and farming community. The influx of gun fire noise will set an unbalance of what this is and destroy the pristine beauty of the region. Gun discharge leaves lead poison in the ground that can infiltrate to wells in the area and put residence at severe health risks. The proposal of two helicopter landing pads will cause more extreme noise and the disruption to Jefferson County residents will not welcome. These could be understood if for emergency purposes only, but that is not the intent. It is for training and transport of military style maneuvers, that again do not belong in a small community as we have in Jefferson County. I oppose this permit filing and would like the Commissioners to put restrictions in place to prevent this type of a facility from happening in Jefferson County. Sincerely; John W. Hamilton k�44 From: Pat Aniotzbehere < mzmouse82@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:18 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: SHOOTING RANGE, REALLY! ear Board of County Commissioners, December 10, 2018 We apologize if some of my comments do not fall within the purview of the current code "harmonization" for commercial shooting ranges, so we will simply say what I have to say for you to consider: ALL shooting ranges should be required to be indoor shooting facilities. Prohibit military and law enforcement training. Require shooting hours to be restricted to 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Prohibit landing aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or drone. Require a 500 foot setback around any lake greater than 20 acres in area Require 16 foot high noise barriers above grade. Require a minimum of 8 foot high fences. Thank you. Pat Aniotzbehere I 82 Marilyn Ct. Port Townsend, Wa. 98368 360-531-3725 'e� ffbocc From: Sarah Wright <sarah@sjwphoto.net> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 12:48 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Ridge k, Hello! I am writing to express my support for amendments to the gun ordinance proposed by the Jefferson County Planning Commission to the BoCC, as regards harmonizing with Title 18. Please protect this county that raised me and where I still live. Thank you, Sarah Wright, RN Port Hadlock jeffbocc � From: Peter Guerrero<studio374photography@gmail.com>� Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 1:25 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Land Use Regulations for Gun Ranges As a Port Townsend resident of Jefferson County, I support the County's adoption of a number of public safety and other measures to eliminate the nuisance of gun ranges. Specifically, I support: —prohibiting military and law enforcement training at private and commercial shooting ranges; —restricting the hours of shooting ranges from 9AM to 5PM on weekdays only; —prohibiting the discharge of firearms or the landing of aircraft, including drones, at shooting ranges; —requiring a 300 foot setback of shooting ranges from riparian areas, including ponds and lakes; —requiring noise barriers at above grade shooting ranges and that all areas be fenced to a minimum of 8 feet. Generally, locating shooting ranges outdoors should be discouraged and indoor ranges should be the preferred way to site these facilities as the best way to both protect wildlife and minimize public nuisance. Thank you for your consideration of these public safety measures. Peter Guerrero SIERRA North Olympic Group.,''` � PO Box 714 CLUB Carlsbor WA 9 �. 8324 R EC E IV Fri To: Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson Cour►'} From: Sierra Club North Olympic GroupNOG)COMMISSIONERS '' //��� . Regarding: Public Hearing on Planning CommissioM I ,, n Recomm�en December 10 1 g ISSUE: Tarboo Shooting Range Recommendations from JC Planning Commission The Sierra Club in Jefferson and Clallam Counties represent over 1400 members who live here locally. After careful review and discussion of the proposed Jefferson County Planning Commission recommendations, we urge the County Commissioners in Jefferson County to adopt each recommendation in its entirety. We have listed the recommendations in order of importance as it pertains to the environmental impact of the designated area: 1. Requiring a 500 -yard setback of shooting areas around any lake greater than 20 acres. 2. Requiring the restricting of shooting hours to 8 AM to 5 PM. 3. Requiring a 16 -foot noise barrier above grade at shooting ranges. 4. Requiring all shooting areas to be fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. S. Prohibiting landing an aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or a drone at a commercial shooting facility. 6. Prohibiting military training with the exception of training practice for local law enforcement. The Sierra Club thanks the County Commissioners for taking the time to carefully look at the serious impact of a shooting range poses to the wildlife, environment and most importantly, to those families who moved to rural Jefferson County to live in a peaceful area. Cherri Mann Jefferson County Sierra Club 53 Fairbreeze Dr. Port Townsend ieffbocc PiEA,RlFJI? From: Philip Hunsucker Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 1:30 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: Philip Morley; Patty Charnas; Austin Watkins; Nicole Allen Subject: RE: Public Comments for 12/10/18 BoCC Hearing Attachments: 2018 12 03 CSFHO Staff Report - FINAL.pdf; PC Agenda Packet 11-19-2018.pdf; Planning Commission Recommendations Title 18 Harmonizing Ordinance with CSFO.pdf, Summary of Comments UDC Amendments_.pdf Commissioners: Please include the attached documents in the comment record for the hearing on 12/10/18. Thank you. Philip `` . ,f Philip C. Hunsucker Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney's Office P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Ph: 360-385-9219 (direct) Fax: 360-385-0073 All e-mail sent to this address has been received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and is therefore subject to the Public Records Act, a state law found at RCW 42.56. Under the Public Records law the County must release this e-mail and its contents to any person who asks to obtain a copy (or for inspection) of this e-mail unless it is also exempt from production to the requester according to state law, including RCW 42.56 and other state laws. STAFF REPORT TO THE BOCC ON THE DRAFT TITLE 18 ORDINANCE RELATED TO REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL SHOOTING FACILITIES December 3, 2018 Patty Charnas, Director of the Department of Community Development Austin Watkins, Planning Manager, Department of Community Development Philip C. Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2. THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK....................................................................... 1 2.1. The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms........................................................................... 1 2.2. The Constitutional Power of County's to Adopt Health and Safety Regulations ............ 1 2.3. State Preemption of Firearms Regulations and Its Exceptions ................................. 2 2.4. Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 Relied on Exemptions to Preemption ........................... 2 2.5. Regulation of Noise in Washington—Two Types of Noise Regulations ........................ 2 2.5.1. Regulation of Noise Based on Maximum Noise Levels ........................................... 2 2.5.2. Regulation of Noise Based on Nuisance................................................................... 3 2.6. WAC 173-60-060—Nuisance Regulations Not Prohibited ...................................... 4 2.7. "Exempt Noise" Related to Shooting............................................................................... 4 2.8. Limits on Adoption of Local Noise Ordinances....................................................... 5 2.9. JCC Exempts the Lawful Discharge of Firearms from its Noise Ordinance ............ 6 2.10. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).................................................................. 6 2.11. Current Code on Shooting Ranges in Title 18 JCC (UDC) ............................................. 7 2.11.1. "Outdoor Shooting Ranges"..................................................................................... 7 2.11.2. "Small -Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses".......................................................... 8 2.12. "Unnamed Uses".............................................................................................................. 9 2.12.1. Indoor Shooting Ranges Are Not A Named Use .................................................... 10 2.12.2. Commercial Shooting Facilities May Be an Unnamed Use Under Current Code.. 10 2.13. Current Code on Conditional Use Permits in Chapter 18.40 JCC ................................. 10 2.14. Constitutional and Statutory Protection of Applicants ................................................... 13 2.14.1. Property Rights Limitations.................................................................................... 13 2.14.2. Limits on Ordinances that Are Arbitrary, Capricious, Unlawful, or Exceed Lawful Authority........................................................................................................................... 14 1 2.14.3. Limitations on Tortious Interference with a Contractual Relationship or Business 11 Expectancy........................................................................................................................ 14 3. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 14 3.1. BoCC Referral to the Planning Commission................................................................. 14 3.2. Planning Commission Hearing...................................................................................... 14 3.3. Planning Commission Deliberations and Recommendation .......................................... 14 3.4. BoCC Receipt of Planning Commission Recommendations, Written Public Comments andHearing................................................................................................................. 15 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................... 15 4.1. Drafting Principles Staff Used for Proposed Revisions to the Planning Commission's Recommended Draft Ordinance................................................................................. 16 4.2. Staff Does Not Recommend Preempting the SEPA and CUP process by Prescriptively Limiting the Hours of Operations Without Taking into Consideration All Factors, such as Noise Studies, Design Criteria, Proposed Operations, etc. During the SEPA andCUP process......................................................................................................... 16 4.3. Staff's Specific Recommendations................................................................................ 17 5. SEPA COMPLIANCE FOR THE HARMONIZING ORDINANCE ............................. 21 6. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................22 11 1. INTRODUCTION This staff report presents the staff's recommendations regarding the draft ordinance harmonizing Title 18 JCC with the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance recommended to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on November 19, 2018 by the Jefferson County Planning Commission (Planning Commission). 2. THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK 2.1. The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms The Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 24 protects the right to bear arms: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." (Emphasis added.) According to the Washington Supreme Court, "This `right to bear arms' is an individual right that exists in the context of that individual's defense of himself or the state." City of Seattle v. Evans, 184 Wash. 2d 856, 862, 366 P.3d 906, 909 (2015). Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 24 is worded slightly differently from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in that it makes clear on its face that the right is an individual right. In contrast, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." However, in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), which held that the Second Amendment guarantees "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." Id., 554 U.S. at 592, 128 S. Ct. at 2797. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 778, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3042, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010). In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that this individual right applied to even "weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like." Id., 554 U.S. at 627-8, 128 S. Ct. at 2817.1 2.2. The Constitutional Power of County's to Adopt Health and Safety Regulations The Washington Constitution, Article XI, Section 11, confers upon county legislative authorities the police power to adopt regulations necessary to protect the health, safety, and well-being of its residents. 1 "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern- day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." 2.3. State Preemption of Firearms Regulations and Its Exceptions RCW 9.41.290 provides that the State of Washington fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulations within its boundaries, and counties may only enact ordinances as expressly authorized by RCW 9.41.300. Importantly, RCW 9.41.290 states: Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality. (Emphasis added.) However, cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with Chapter 9.41 RCW. RCW 36.32.120(7) provides that the county legislative authorities shall make and enforce, by appropriate resolutions or ordinances, all such police and sanitary regulations as are not in conflict with state law. RCW 9.41.300(2)(a) provides an exception to RCW 9.41.290 under which a county may, by ordinance, restrict the discharge of firearms in any portion of its jurisdiction where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized so long as such ordinance shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others. 2.4. Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 Relied on Exemptions to Preemption In adopting Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 on November 2, 2018, the BoCC expressly relied upon the Washington Constitution, Article XI, Section 11, RCW 9.41.300(2)(a), and, RCW 36.32.120(7). These authorities are based on health and safety. 2.5. Regulation of Noise in Washington—Two Types of Noise Regulations There are two types of noise regulations: (1) Regulation of noise based on maximum noise levels; and, (2) Regulation of noise based on nuisance. 2.5.1. Regulation of Noise Based on Maximum Noise Levels. An example of regulation of noise based on maximum levels is JCC 8.70.050(1): All of the following are defined as "public nuisance noises": 2 Sound that originates from the property that exceeds the noise levels permitted by Chapter 173-60 WAC (Maximum Environmental Noise Levels), as that chapter now exists or as it may hereafter be amended. WAC 173-60040 Maximum permissible environmental noise levels. (1) No person shall cause or permit noise to intrude into the property of another person which noise exceeds the maximum permissible noise levels set forth below in this section. (2)(a) The noise limitations established are as set forth in the following table after any applicable adjustments provided for herein are applied. EDNA OF EDNA OF NOISE SOURCE RECEIVING PROPERTY Class A Class B Class C CLASS A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA CLASS B 57 60 65 CLASS C 60 65 70 (b) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the noise limitations of the foregoing table shall be reduced by 10 dBA for receiving property within Class A EDNAs. (c) At any hour of the day or night the applicable noise limitations in (a) and (b) above may be exceeded for any receiving property by no more than: (i) 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in any one-hour period; or (ii) 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in any one-hour period; or (iii) 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes in any one-hour period. [Order 74-32, § 173-60-040, filed 4122175, effective 911/75.] 2.5.2. Regulation of Noise Based on Nuisance. An example of regulation of noise based on nuisance is JCC 8.70.050(2)-(l 1): All of the following are defined as "public nuisance noises": (4) Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday (example: 10:00 p.m. Sunday to 7:00 a.m. Monday) or between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Friday or Saturday (example: 11:00 p.m. Friday to 7:00 a.m. Saturday), any sound made by persons or by use of a musical instrument, whistle, sound amplifier, portable audio equipment, or other device, electronic or not, capable of producing or reproducing sound, which sound emanates frequently, repetitively, or continuously from any social gathering, building, structure, or property, such as sound originating from a band session, tavern or bar operation, an indoor or outdoor social gathering, and where law enforcement determines the volume of such sound is such that it can be clearly heard by a person of normal hearing at a location which is (a) 150 feet or more from the source of the sound and (b) not located on the property containing the source of the sound; (5) Sound from portable audio equipment, including that found in or as part of a motor vehicle audio system, while traveling or parked in public streets, or in park areas, residential and commercial zones, or any area where residences, schools, human service facilities, or commercial establishments are in obvious proximity to the source of the sound, and where the volume of such audio equipment is such that law enforcement determines it can be clearly heard by a person of normal hearing at a distance of 150 feet or more from the source of the sound; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to persons operating portable audio equipment within a public park pursuant to an event sanctioned by a responsible authority under valid permit or license; (8) Sound from the discharge or use of any explosive device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; (11) Sound which law enforcement determines unreasonably disturbs or interferes with the peace, comfort, and repose of one or more reasonable persons of normal hearing, regardless of the distance between the source of the public nuisance noise and the person(s) being unreasonably disturbed or annoyed. Under this subsection, a sound meter reading is not necessary to establish that a public nuisance noise exists; (12) Any other noise that is otherwise prohibited by state or federal law. 2.6. WAC 173-60-060—Nuisance Regulations Not Prohibited Nuisance regulations not prohibited. Nothing in this chapter or the exemptions provided herein, shall be construed as preventing local government from regulating noise from any source as a nuisance. Local resolutions, ordinances, rules or regulations regulating noise on such a basis shall not be deemed inconsistent with this chapter by the department. 2.7. "Exempt Noise" Related to Shooting RCW 70.107.080 states: Exemptions. The [Department of Ecology] shall, in the exercise of rule-making power under this chapter, provide exemptions or specially limited regulations relating to recreational shooting and emergency or law enforcement equipment where appropriate in the interests of public safety. The [Department of Ecology] in the development of rules under this chapter, shall consult and take into consideration the land use policies and programs of local government. .19 JCC 8.70.060 states: Exempt noises. Sounds originating from the sources listed here do not constitute a violation of this chapter, are not "public nuisance noises" and are defined as an "exempt noise" regardless of where or when they occur, unless otherwise noted. (18) The lawful discharge of firearms; (19) Sounds exempted under Chapter 173-60 WAC, as that chapter now exists or as it may hereafter be amended. (Emphasis added.) Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, 184 Wash. App. 252, 280 (2014) states: Sounds created by firearm discharges on authorized shooting ranges are exempt from KCC 10.28.040 (maximum permissible environmental noise levels) and KCC 10.28.145 (public disturbance noises) between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. KCC 10.28.050. The Washington Department of Ecology also exempts sounds created by firearms discharged on authorized shooting ranges from its maximum noise level regulations. RCW 70.107.080; WAC 173-60-050(1)(b). The Code broadly defines "firearm" as "any weapon or device by whatever name known which will or is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosion," including rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machine guns. KCC 10.24.080(1). As a result, the noise from the weapons being fired at the Club's range falls within the noise exemption provisions of KCC 10.28.050, and thus is exempt from the maximum permissible environmental noise levels and public disturbance noise restrictions. 2.8. Limits on Adoption of Local Noise Ordinances • WAC 173-60-110(2): "No ordinance or resolution of any local government which imposes noise control requirements differing from those adopted by the department shall be effective unless and until approved by the director [of the Department of Ecology]." • RCW 70.107.060: "Noise limiting requirements of local government which differ from those adopted or controlled by the department shall be invalid unless first approved by the [Department of Ecology]. If the [Department of Ecology] fails to approve or disapprove standards submitted by local governmental jurisdictions within ninety days of submittal, such standards shall be deemed approved." 5 2.9. JCC Exempts the Lawful Discharge of Firearms from its Noise Ordinance In 2014, Jefferson County adopted Chapter 8.70 JCC (Noise Control), amidst significant public comment. The noise ordinance first proposed by staff was significantly revised after public comment and testimony was received. Currently, JCC 8.70.060(18) exempts from its regulation: "The lawful discharge of firearms." (Emphasis added.) 2.10. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Chapter 43.21 C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) provides a basis for regulation of the siting of shooting ranges, including on the basis of noise. SEPA places responsibility on the County (and all agencies of the state) to: [U]se all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: (a) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (d) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage; (e) Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (f) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and, (g) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. RCW 43.210.020(2). "The legislature recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment." RCW 43.210.020(3). SEPA establishes a process to ensure that potential environmental impacts are identified, considered, and mitigated prior to an action being taken that could adversely impact the environment. RCW 43.21C.060 and WAC 197-11.660. rol SEPA is a state statute not a county law or ordinance. Regulation based on SEPA would not be preempted under RCW 9.41.290. RCW 43.21C.135(1) authorizes the County to "adopt rules, ordinances, and resolutions which incorporate any of the following by reference to the appropriate sections of the Washington Administrative Code:" (1) Rules and guidelines adopted under RCW 43.21C.110(1); and, model ordinances adopted by the department of ecology under RCW 43.21C.130. Chapter 197-11 WAC contains the regulations that implement RCW 43.21C.135(1). Jefferson County's approved SEPA-complaint regulation is Article X. Chapter 18.40 JCC, starting with JCC 18.40.700. SEPA, its implementing rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and Chapter 18.40 JCC will require mitigation of noise before any new commercial shooting facility can be built. The County must use an environmental checklist substantially in the form found in WAC 197-11-960. WAC _197- 11-315(l). 97- 11-315 1 . See the noise portions in Section 7.b. of the SEPA checklist. WAC 197-11-960.2 Regulation of the siting of shooting ranges pursuant to SEPA provides a constitutionally permitted basis for regulation that is not preempted by RCW 9.41.290 (shooting regulation preemption) or Chapter 173-60 WAC (noise preemption). 2.11. Current Code on Shooting Ranges in Title 18 JCC (UDC) 2.11.1. "Outdoor Shooting Ranges" Currently, "outdoor shooting ranges" (small-scale recreational and tourist uses) are permitted as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the Commercial Forest (CF), Rural Forest (RF), and Inholding Forest (IF) zoning districts as a small-scale recreational and tourist use. The following UDC provisions currently apply to proposed "outdoor shooting ranges" under the small-scale recreational and tourist use. JCC 18.10.150: "Outdoor Shooting Range. (See `Shooting range.')" JCC 18.10.190: "`Shooting range' means a facility specifically designed and used for safe shooting practice with firearms and/or for archery practice, with individual or group firing positions for specific weaponry." JCC 18.20.350(8) states: Outdoor Shooting Ranges. Outdoor shooting ranges are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of ammunition beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The National Rifle Association's Range Manual shall be consulted and used in the development and operation of ranges; Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the safety recommendations 2 A complete SEPA checklist can be downloaded at hl!ps:Hecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/d7/d7373ce2-12cb-4fd2-a0el- ld25557acl87.pdf. 7 for outdoor shooting ranges shall be used as minimum guidelines in the design and construction of shooting ranges; (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; (d) The shooting areas shall be surrounded by an eight -foot -high noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, or be located in a minimal eight -foot deep depression; (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; (f) No structure or shooting areas associated with a shooting range shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line; (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All shooting areas must be completely fenced; and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. 2.11.2. "Small -Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses" JCC 18.20.350(8) relates to "small-scale recreational and tourist uses," discussed in JCC 18.20.350(1): Small-scale recreational and tourist uses rely on a rural location and setting and provide opportunities to diversify the economy of rural Jefferson County by utilizing the county's abundant recreational opportunities and scenic and natural amenities in an environmentally sensitive manner consistent with the rural character of the county. Upon approval pursuant to this code, these types of uses may be conducted in the land use districts specified in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 and as provided for in small-scale recreational and tourist (SRT) overlay districts under JCC 18.15.572. Table 3-1 authorizes outdoor shooting ranges under a conditional use permit in Commercial Forrest (CF), Rural Forest (RF) and Inholding Forest (IF) zones only as a small-scale recreational and tourist use. JCC 18.10.190 S has the following definitions: "Small-scale" means of a size or intensity which has minimal impacts on the surrounding area and which makes minimal demands on the existing infrastructure. M. "Small-scale recreational or tourist uses" means those isolated uses which are leisure or recreational in nature; are reliant upon a rural setting or location; do not include any new residential development beyond that allowed in the underlying land use district; and otherwise meet the 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii). performance standards in JCC 18.20.350 See RCW RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii) refers to the Rural Element of the Comprehensive Plan and states: (5) Rural element. Counties shall include a rural element including lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The following provisions shall apply to the rural element: (d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development. Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited areas of more intensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows: (ii) The intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses, including commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting, but that do not include new residential development. A small-scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl. 2.12. "Unnamed Uses" The UDC gives the Administrator authority to review unnamed uses as an allowable use, conditional use, or prohibited use. For example, an outdoor commercial shooting facility not meeting the scale and intensity of small-scale recreational and tourist uses could be interpreted to be an unnamed use under the current UDC giving the Administrator discretion on its siting with zoning classifications. JCC 18.15.045 states "[t]his code recognizes that not every conceivable use can be identified and that new uses may evolve over time. Furthermore, it establishes the administrator's authority to review proposed `unnamed' uses for similarity with other uses listed in this code and to ensure consistency of the proposed use with the applicable district. When a use is not specifically listed in Table 3-1 ... it shall be reviewed as a discretionary `D' use by the administrator." JCC 18.15.040(2) establishes review criteria for siting unnamed uses. If the conditions for the discretionary use / unnamed use are not met then the UDC Administrator may require a conditional use permit or prohibit the use within the zoning classification. M 2.12.1. Indoor Shooting Ranges Are Not a Named Use There is no provision in Title 18 JCC for indoor shooting ranges. Indoor shooting ranges and other unnamed uses are not expressly prohibited by the UDC. JCC 18.15.045. 2.12.2. Commercial Shooting Facilities May Be an Unnamed Use under Current Code Some commenters argued that commercial shooting facilities do not fit the criteria for "outdoor shooting ranges" in current code because they are not "small-scale recreational or tourist uses." These commenters likely were under the misperception that if commercial shooting facilities did not qualify as "outdoor shooting ranges" under current code, they are prohibited. That is not so. In fact, the more a commercial shooting facility is not an "outdoor shooting range," under current code, the more likely it could be an "unnamed use." This is a potential loophole that should be closed before the current moratorium on commercial shooting facilities expires on December 17, 2018. 2.13. Current Code on Conditional Use Permits in Chapter 18.40 JCC The CUP approval criteria has extensive regulations ensuring compatible land use, harmonious design, reasonable noise levels, consistent environmental protection, and other limiting criteria. For example: • Conditional Use Purpose Statement in JCC 18.40.490: The purpose of the conditional use permit process is to provide flexibility in the application of the use regulations contained in this code in order to accommodate uses that may be appropriate in an established district under certain circumstances, but inappropriate in the same district under others. At the time of application, a review of the location, design, configuration, and potential impact of the proposed use shall be conducted by comparing the use to the goals and policies established in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and to adopted development standards. This review shall determine whether the proposed use should be permitted by weighing the public need or the benefit to be derived from the use against the impact that it may cause. • Conditional Use Approval Criteria in JCC 18.40.530(1), (2)&(5): (1) The county may approve or approve with modifications an application for a conditional use permit (i.e., uses listed in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040 as "C(a)," "C(d)" or "C") if all of the following criteria are satisfied: (a) The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property; 10 (b) The conditional use will be served by adequate infrastructure including roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal, and stormwater control; (c) The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject parcel; (d) The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel, (e) The location, size, and height of buildings, structures, walls and fences, and screening vegetation for the conditional use will not unreasonably interfere with allowable development or use of neighboring properties; (f) The pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the conditional use will not be hazardous to existing and anticipated traffic in the vicinity of the subject parcel; (g) The conditional use complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of this code and any other applicable local, state or federal law; and more specifically, conforms to the standards contained in Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC; (h) The proposed conditional use will not result in the siting of an incompatible use adjacent to an airport or airfield; (i) The conditional use will not cause significant adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval; 0) The conditional use has merit and value for the community as a whole; (k) The conditional use is consistent with all relevant goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and (1) The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative effect of similar actions in the area. (2) In instances where all of the above findings cannot be made, the application shall be denied. (5) All proposed uses, structures and site improvements (and modifications thereof) shall comply with the development standards of this code. (Emphasis added.) 11 • Conditional Use Additional Conditions in JCC 18.40.540: The county may impose additional conditions on a particular use if it is deemed necessary for the protection of the surrounding properties, the neighborhood, or the general welfare of the public. The conditions may: (1) Increase requirements in the standards, criteria or policies established by this code; (2) Stipulate an exact location for the conditional use on the subject property as a means of minimizing hazards to life, limb, property damage, erosion, landslides or traffic; (3) Require structural features or equipment as a means of minimizing hazards to life, limb, property damage, erosion, landslides or traffic; or (4) Contain restrictions or provisions deemed necessary to establish parity with uses permitted in the same zone with respect to avoiding nuisance generating features in matters of noise, odors, air pollution, wastes, vibration, traffic and physical hazards. Chapter 43.21C RCW, the SEPA and its implementing rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, require mitigation of noise before any new commercial shooting facility can be built. The County must use an environmental checklist substantially in the form found in WAC 197- 11-960. WAC 197-11-315(1). See the noise portions in Section 7.b. of the SEPA checklist. WAC 197-11-960.3 Additional requirements exist in current code in JCC 18.40.430 and 18 40.450 for the Site Plan Approval Advance Determination (SPAAD) which DCD proposes be eliminated during the current Comp Plan/UDC amendment process: • JCC 18.40.430 states in part: "Each application for site plan approval advance determination shall include the information required by JCC 18.40.100(1) and must identify the specific proposed use of the property for which the application is being submitted. Any commercial, industrial, small-scale recreational and tourist use, or multifamily residential use listed as a "Yes" use in Table 3-1 in JCC 18.15.040, or classified as such by the administrator, that seeks site plan approval advance determination under this article shall also be subject to the additional application submittal requirements of JCC 18.40.100(2) and the preapplication conference requirements of JCC 18.40.090." • JCC 18.40.450 states in relationship to approval criteria for conditional use permits: Site plans shall be approved upon showing that all of the following have been satisfied: 3 A complete SEPA checklist can be downloaded at hl!ps:Hecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/d7/d7373ce2-12cb-4fd2-a0el- ld25557acl87.pdf. 12 (1) The proposed site plan conforms to all applicable county, state and federal, land use, environmental and health regulations and plans, including but not limited to the following: (a) The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; and (b) The provisions of this code, including any incorporated standards; (2) Adequate provisions for utilities and other public services necessary to serve the needs of the proposed site plan have been demonstrated, including open spaces, drainage ways, roads, and other public ways, potable water, sewage disposal, fire flow and other improvements; (3) The probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed site plan, together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the environment, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) implementing provisions contained within this chapter and Chapter 4321C RCW; (4) Approving the proposed site plan will serve the public use and interest and adequate provision has been made for the public health, safety and general welfare. 2.14. Constitutional and Statutory Protection of Applicants In addition to the limitations on lawful shooting discussed above, the following additional limitations on government action must be kept clearly in mind. These limitations could be a source of liability for the County, if the BoCC were to pass regulation that does not have a rational basis or is directed at a particular person. 2.14.1. Property Rights Limitations The United States and Washington Constitutions prohibit taking property without due process. Wash. Const. art. I, § 2 (1889) and U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Washington has a vested rights doctrine that applies to completed applications. This is codified in RCW 19.27.095(1), RCW 58.17.033(1), RCW 36.70B.180; Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wash. 2d 864, 868, 872 P. 2d 1090, 1093 (1994), Abbey Rd. Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. 2d 242, 251, 218 P.3d 180, 183 (2009), Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cty., 180 Wash. 2d 165, 173, 322 P.3d 1219, 1223 (2014). The County takes the position that vested rights is limited to those codified in the above statutes. However, the Washington Supreme Court limited its holding in a vested rights case in 2017 and did not reach this issue. Snohomish Cty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 187 Wash. 2d 346, 359, 386 P.3d 1064, 1070 (2016), as amended (May 2, 2017), reconsideration denied (May 10, 2017). A violation of rights under the U.S. Constitution is subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, including damages and reasonable attorney's fees. 13 2.14.2. Limits on Ordinances that Are Arbitrary, Capricious, Unlawful, or Exceed Lawful Authority "Owners of a property interest who have filed an application for a permit have an action for damages to obtain relief from acts of an agency which are arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or exceed lawful authority, or relief from a failure to act within time limits established by law." RCW 64.40.20. Actions are arbitrary and capricious if they represent willful and unreasoning decisions made without regard for facts and circumstances. Saben v. Skagit Cty., 136 Wash. App. 869, 877, 152 P.3d 1034, 1037 (2006)(emphasis added). RCW 64.40.20(2) authorizes recovery damages and reasonable costs, including attorney's fees. Damages includes diminution in value and lost profits. Cox v. City of Lynnwood, 72 Wash. App. 1, 8, 863 P.2d 578, 584 (1993), 72 Wash. App. at 10, 863 P.2d at 584. 2.14.3. Limitations on Tortious Interference with a Contractual Relationship or Business Expectancy Legal liability may exist where there was interference for an improper purpose or by using an improper means. Pac. Nw. Shooting Park Assn v. City of Sequim, 158 Wash. 2d 342, 351, 144 P.3d 276, 280 (2006). 3. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1. BoCC Referral to the Planning Commission On September 10, 2018 the BoCC referred a harmonizing ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. On September 19 and October 17, 2018, Jefferson County staff briefed the Planning Commission on the recommended draft ordinance during workshop sessions. From October 24, 2018 until November 16, 2018, the Department of Community Development (DCD) held a public comment period, receiving 77 written comments. 3.2. Planning Commission Hearing On November 7, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing receiving verbal and written testimony relating to proposed ordinance with 21 persons verbally testifying. The proposed ordinance considered by the Planning Commission at the November 7, 2018 hearing is attached as Appendix 3. 3.3. Planning Commission Deliberations and Recommendation On November 19, 2018, the Planning Commission deliberated the draft ordinance, taking into account the record and public comment. The Planning Commission recommended the following modifications to the ordinance: (1) JCC 18.10.010 A definitions should be amended to add a definition of armed forces as follows: "`Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." 14 (2) JCC 18.10.160 P definitions should be amended to add a definition for paramilitary organization as follows: "`Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of the armed forces. (3) A new section "JCC 18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be added as follows: JCC 18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited any commercial shooting facility or any non-commercial shooting facility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shooting facility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. The Planning Commission's findings and recommendations are attached in Appendix 3. 3.4. BoCC Receipt of Planning Commission Recommendations, Written Public Comments and Hearing During the November 26, 2018 BoCC regular session, the BoCC received the Planning Commission's recommendation on the draft ordinance and set a hearing and written public comment period. The hearing by the BoCC is set for December 10, 2018 at 6 p.m. in the Fort Worden Commons. Written testimony submitted on or after November 28, 2018 and received by the Board of County Commissioners up through the end of the hearing on December 10, 2018 will be part of the hearing record. Staff proposes changes to the draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff's proposed changes are discussed below. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The BoCC referred to the Planning Commission a draft harmonizing ordinance for consistency with Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC. The Planning Commission clearly understood the need for such and ordinance, quickly grasped the issues, and made timely recommendations to the BoCC. Staff proposes that the BoCC adopt a revised version of the Planning Commission's recommended ordinance for the reasons discussed below_ 15 4.1. Drafting Principles Staff Used for Proposed Revisions to the Planning Commission's Recommended Draft Ordinance These are the main drafting principles followed by staff in preparing the draft ordinance with proposed changes from the Planning Commission's recommended draft ordinance (Appendix 3) being submitted for the BoCC's consideration during the BoCC hearing and deliberations: 1. The ordinance should be consistent with Ordinance 12-1102-18, an Ordinance on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County, which amended Chapter 8.50 JCC. Reason: The purpose of the BoCC forwarding the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission was to harmonize Title 18 JCC with Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC. 2. The ordinance should clarify and close potential loopholes in Title 18 JCC related to commercial shooting facilities as defined in Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC and "outdoor shooting ranges," currently regulated in JCC 18.20.350(8). For example, the ordinance closes the potential "unnamed use" loophole for shooting facilities. 3. The ordinance should add outdoor commercial shooting facilities and indoor commercial shooting facilities to Table 3-1 in Title 18 JCC. Reason: This closes the potential "unnamed use" loophole for commercial shooting facilities. 4. The ordinance should follow existing federal, state, and local law. This includes following state law on preemption of shooting regulation and state and local law preempting regulation of noise, and its exceptions. Reason: Failing to do so provides a potential basis of liability for the County. 5. The ordinance should not regulate where other federal, state or local agencies already are responsible for that regulation. Reason: In almost all cases, the County lacks the expertise and resources to enforce a federal or state agency's regulation. Similarly, DCD lacks the expertise and resources to enforce regulations slated for enforcement by another County agency. 6. The ordinance should not repeat language already covered in other portions of the JCC. Reason: There is a great potential for inconsistency in repeating language from other portions of the JCC, which would create the potential for application and enforcement difficulties. 4.2. Staff Does Not Recommend Preempting the SEPA and CUP process by Prescriptively Limiting the Hours of Operations without Taking into Consideration All Factors, such as Noise Studies, Design Criteria, Proposed Operations, etc. during the SEPA and CUP process The firearms and noise preemption provisions in state law limit the BoCC's ability to regulate. The current approval process, including the conditional use permit (CUP) process in Article VII of Chapter 18.40, along with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process is the best way to deal with facility siting issues. As quoted above, the approval criteria for all conditional uses 16 contained in Title 18 JCC require, among other things, that: "The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel." JCC 18.40.530(1)(d). "`Vicinity' means, in rural and resource lands, the area generally within one -mile of the exterior boundary of a given parcel." JCC 18.10.220 V. The CUP approval criteria expressly requires that applications comply with all applicable criteria and standards of the JCC and other applicable local or state laws. JCC 18.40.530(1)(g). For example, all applications must be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, Critical Areas Ordinance, and performance standards. 4.3. Staff's Specific Recommendations Staff makes the following specific recommendations: 1. Hold a hearing, then deliberate on the attached draft ordinance; 2. Revise Title 18 JCC to make it consistent with the draft ordinance attached either as Appendix 1 or Appendix 2; 3. Staff Recommendation on Planning Commission's Proposed New Section 18.20.430. Do not adopt the following provisions of the draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission for the reasons discussed below: a. JCC 18.10.010 A definitions should be amended to add a definition of armed forces as follows: "`Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend adopting this definition. This definition was added only to implement the Planning Commission's recommended additions in proposed new JCC 18.20.430. For the reasons discussed below staff does not recommend new JCC 18.20.430. This revision rises or falls with new JCC 18.20.430. b. JCC 18.10.160 P definitions should be amended to add a definition for paramilitary organization as follows: "`Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of the armed forces. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend adopting this definition. This definition was added only to implement the Planning Commission's recommended additions in proposed new JCC 18.20.430. For the reasons discussed below staff does not recommend new JCC 18.20.430. This revision rises or falls with new JCC 18.20.430. 17 A new section "JCC 18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be added as follows: 18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited any commercial shooting facility or any non- commercial shooting facility. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend limiting shooting facilities from providing organizational training, within appropriate limitations through the SEPA and CUP process and other applicable regulations. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shooting facility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend preempting the SEPA and CUP process by prescriptively limiting the hours of operations without taking all factors, such as noise studies, design criteria, proposed operations, etc. into consideration during the SEPA and CUP process. Staff recommends that hours of operation be addressed during the SEPA and CUP process. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend this limitation. Aircraft movements are generally regulated by the federal government, through the Federal Aviation Administration. However, the SEPA and CUP process may provide for more local control of aircraft and their movements, such as prohibiting the use, providing limitations on the use (e.g., limiting to emergencies, limiting number of movements, etc.), or limiting the siting of aircraft movements. Staff recommends that aircraft movements be addressed during the SEPA and CUP process. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend this limitation. First, this recommendation probably is preempted by RCW 9.42.290 because it essentially creates a no shooting area without following the requirements in RCW 9.41.300. Second, the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires that local jurisdictions adopt and implement local Shoreline Master Programs with approval from the Department of Ecology. Lakes 20 acres or greater in size are subject to the SMA and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). RCW 90.58.020. The SMP "Guides[s] the future use and development of Jefferson County's shorelines in a positive, effective, and equitable manner consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act ... [and] ensure[s], at a minimum, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes". JCC 18.25.010. As currently written by the Planning Commission, there is an overlap of regulation between the SMP buffer/setback and the proposed 500 -yard setback for commercial shooting facilities from any lakes 20 acres or greater in size. Unlike the SMP, this proposed setback does not include best available science as a basis. Staff recommends that the SMP, CUP, and SEPA process apply. Overall Staff Recommendation on Proposed New 18.20.430: Staff does not recommend adopting additional siting, design, or operational limitations beyond existing laws. The existing, time -tested and current SEPA and CUP regulations that provide a robust process for siting new uses taking into account a wide variety of approval criteria addressing the points below on an as applied case-by-case basis. 4. Staff Recommendation on Changes to the Definition of "Outdoor Shooting Range_" a. The current definition of "Outdoor Shooting Range" incorporates by reference the definition of "Shooting Range," defined as: "`Shooting range' means a facility specifically designed and used for safe shootingpractice with firearms and/or for archery practice, with individual or group firing positions for specific weaponry." JCC 18.10.190 (emphasis added.) The highlighted terms are not defined in current code, so clarification is necessary, at a minimum. b. The definition of "commercial shooting facility" adopted in Ordinance No. 12-1102-18 is: "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above that for the use of the commercial shooting facility requires a contract, charges a fee or other compensation, or requires membership. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington; (b) Any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. For the avoidance of doubt, where privately owned property is used primarily for lawful shooting practice for guests of the owner, and where the other uses of the property either facilitate shooting practice or are incidental, intermittent or occasional, it is presumed that the privately owned property used for lawful shooting practices is a commercial shooting facility. 19 JCC 8.50.220(15). This definition contains two exceptions to commercial shooting facilities regulated under Article IlI, Chapter 8.50 JCC. Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC does not regulate: (a) Facilities both owned and operated by a government agency; and, (b) Lawful shooting practice on privately owned property solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. In the initial draft ordinance referred to the Planning Commission, staff proposed changing the definition of "Outdoor Shooting Range" to "Non-commercial Shooting Range," defined as follows: "Non-commercial shooting facility" means any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person." d. Several commenters suggested the proposed definition created an inconsistency with JCC 8.50.220(15). Staff agrees with these comments and proposes two options to address this concern: i. Appendix 1—Fix Inconsistency in Language. Staff proposed the following language in Appendix 1: "`Non-commercial shooting facility' means a shooting range that does not meet the definition of commercial shooting facility in JCC 8.50.220(15) but also does not qualify for the exceptions to the definition of commercial shooting facility in JCC 8.50.220(15)(a) or (b)." This change closes any potential gaps between the definition of "commercial shooting facility" and its two exceptions in 8.50.220(15) (a) and (b). One commenter suggested that the definition of "Non- commercial shooting facility" should not replace "outdoor shooting facility" because commercial shooting facilities, as defined in JCC 8.50.220(15) and the exceptions in the section in (a) and (b), are the only possible types of shooting ranges and "Outdoor shooting range" and "shooting range" should simply be deleted from the definitions and Use Table 3-1 and not be replaced by the proposed "non-commercial shooting facility" definition. Staff does not agree that there are no possible other uses than a "commercial shooting facility" and its two exceptions in (a) and (b). For example, assume there is a business owner with a home and decides to build a non-commercial shooting facility to train employees, friends, and other invited guests. No membership, money, or fees are exchanged. The use would need regulation, as it is a more intense use than someone shooting just in their own backyard. By naming a "non-commercial shooting facility" as a use, an applicant could not claim the use is an "unnamed use." If "outdoor shooing range" is not redefined to "non-commercial shooting facility," the County would lose the protection of the small -scales recreational and tourist uses and the land use design standards for "non-commercial shooting facility," that follow SEPA and the CUP process. ii. Appendix 2—One Standard. Staff proposes the following in Appendix 2: (1) First, change "outdoor shooting ranges" to "outdoor shooting facilities," but redefine it as follows: "`Outdoor shooting facility' means any use that includes a shooting range whether or not it is an outdoor commercial shooting facility. However, outdoor 20 shooting facility does not include shooting ranges that do not meet the exceptions for a commercial shooting facility in JCC 8.50.220(15)(a) or (b)." (2) Then, revise JCC 18.20.170 and JCC 18.20.200 to eliminate potential loopholes for home businesses and cottage industries; (3) Then, change "outdoor shooting range" to "outdoor shooting facility" in Table 3-1, the use table. (4) Finally, JCC 18.20.350(8) should be deleted from Title 18 JCC, so there is one standard for outdoor shooting facilities, whether they qualify as commercial shooting facilities or not. This option also addresses the concern of one commenter that having a separate land use category for a non-commercial shooting facility with a different set of standards in JCC 18.20.350(8) invites efforts to evade the more comprehensive standards of the new Article III, of Chapter 8.50 JCC and invites litigation because there would be inconsistent standards for organized shooting ranges. 5. Staff Recommendation on Adopting a Period of Repose: Do not adopt a provision requiring a set period of repose from shooting at a commercial shooting facility for the following reasons: a. Staff does not recommend preempting the SEPA and CUP process by prescriptively limiting the hours of operations without taking all factors, such as noise studies, design criteria, proposed operations, etc. into consideration during the SEPA and CUP process. Staff recommends that hours of operation be addressed during the SEPA and CUP process. b. The current CUP process in Title 18 JCC, along with the SEPA process, is the best way to deal with facility siting issues. In particular, SEPA will require mitigation of noise before any new commercial shooting facility can be built. The approval criteria for all conditional uses contained in Title 18 JCC require, among other things, that: "The conditional use will not introduce noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibrations, odors, or other conditions or which unreasonably impact existing uses in the vicinity of the subject parcel." JCC 18.40.530(d). c. Staff can find no rational basis for such a provision that does not violate RCW 9.41.290. 5. SEPA COMPLIANCE FOR THE HARMONIZING ORDINANCE DCD prepared an environmental checklist detailing the proposal and its potential impacts. After review of the environmental checklist, proposal, available information, and applicable regulations, Jefferson County's SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) on October 31, 2018 under WAC 197-11-340(2). The DNS was published on October 31, 2018 in the PT Leader and was sent to affected government agencies, tribal governments, and other parties. Jefferson County had a SEPA comment period from October 24 until November 16, 2018. The comment period was originally published in the PT Leader on October 24, 2018. After a review of the public and agency comments received during the comment period, the SEPA Responsible Official retained the DNS. Jefferson County submitted the proposed UDC amendments to the Washington State Department of Commerce for review, as required by the Growth Management Act. On November 8, 2018 Commerce concluded their review under their expedited review authority. 21 6. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission should be commended on quickly grasping the need for this ordinance, holding a timely hearing after receiving written public comment, and for providing timely recommendations. Staff recommends modifying the Planning Commission draft as set forth in the attached revised draft ordinance, as in Appendix 1 or Appendix 2. If there are questions, they should be directed to Austin Watkins and Philip Hunsucker. 22 Appendix 1 - Fixing Non -Commercial Shooting Facility Option 18.10.030 C definitions. "Commercial shootingfacility" has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(15 [JCC 8.50.220(15): "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above that for the use of the commercial shooting facility requires a contract, charges a fee or other compensation, or requires membership. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington; (b) Any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. For the avoidance of doubt, where privately owned property is used primarily for lawful shooting practice for guests of the owner, and where the other uses of the property either facilitate shooting practice or are incidental, intermittent or occasional, it is presumed that the privately owned property used for lawful shooting practices is a commercial shooting facility.] 18.10.060 F definitions. "Firearm" has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.040. FJCC 8.50.040: "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short -barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition, or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(2).] 1 Appendix 1 - Fixing Non -Commercial Shooting Facility Option 18.10.090 I definitions. "Indoor facility" means has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(34). [JCC 8.50.220(34): "Indoor facility" means "Indoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure.] 18.10.130 M definitions. "Minimal impacts" means impacts that do not cause adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval. "Minimal demands on existing infrastructure" means demands that do not cause the need for additional infrastructure, including but not limited to roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal or stormwater control that is not provided b,. t�pplicant. 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shootingfacility" means a shooting range that does not meet the definition of commercial shooting facility acility in JCC 8.50.220(15) but also does not qualify for the exceptions to the definition of commercial shootingfacility in JCC 8.50.220(15)(a) or 121 "NRA Range Source Book" has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(39). [JCC 8.50.220(39): "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association.] 18.10.150 O definitions. OtrtE180f: S1 „ ;fin Ra ge. (See "ShO,,t;,ii_� "ge—.1-1) "Outdoor commercial shooting facility" has the same meaning as outdoor facility in JCC 8.50.220(45). [JCC 8.50.220(45): "Outdoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility.] 18.10.160 P definitions. "Projectile" has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(50). [JCC 8.50220(50): "Projectile" means an object fired from a firearm.] 2 Appendix 1 - Fixing Non -Commercial Shooting Facility Option 18.10.180 R definitions. "Recreational uses" means those activities of a voluntary and leisure time nature that aid in promoting entertainment, pleasure, play, relaxation, or instruction. 18.10.190 S definitions. "Shooting range" means a f edit , oeifi al , des oa .,,,a , oa f r safe shooting , tWe we"eiityhas the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(61). [JCC 8.50.220(61): "Shooting range" consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges.] "Small-scale recreational or tourist uses" means recreational uses or tourist uses that are reliant upon a rural setting or location, do not include any new residential development beyond that allowed in the underlying land use district, and otherwise meet the performance standards in JCC 18.20.350. 18.10.200 T definitions. "Tourist uses" means used by persons traveling for pleasure or culture. 18.20.350(8) OtttdeeCShootingpa gesNon-commercial shooting facilities. �td«n^ �N r on - commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of projectiles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The National Riige ^ sseeiatien's Range ManttalSections I and 11 of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used in the development and ieof rangArtieles1, 2, and 3 of t4 -e as minimum guidelines in the design,. and and operation of shooting ranges; (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; (d) The sheetitig at:ea-sshootin _g ranges shall be surrounded by an eight -foot -high noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, or be located in a minimal eight -foot deep depression; (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet, or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; Appendix 1 - Fixing Non -Commercial Shooting Facility Option (f) No structure or si.,,,,fing a -eas hooting ranges associated with a shooting ganga on -commercial shootingfacility shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line; (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All shooting a -eas hooting ranges must be completely fenced; and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. .19 Appendix 1 - Fixing Non -Commercial Shooting Facility Option Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses 4 Whether to authorize Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities in any rural residential zones is a policy decision to be made by the BoCC. 'As proposed by the Planning Commission, having Resource-based Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M), or Heavy Industrial (HI) as authorized zones would violate GMA and the JCC GMA implementing regulations. Resource Lands Other Zones Types Agricultural — Forest — Other Zones Where Only Other Zones Where No Prime and Commercial, Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed Local Rural and Shooting Facility Allowed Inholdin Specific Land Use AG CF/RF/IF Rural Residential -1 DU/5 Resource-based Industrial, Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Light Industrial/Commercial Residential —1 DU/10 (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Acres (RR 1:10), Rural Light Industrial/Manufacturing Residential —1 DU/20 (LI/M), Heavy Industrial (HI)' Acres (RR 1:20),' Convenience Crossroad (CC), NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads (NC), General Crossroad (GC), and Recreation, Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Parks, Preserves and Recreation (PRR) Indoor commercial No C C No shooting facility Outdoor shooting No C No No faciliLyfqBggs 4 Whether to authorize Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities in any rural residential zones is a policy decision to be made by the BoCC. 'As proposed by the Planning Commission, having Resource-based Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M), or Heavy Industrial (HI) as authorized zones would violate GMA and the JCC GMA implementing regulations. Appendix 2 - One Standard Option 18.10.030 C definitions. "Commercial shootingfacility" has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(15 [JCC 8.50.220(15): "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above that for the use of the commercial shooting facility requires a contract, charges a fee or other compensation, or requires membership. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington; (b) Any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. For the avoidance of doubt, where privately owned property is used primarily for lawful shooting practice for guests of the owner, and where the other uses of the property either facilitate shooting practice or are incidental, intermittent or occasional, it is presumed that the privately owned property used for lawful shooting practices is a commercial shooting facility.] 18.10.060 F definitions. "Firearm" has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.040. FJCC 8.50.040: "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short -barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition, or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(2).] 1 Appendix 2 - One Standard Option 18.10.090 I definitions. "Indoor facility" means has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(34). [JCC 8.50.220(34): "Indoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure.] 18.10.130 M definitions. "Minimal impacts" means impacts that do not cause adverse impacts on the human or natural environments that cannot be mitigated by conditions of approval. "Minimal demands on existing infrastructure" means demands that do not cause the need for additional infrastructure, including but not limited to roads, fire protection, water, wastewater disposal or stormwater control that is not provided b,. t�pplicant. 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shootingfacility" means a shooting range that does not meet the definition of commercial shooting facility acility in JCC 8.50.220(15) but also does not qualify for the exceptions to the definition of commercial shootingfacility in JCC 8.50.220(15)(a) or 121 "NRA Range Source Book" has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(39). [JCC 8.50.220(39): "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association.] 18.10.150 O definitions. OtrtElOOF S1 „ ;fin Ra ge. (See "ShOE)ti i_� "ge—.11) "Outdoor shooting facility means any use that includes a shooting range whether or not it is an outdoor commercial shootingfacility. However, outdoor shootingfacility acility does not include shooting ranges that do not meet the exceptions for a commercial shooting facility in JCC 8.50.220(15)(a) or (b). "Outdoor commercial shooting facility" has the same meaning as outdoor facility in JCC 8.50.220(45). 2 Appendix 2 - One Standard Option [JCC 8.50.220(45): "Outdoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility.] 18.10.160 P definitions. "Projectile" has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(50). [JCC 8.50.220(50): "Projectile" means an object fired from a firearm.] 18.10.180 R definitions. "Recreational uses" means those activities of a voluntary and leisure time nature that aid in promoting entertainment, pleasure, play, relaxation, or instruction. 18.10.190 S definitions. «Shooting range" means a f edit , eifi al , des oa .,,,a , oa f r safe shOOting etiee has the same meaning as in JCC 8.50.220(61). [JCC 8.50.220(61): "Shooting range" consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges.] "Small-scale recreational or tourist uses" means recreational uses or tourist uses that are reliant upon a rural setting or location, do not include any new residential development beyond that allowed in the underlying land use district, and otherwise meet the performance standards in JCC 18.20.350. 18.10.200 T definitions. "Tourist uses" means used by persons traveling for pleasure or culture. 18.20.170(4) Standards for Cottage Industries (4) All cottage industries shall be subject to the following standards, except as provided for in the West End Planning Area and Brinnon Planning Area — Remote Rural overlay districts as specified in Article VI -L of Chapter 18.15 JCC, Remote Rural Overlay Districts for the West End Planning Area and the Brinnon Planning Area. (a) The cottage industry shall be operated by at least one full-time, bona fide resident in a single- family residence of the parcel on which the proposed use is being requested. (b) The cottage industry may not employ more than four employees on the site who reside off the subject property. Auto and truck repair shall only employ two persons on the site who reside off the subject property. Appendix 2 - One Standard Option (c) Only those buildings or areas as specifically approved by the county may be utilized in the conduct of business. (d) Any business requiring customers to visit the site shall provide adequate on-site parking spaces, in addition to one for each full-time equivalent employee who resides off the subject property, and two for the owners of the property. All parking spaces shall meet the standards of JCC 18.30.100. (e) All structures and outside activities shall be so located or screened from adjacent properties to avoid disturbances through glare, noise, dirt or other nuisances or hazards. (f) All activity related to the conduct of the business or industry, except for activities related to the growing and storing of plants, shall be conducted within an enclosed structure or be sufficiently screened from view of adjacent residences. (g) All cottage industry activities shall be sufficiently screened from view of adjacent residences, using site location, topography, landscaping, fencing, the retention of native vegetation, or a combination thereof necessary to meet the Type A screening requirements of JCC 18.30.130. (h) Traffic generated by the cottage industry shall not exceed the level of service adopted for the public roadway which accesses the use, nor generate significant traffic in excess of that normally generated by typical uses found within the particular district. (i) No business may provide drive-through service. 0) Cottage industries shall be limited in their hours of operation. No business on-site customer service shall be conducted before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and before 9:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. (k) The administrator may attach additional conditions or requirements, or may make modifications to the site plan where necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. (1) The granting of the proposed cottage industry use shall not constitute a rezone. No expansions of approved cottage industries are permitted, except as specified in Article VI -L of Chapter 18.15 JCC, Remote Rural Overlay Districts for the West End Planning Area and the Brinnon Planning Area, concerning the rural remote overlay districts. (m) No exterior display of goods for sale shall be allowed. (n) The cottage enterprise is an accessory use to the residential use of a dwelling unit, and the residential function of the buildings and property shall be maintained. (o) Any new structure constructed to accommodate the cottage industry shall be limited in scale so that it is in character with neighboring properties. In no case shall more than 5,000 square feet of total building area on the property be devoted to the cottage industry. .19 Appendix 2 - One Standard Option (p) No more than one sign is allowed, consistent with the sign standards in JCC 18.30.150. (q) No on-site direct retail sales of products not produced on-site are allowed, except for items collected, traded and occasionally sold by hobbyists, such as coins, stamps and antiques, and their accessories. (r) Minimum parcel size shall be one acre gross site area. (s) No use shall be made of equipment or material which produces unreasonable vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, or electrical interference to the detriment of the quiet use and enjoyment of adjoining and surrounding property. Any after-hours business activities shall not have noise impacts discernible beyond the property boundaries. (t) Not more than one cottage industry shall be allowed in or on the same premises. (u) The proposed cottage industry shall comply with the standards and requirements of the Jefferson County environmental health department. (v) Where shooting firearms is associated with a cottage industry property such property be considered a commercial shootingfacility. 18.20.200(2) on Permitted Home Businesses (2) Permitted home businesses do not include the following: (c) Veterinary clinic or hospital, (d) Uses which are associated with shooting firearms. 18.20.350(8) on Outdoor Shooting Ranges Y N-71 Appendix 2 - One Standard Option - mi Y. S miIiiffittm let sii!e Shall be five Refes; Appendix 2 - One Standard Option Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses 6 Whether to authorize Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities in any rural residential zones is a policy decision to be made by the BoCC. 'As proposed by the Planning Commission, having Resource-based Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M), or Heavy Industrial (HI) as authorized zones would violate GMA and the JCC GMA implementing regulations. Resource Lands Other Zones Types Agricultural Forest — Other Zones Where Only Other Zones Where No — Prime and Commercial, Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed Local Rural and Shooting Facility Allowed Inholdin Specific Land Use AG CF/RF/IF Rural Residential —1 DU/5 Resource-based Industrial, Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Light Industrial/Commercial Residential —1 DU/10 Acres (LI/Q, Light Industrial (LI), (RR 1:10), Rural Light Residential —1 DU/20 Acres Industrial/Manufacturing (RR 1:20),6 Convenience (LI/M), Heavy Industrial (Hn' Crossroad (CC), NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads (NC), General Crossroad (GC), and Recreation, Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Parks, Preserves and Recreation (PRR) Indoor commercial No C C No shooting facility Outdoor shooting No C No No faciliLyfqBggs 6 Whether to authorize Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities in any rural residential zones is a policy decision to be made by the BoCC. 'As proposed by the Planning Commission, having Resource-based Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M), or Heavy Industrial (HI) as authorized zones would violate GMA and the JCC GMA implementing regulations. Appendix 3 — Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations �qes©N CCj JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 2 360-379-4450 1 email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us I NG�fl http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/580/Planning-Commission To: Board of County Commissioners From: Planning Commission Date: November 19, 2018 Subject: Planning Commission recommendations on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code, Title 18 relating to shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County Honorable Commissioners Sullivan, Ner, and Dean: The Jefferson County Planning Commission is pleased to transmit to the Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC") our recommended draft ordinance modifying Title 18 JCC relating to shooting facilities. The findings and recommendations presented in this transmittal, were approved with a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission on November 19, 2018. This report summarizes the process and the work product related to the proposed ordinance. Process On December 18, 2017, the BoCC approved a one-year moratorium on new and the expansion of existing commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County. The moratorium was passed in order to protect the public safety and ensure future viability of commercial shooting facilities. The moratorium prohibits the "submission, acceptance, processing or approval of any Jefferson County permit application for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the siting, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility, during the period of development of an ordinance." Jefferson County Ordinance No. 05-1218-17. The moratorium defines a commercial shooting facility as a "commercial facility have one or more shooting ranges that for use of the facility require a contract, charge a fee, or require membership." Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 contained a workplan that required establishment of a review committee to advise to staff in the development of a commercial shooting facility ordinance ("CSFO"). The workplan required presentation by staff of a draft CSFO to the BoCC by August 23, 2018. The review committee established by Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 met 16 times over a number of months for a total of over 40 hours and developed a draft CSFO under Title 8 JCC, the Health and Safety Code, requiring an operating permit for any new or established commercial shooting facility in unincorporated Jefferson County. The detailed history of the work of the review committee is at httys://co.iefferson.wa.us/1291/Commercial- Shooting-Facility-Review-Comm. The draft CSFO ordinance was transmitted to the BoCC by staff as Appendix 1 to an August 23, 2018 Staff Report. The August 23, 2018 Staff Report described the review committee process and the draft CSFO ordinance. The BoCC was briefed by staff twice on the staff report and draft CSFO ordinance, once on August 26, 2018 and again on September 9, 2018. On September 10, 2018 the BoCC referred to the Planning Commission and staff the development of a draft ordinance under Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code ("JCC") otherwise known as the Unified Development Code ("UDC"). The draft UDC ordinance was described in the August 23, 2018 staff report. The proposed ordinance amending the UDC relating to shooting facilities did not require that the CSFO be adopted before considering draft UDC ordinance. The draft UDC ordinance clarifies definitions, clarifies the small-scale tourist and recreation uses, and updates allowable and prohibited uses under the PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners JCC 18.15.40 Table 3-1 "Allowable and Prohibited Uses". The draft UDC ordinance could be considered independently of the proposed CSFO. However, on November 2, 2018, the BoCC adopted a CSFO in Ordinance No. 12-1102-18. On September 17, 2018 staff made a presentation to the Planning Commission describing potential loopholes in the UDC that would be closed by the draft UDC ordinance. A second staff briefing to the Planning Commission took place on October 17, 2018 when a proposed draft UDC ordinance was provided. The Planning Commission accepted written comments from October 24, 2018 until November 16, 2018 regarding the draft UDC ordinance. Public Hearing The Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepting verbal and written testimony, on the proposed draft UDC ordinance on November 7, 2018. Proposed Amendments to Unified Development Code 1. Summary of Proposal and Amendments Selected definitions are updated, improved, and consistent. Outdoor commercial shooting facilities become a Conditional Use Permit (Type III) in Commercial Forest, Rural Forest, and Inholding Forest. • Non-commercial shooting facilities continue to require a Conditional Use Permit (Type 111) in Commercial Forest, Rural Forest, and Inholding Forest. This changes JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1, Allowable and Prohibited Uses from "outdoor shooting ranges" to "non-commercial shooting ranges". This use still requires compliance with the small-scale tourist and recreation use criteria. Consistency updates to the small-scale tourist and recreation use criteria, JCC 18.20.350(8). 2. Definitions (underlines are additions and st*etheughs are proposed deletions) 18.10.030 C definitions. "Commercial shooting_ facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting Practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training_for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington. or any political subdivision of the State of Washington: (b) Any Portion of a Privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners 18.10.060 F definitions. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition: or. (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.&C. 4„921(@)(2).. 18.10.090 i definitions. "Indoor facility" mans a commercial shooting facility within a fulhr enclosed structure. 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shoofing facility" means any portion of a Privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely 4v its owner or the owner's guests without Payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned proeg_rty or to any other person. "NRA Ran1g Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. 18.1 a 150 O definitions. " "j "0�, tdoor commercial shooting facility" means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility. 18.10.160 P definitions. "Proiectile" means an object fired from a firearm. 18.10.190 S definitions. "Shooting range" consists of a firing line or firing points. and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges. 3. fable 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Use Table (,"Use Table") (underlines are additions and stfiketleughs are proposed deletions) PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners 4. Modifications to the small-scale tourist and recreation uses WCC 18.20.35018)) (underlines are additions and stAkethFoughs are proposed deletions) (8) Non-commercial shooting facilities. Non- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of amFnwnAiGaprojecfles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The Sections I and II of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used, and 3 of theema"fl-WAYA as minimum guidelines in the design and construction and operation of shooting ranges; (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; Resource Lands Other Zones Types Forest - Other Zones Where Other Zones Where No Agricultural Commercial, Only Indoor Shooting Facility Allowed - Prime and Rural Commercial Shooting Local and Inholding Facility Allowed Specific Land AG CF/RF/IF Rural Residential -1 Resource-based Industrial, Use DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Light Industrial/Commercial Rural Residential -1 (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Light Rural Residential -1 Industrial/Manufacturing DU/20 Acres (RR 1:20), (LI/M), Heavy Industrial (HI) Convenience Crossroad (CC), NeighborhoodiVisitor Crossroads (NC), General Crossroad (GC), and Recreation, Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Parks, Preserves and Recreation PRR Indoor commercial No C C No shoobno facifity Outdoor No C No No commercial shooting facility OUtdeer-shaeliflg fangoG NO G No No Non-commercial No C No No shooting facility 4. Modifications to the small-scale tourist and recreation uses WCC 18.20.35018)) (underlines are additions and stAkethFoughs are proposed deletions) (8) Non-commercial shooting facilities. Non- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of amFnwnAiGaprojecfles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The Sections I and II of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used, and 3 of theema"fl-WAYA as minimum guidelines in the design and construction and operation of shooting ranges; (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners (d) The sheeting areasshootina ranges shall be surrounded by an eight -foot -high noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, or be located in a minimal eight -foot deep depression; (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet, or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; (f) No structure or sheiating aFeasshoofingnes associated with a shWbAfl Fangenon-commercial shooting facility shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line; (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All shooting areasshooting ranges must be completely fenced; and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. Required Findings In support of this recommendation for the Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments, the Planning Commission enters the following findings and conclusions: I. Required findings; adapted from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b)(i-iii) (i) Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan's implementing regulations (Title 18, Jefferson County Code / Unified Development Code) require updates to ensure consistency, improve usability, and close loopholes. Circumstances have substantially changed in the County requiring these updates. On November 2, 2018, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") passed Ordinance No. 12-1102-18, the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance ("CSFO"), which adopts health and safety regulations relating to commercial shooting facilities in the County. (ii) Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid; or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that new information relating to shooting facilities is available, which was not considered in the adopted Comprehensive Plan, nor the draft Comprehensive Plan periodic review and update. Information includes application of development regulations and their impacts on the County. PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners (iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? The Planning Commission finds the proposal reflects currently widely held values. The Planning Commission received extensive public comment on this proposal. Unlike the public comment asserts, this proposal expressly names an potential unnamed use (commercial shooting facility), limiting the proposed use's location to the rural forest, commercial forest, and inholding forest zoning classifications as a conditional use permit. Under the current development regulations, an unnamed use may be located in substantially more zoning classifications than this proposal. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal reflects currently widely held values. II. Required Findings from JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii) Growth Management Indicators I) Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? The Planning Commission finds that in part that development is occurring slower than envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? The Planning Commission finds that the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not diminished or increased relating to this proposal. iii) Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? The Planning Commission finds there is sufficient urban land as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. IV) Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid? The Planning Commission finds that all assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are valid. V) Are there changes in the county -wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement? The Planning Commission finds that the county -wide attitudes have changed since the last adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, major amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are currently being deliberated by the BoCC, including amendments to the Comprehensive Plan's Vision Statement. Changes in county -wide attitude necessitate the proposal. vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that changes in circumstances require the proposal, which updates the Comprehensive Plan's implementing development regulations. This 6 PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners Includes changes in county -wide attitudes relating to commercial shooting facilities, siting issues, and potential loopholes in the current UDC. vll) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County? The Planning Commission finds that there are no inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan, GMA, and County -wide Planning Policies. III. Additional Findings from JCC 18.45.080(1)(c)(i-vii) I. The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal. The proposal is not site-specific. II. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal requires all site specific proposals to be processed as Type III Conditional Use Permit, which requires the site specific proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in its entirety. III. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not result in probable significant adverse impact county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features. All site specific commercial shooting facilities, will be processed as a Type III Conditional Use Permit, requiring compliance with the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria and the State Environmental Policy Act. IV. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Access; b. Provision of utilities; and c. Compatibility with existing and planning surrounding land uses; The Planning Commission finds that this criteria is not applicable to the proposal. V. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole; PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners The Planning Commission finds that the proposal will not create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result In an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal limits potential future pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. VI. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not materially affect the land use and population projects that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. VII. If within an unincorporated urban growth area ("UGA"), the proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; The Planning Commission finds that this criteria is not applicable to the proposal. VIII. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County -Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, GMA, the Jefferson County county -wide Planning Policies, and other applicable regulations, rules, or statutes. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal requires all site specific proposals to be processed as Type III Conditional Use Permit, which requires the site specific proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in its entirety. [end of required findings] PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners Recommendations Based upon formal deliberation concerning these proposed amendments reviewed under MLA18-00098, the Planning Commission recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners include the following: 1. The proposed changes to 18.30.0 definitions are recommended as approved. 2. The proposed changes to 18.60.F definitions are recommended as approved. 3. The proposed changes to 18.90.1 definitions are recommended as approved. 4. The proposed changes to 18.140.N definitions are recommended as approved. 5. The proposed changes to 18.150.0 definitions are recommended as approved. 6. The proposed changes to 18.160.P definitions are recommended as approved. 7. The proposed changes to 18.190.S definitions are recommended as approved. 8. The proposed changes to 18.20.350(8) are recommended as approved, as modified as follows: a. 18.20.350(8)(d) should be modified to read: The shooting ranges shall be surrounded by a minimum sixteen -foot high above grade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm, or wall.; and, b. 18.20.350(8)(h) should be modified to read: All shooting ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. 9. The proposed changes to Table 3-1 Allowable and Prohibited Uses for Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities are recommended as approved. 10. The proposed changes to Table 3-1 Allowable and Prohibited Uses for Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities are recommended as approved, except as follows: a. Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Residential — 1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR 1:20) should be listed as "No" in the column for Other Zones Where Only Indoor Shooting Facility Allowed; and, b. Resource-based Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light IndustriaUManufacturing (LI/M), Heavy Industrial (HI) should listed as "C° in the column for Other Zones Where Only Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed. 11. Additional requirements should be added to Title 18 JCC as follows: a. 18.010 A definitions should be amended to add a definition of armed forces as follows: "'Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." b. 18.160 P definitions should be amended to add a definition for paramilitary organization as follows: "'Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of a the armed forces. c. A new section "18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be added as follows: 18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited at any commercial shooting facility or any non-commercial shooting facility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shooting facility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a minimum 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. A revised proposed ordinance is attached as Appendix 1. The Planning Commission wishes to thank the Board for the opportunity to work in our communities and bring forward these recommendations. We took forward to working with the Board on the implementation projects that follow from the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners Transmitted File Location The transmitted files that accompany these finding and recommendations are located in the Community Development Laserfiche repository, accessible with the following web link: bo://test.co.icffemn.wa.WweblinkextemaVO/foVI 998072fRow I.Mx Sincerely, Michael Nilssen Planning Commission Chair 10 PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners APPENDIX 1 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF WASHINGTON An Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 JCC } with the Commercial Shooting Facilities } ORDINANCE NO. 12-1102-18 Ordinance No. } WHEREAS, on December 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopted Ordinance No. 05-1218-17. an Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County (the Moratorium); and, WHEREAS, staff recommended changes to Title 18 JCC in order to harmonize Title 18 JCC with the new draft Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a hearing and has received public comment on the draft ordinance proposed by staff that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8,50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendations to the BoCC regarding the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8,50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission's consideration of the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC, the BoCC has held a hearing and has received public comment on the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, in response to the public comment and testimony, additional improvements to the proposed ordinance that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained that: Section 1. Modification of Title 18 JCC. Title til JCC shall be modified as set forth in Appendix A, including as follows: E�m b. Approve the use of indoor commercial shooting facilities that improves Title 18 JCC and would comply with the new commercial shooting facility ordinance, the followingzones with as a conditional use: Convenience Crossroad (CC), General Crossroad (GC), Heavy Industrial (HI), Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light 1 of 12 Industrial/Manufacturin2 (LI/Ml). Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads (NC). Parks, Preserves and Recreation (PRR), but, not allowed in the following zones: Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Residential — 1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR 1:20).iff all zeftes, eyeep "apieultuml researee-lands(agi+eu!Wrallands) ... "ifidust use, heavy OF mseuur-ee based" "lige iadus**tAal.-2 2of12 112! 1 • / 1 WIN" MR 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1111 Mr.Wl. / 1 Y. "S NO INEIIIIII / 111 1 1 2of12 Eb. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.090: "`Indoor facility' means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure." d c. Add definitions to Title 18 JCC needed for consistency with the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance. For example, a definition of commercial shooting facility that incorporates the definition in the new commercial shooting facility ordinance shall be added to Title 18. Specifically: L Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.030: "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington; (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. ii. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.060: "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short - barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition; or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. §921 (a)(2). iii. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.140: "`Non-commercial shooting facility' means any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person." 3of12 iv. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.140: "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. V. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.150: "`Outdoor commercial shooting facility' means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility." vi. Delete the definition of "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.10.150. i. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.160: "`Projectile' means an object fired from a firearm." ii. The definition of"shooting range" in JCC 18.10.190 shall be changed to "`Shooting range' consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges." e.d. Modify JCC 18.20.350(8) for small-scale recreation and tourist uses and other provisions of Title 18 JCC that improves it and would be consistent with the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance, while preserving their limitations for uses in effect before adoption of the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance. Specifically: i. Change "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8), to "non-commercial outdoor shooting ranges." ii. Change "ammunition" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) to "projectile." iii. Change "NRA Range Manual" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(b) to "NRA Source Book." iv. Change "shooting areas" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(d) JCC 18.30.350(8)(f), and JCC 18.20.350(8)(h) to "shooting ranges." V. Change "shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(fl to "non-commercial shooting facility." €e. Modify Table 3-1 in Title 18 that improves it and would be consistent with the new commercial shooting facility ordinance and the Growth Management Act (GMA), while preserving their limitations for uses in effect before adoption of this ordinance. Specifically: 4of12 Change "outdoor shooting ranges" used in Table 3-1 to "non-commercial shooting facilities." ii -.—Add "indoor commercial shooting facilities" to Table 3-1 in the following zones as a conditional use: Convenience Crossroad (CC), General Crossroad (GC), Heavy Industrial (HI), Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M)), Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads (NC), Parks, Preserves and Recreation (PRR), but, not allowed in the following zones: Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Residential — 1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR ,&affietilkir-al FeSOHF6L- lands (agFieultufal lands)," "ifidustlial use, heavy eF ii. Add outdoor commercial shooting ranges to Table 3-1 as a conditional use in RF, CF and IF zones only. f. Add the following_ provisions as recommended by the Jefferson County_ Planning Commission on November 19, 2018: L The proposed changes to 18.20.350(8) are recommended as approved, as modified as follows: (a) 18.20.350(8)(d) should be modified to read: The shooting ranges shall be surrounded by_a minimum sixteen -foot high above grade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm, or wall.; and, (b) 18.20.350(8)(h) should be modified to read: All shooting ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. ii. 18.010 A definitions should be amended to add a definition of armed forces as follows: "`Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." iii. 18.160 P definitions should be amended to add a definition for paramilitary organization as follows: "`Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of a the armed forces. iv. A new section "18.20.4230 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be added as follows: 5of12 18.20.4320 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited any commercial shooting facility or any non- commercial shootingfacility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shooting facility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a 500 -yard buffer around an lake greater than 20 acres in size. Section 2. Findings. The BoCC hereby adopts the above recitals (the "WHEREAS" statements) as its findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared separate and severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, then the remainder of this Ordinance or application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances shall remain valid and unaffected. Section 4. Repeal and Replace. The changes authorized above are to repeal and replace the relevant provisions in Title 18 JCC. However, legal nonconforming uses that have been established prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall continue to be bound by the requirements in JCC 18.20.350(8) as it existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption. (SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE) 6of12 ADOPTED this day of 2018, at _ _ a.m. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Gallaway, Deputy Clerk of the Board 7of12 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Kathleen Kler, Member Kate Dean, Member APPROVED AS TO FORM: Philip C. Hunsucker, Date Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney APPENDIX A PROPOSED ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO DEFINITIONS: 18.010 A definitions. "`Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." 18.10.030 C definitions. (1) "Commercial shootingfacility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington; (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. 18.10.060 F definitions. "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a proiectile or proiectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short - barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition; or. (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(2) 8of12 18.10.090 I definitions. "Indoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure. 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shootingfacility" acility" means any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting_ practice solely y its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. 18.10.150 O definitions. Q -1 -A -d -A -A -F Sheeting Range. (See "Sheefing „J "Outdoor commercial shootingfacility" acility" means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility. 18.10.160 P definitions. "`Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of a the armed forces. "Projectile" means an object fired from a firearm. 18.10.190 S definitions. "Shooting range" consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shootingfacility acility may include multiple shooting ranges. PROPOSED CHANGES TO JCC 18.20.350(8): (8) OtAdeef Sheeting RatigesNon-commercial shooting facilities. Non- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of an man.- projectiles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The Sections I and II of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used in , and as minimum guidelines in the design, and construction and operation of shooting ranges; 9of12 (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; (d) The sheetingar-easshooting ranges shall be surrounded by an ei&sixteen-foot-high above rg ade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, deep depressie�t; (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet, or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; (f) No structure or sheeting areasshooting ranges associated with a sheefingmAgenon- commercial shooting facility shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line; (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All sheetinga}easshooting_ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet; and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. 18.20.420 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited any commercial shootingfacility or any non-commercial shootingfacility. acility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shootingfacility acility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. 10 of 12 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE USE TABLE: Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses. 11 of 12 Resource Lands Other Zones Tvves Forest — Other Zones Where Only Other Zones Where No Agricultural Commercial, Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed — Prime and Rural Shooting Facility Allowed Local and Inholdin Specific AG CF/RF/IF Convenience Crossroad Rural Residential —1 Land Use (CC), General Crossroad DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), (GC), Heavy Industrial Rural Residential —1 (HI), Industrial, Light DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Industrial/Commercial Rural Residential —1 (LI/C), Light Industrial DU/20 Acres (RR LI Li ht 1:20 Ind ustrial/Manufacturin2 industrial, 'glut (LI/M)), Irondale and Port Hadlock UrbanLight Growth Area (UGA), Neighborhood/Visitor IndustrAMManufaet Crossroads (NC), Parks, Preserves and Recreation 041) PRR)Rural Residential . , Rural Residential i , DU/20 Aeres (RR , fCC+, NeighboFhoodAlisito Crossroads-(N4C}; General Crossroad (GC-)-, and Port 14adloeli UFban Indoor No C C No commercial shooting facility Outdoor No C No No commercial shooting facility 11 of 12 9ttiee Sheeting fanges NO E No No Non- No C No No commercial shooting facilit 12 of 12 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan St. SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA F:360-379-44501 Port Townsend WA 98368 Jefferson County Superior Courtroom plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us November 19, 2018 -------------------------------_--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W Opening Business 5:30pm • Call to Order/Roll Call • Approval of Agenda Deliberations 5:45pm • Staff summarizes code amendment process • Review and deliberate on the draft UDC Amendments Relating to Shooting Facilities in Jefferson County Adjournment 7:30pm Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work! ,ON O0 -�C "ON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommunitydevelopment O� Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451 1 Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us `QSN I N G� Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning Date: November 18, 2018 Issued by: Austin Watkins, Planning Manager, UDC Administrator Subject: Summary of comments regarding proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code, Title 18 relating to shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County Summary Jefferson County proposes amendments to the Unified Development Code, Title 18 relating to shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County ("proposal"). On October 24, 2018, Jefferson County noticed the proposal with a comment period of October 24, 2018 until November 16, 2018. On November 7, 2018, the Jefferson County Planning Commission held a public hearing receiving verbal and written testimony regarding the proposal. Jefferson County received a total of 77 written comments regarding the proposal. All timely written comments received are attached. During the November 7, 2018 Planning Commission public hearing 21 individuals gave verbal testimony regarding the proposal. The proposal includes text amendments to the Jefferson County Unified Development Code, which are development regulations. Jefferson County is not considering any specific proposals for shooting facilities under the current proposal. Summary of Written Comments Of the 77 written comments received, the vast majority oppose the current proposal. Below is a list of common themes from the comment letters: General • Oppose any additional shooting facilities. • Oppose military and paramilitary training. • Favor small scale shooting ranges. Indication that current code only allows small scale shooting ranges. • Desire to leave the UDC as currently written. • Indication that additional loopholes in the UDC exist, such as cottage industries. • Indicate a lack of State Environmental Policy Act review. • Belief that the proposal is inconsistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. • Comments that shooting facilities are not an essential public facility under the UDC or Comprehensive Plan. • Lack of code enforcement in Jefferson County. • Existing negative impacts from the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association and outdoor shooting ranges in residential areas. • Possible implications on property rights. • Oppose aircraft movements, including helicopters. • Desire to maintain the current use of Tarboo Lake for recreational purposes. Summary of Comments —November 18, 2018 "ON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommunitydevelopment O� Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451 1 Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us `QSN I N G� Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning • Desire to maintain Jefferson County's rural character. • Desire to maintain Jefferson County's rural economy. • Impacts to existing and proposed business which rely on the peaceful nature of the area surrounding Tarboo Lake. • Comments relating to opposition of the commercial shooting facility ordinance. Environment • Environmental impacts from future proposed shooting facilities. • Possible lead contamination from shooting facilities. • Restoration efforts of Tarboo Creek and surrounding environs. Noise and Human Health • Noise impacts from future proposed shooting facilities. • Potential impacts to humans relating to noise, environment, and public safety. • Desire for limitation on days and hours of operations. Tarboo Ridge Coalition proposal [included as common theme from written comments] • No outdoor night shooting. • Limit on number of firing points. • No aircraft. • No overnight accommodations. • Nuisance noise defines and prohibited. • Military and law enforcement certification. • 500-yeard buffer around lakes. • 1,000 foot setback from property lines. • Clear definition that gun ranges are not essential public facilities. • Clear definition that gun ranges are small-scale recreation and tourist uses. Agency Comments • Department of Ecology commented that shooting facilities typically have lead and other environmental contaminations. Staff Review The Jefferson County Department of Community Development has reviewed timely written and verbal testimony and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval on the proposal as drafted. Existing land use regulations in Title 18 JCC, including the applicable conditional use requirements that would apply to a proposed commercial shooting facility, and the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") require significant protections related to siting a commercial shooting facility. In particular, for siting any facility, the SEPA checklist mandated by state law and Title 18 JCC requires mitigation of almost all of the concerns raised in the comments, including impacts from noise, impacts Summary of Comments —November 18, 2018 2 "ON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommunitydevelopment O� Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451 1 Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us `QSN I N G� Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning to critical areas, and other impacts to the environment. A number of the suggestions in comments were considered but not adopted by the County Board of Commissioners in connection with its adoption on November 2, 2018 of Ordinance No. 12-1102-18, the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance, codified in Article III of Chapter 8.50 JCC. All written testimony is attached for the Planning Commission's inclusion during deliberation. Comments may also be viewed at http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/O/fol/1898074/Rowl . aspx. Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mon-Thurs 9am - 4:30pm, closed from 12-1 Ph: 360-379-4450 Fax: 360-379-4451 Summary of Comments —November 18, 2018 APPENDIX 1 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF WASHINGTON An Ordinance Amending Title 18 JCC } relating to Shooting Facilities } ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance No. } WHEREAS, on December 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopted Ordinance No. 05-1218-17, an Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County (the Moratorium); and, WHEREAS, staff recommended changes to Title 18 JCC relating to shooting facilities and the new draft Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a hearing and has received public comment on the draft ordinance proposed by staff that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new draft Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendations to the BoCC regarding the draft ordinance proposed by staff that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new draft Article 111, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission's consideration of the draft ordinance proposed by staff that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC, the BoCC has held a hearing and has received public comment on the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new draft Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, in response to the public comment and testimony, additional improvements to the proposed ordinance that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new draft Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained that: Section 1. Modification of Title 18 JCC. Title 18 JCC shall be modified as set forth in Appendix A, including as follows: a. Approve the use of indoor commercial shooting facilities that improves Title 18 JCC and would comply with the new commercial shooting facility ordinance, , Ghapte 8-5,��in all zones, except "agricultural resource lands (agricultural lands)," "industrial use, heavy or resource-based" or "light industrial." 1 of 10 b. Agricultural resource lands, industrial use, heavy or resource-based or light industrial zones should not be included as zones for indoor commercial shooting facilities because these are uses that are limited by GMA and the JCC provisions that implement GMA. JCC 18.10.10 defines agricultural resource lands (agricultural lands) as: "lands that are primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animals products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, seed, or Christmas trees not subject to the excise tax imposed by RCW 84.33.100 through 84.33.140, finfish in upland hatcheries, or livestock, and that have long-term commercial significance for agricultural production (RCW 36.70A.030(2)). Agricultural resource lands are divided into two land use designations, prime (AP -20) and local (AL -20), in the Comprehensive Plan." JCC 18.25.020(1)(a) states: "The purpose of the prime agricultural lands district is to protect and preserve areas of prime agricultural soils for the continued production of commercial crops, livestock, or other agricultural products requiring relatively large tracts of agricultural land. It is intended to preserve and protect the land environment, economy and lifestyle of agriculture in Jefferson County. These lands must be protected as `agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance'." JCC 18.25.020(1)(b) states: "The purpose of the agricultural lands of local importance district is to protect and preserve parcels of land which, while not necessarily consisting of prime agriculture soil or relatively large acreage, are still considered important to the local agricultural economy, lifestyle and environment. As such they deserve protection as `agricultural lands of long- term commercial significance'." JCC 18.10.090 defines industrial use, heavy or resource- based as: "a use engaged in the basic processing and manufacturing of materials or products predominately from extracted or raw materials or natural resources; a use engaged in storage of or manufacturing processes using flammable, hazardous or explosive materials; or manufacturing processes that potentially involve hazardous or commonly recognized adverse conditions" JCC 18.10.120 defines light industrial as "a use involving: (1) basic processing and manufacturing of materials or products predominantly from previously prepared materials; or (2) finished products or parts, including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of such products, but excluding basic processing of raw materials except food products." C. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.090: "`Indoor facility' means a commercial shooting faEil:has the ^,,:,, . ^^ `inin C-8 50.220(34)—." li within a fully enclosed structure." d. Add definitions to Title 18 JCC needed for consistency with the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance. For example, a definition of commercial shooting facility that 2of10 incorporates the definition in the new commercial shooting facility ordinance shall be added to Title 18. Specifically: Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.030: `Gemmefvial shae ng faeil ty' has rho same meaning as in XG 8.50.220(15 "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shootingfacility. acility. The term commercial shooting fg acility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington, _ (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. ii. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.060: `Fife =ms' has *he same as iXG8.50.04�"Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short -barreled rifle, shotgun, short - barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail suns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition, or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. 021(a)(2). mi. Add she f lley,i . defn tion to rice 18.10 .030: "'NRA Range lycire Book' rum the Sam P, in rrr 8.50.220(39)." viii. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.140: "`Non-commercial shooting facility' means any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person." 3of10 civ. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.140: "`NRA Range Source Beef he-sBook" means the safne fneanifig as in C; 8.501.220 ( -2 _0)"most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. v�.v. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.150: "`Outdoor commercial shooting facility' has teutdoeizaeility'-asiXG9.50.220(4-5)—."means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facilites Zvi. Delete the definition of "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.10.150. i. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.160: "`Projectile' has aha same as in jcc; 9.50.220(W" an object fired from a firearm." ii. The definition of "shooting range" in JCC 18.10.190 shall be changed to "` Shooting range' has the same iXG8ii�consists of a firing line or firing �points, and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges." e. Modify JCC 18.20.350(8) for small-scale recreation and tourist uses and other provisions of Title 18 JCC that improves it and would4e be consistent with the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance, while preserving their limitations for uses in effect before adoption of the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance. Specifically: i. Change "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8), to "non-commercial outdoor shooting ranges." ii. Change "ammunition" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) to "projectile." iii. Change "NRA Range Manual" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(b) to "NRA Source Book." iv. Change "shooting areas" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(d), JCC 18.30.350(8)(f), and JCC 18.20.350(8)(h) to "shooting ranges." V. Change "shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(f) to "non-commercial shooting facility." f Modify Table 3-1 in Title 18- that improves it and would te-be consistent with the new commercial shooting facility ordinance and the Growth Management Act (GMA), while preserving their limitations for uses in effect before adoption of this ordinance. Specifically: 4of10 Change "outdoor shooting ranges" used in Table 3-1 to "non-commercial shooting facilities." ii. Add "indoor commercial shooting facilities" to Table 3-1 as a conditional use in all zones, except "agricultural resource lands (agricultural lands)," "industrial use, heavy or resource-based" or "light industrial." iii. Add outdoor commercial shooting ranges to Table 3-1 as a conditional use in RF, CF and IF zones only. Section 2. Findings. The BoCC hereby adopts the above recitals (the "WHEREAS" statements) as its findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared separate and severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, then the remainder of this Ordinance or application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances shall remain valid and unaffected. Section 4. Repeal and Replace. The changes authorized above are to repeal and replace the relevant provisions in Title 18 JCC. However, legal nonconforming uses that established prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall continue to be bound by the requirements in JCC 18.20.350(8) as it existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption. (SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE) 5of10 ADOPTED this day of 2018, at a.m. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Gallaway, Deputy Clerk of the Board 1 6of10 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Kathleen Kler, Member Kate Dean, Member APPROVED AS TO FORM: Philip C. Hunsucker, Date Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney APPENDIX A PROPOSED ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO DEFINITIONS: 18.10.030 C definitions. ■s�:'e (1) "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting _ facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington, (b) (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. 18.10.060 F definitions. "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an osive such as aunbowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms histol_ rifle. short - barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail Pauns_" which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition, or U.S.C. 021(a)(2).. 18.10.090 I definitions. 7of10 a "destructive device" as defined in 18 ""`Indoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility" has dem facili*��G8.50.z22444 , within a fully enclosed structure. 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shooting facility" means any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. "NRA Range Source Book" has the same ---- iXG8. 5 0.22444, means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. 18.10.150 O definitions. "Outdoor commercial shooting facility" �he same fnea-nin�etqdeef:facility" as in JG0 Q 50 220(4" means a commercial shooting fg acility that is not an indoor facility. 18.10.160 P definitions. "Projectile" _ , .means an object fired from a firearm. 18.10.190 S definitions. "Shooting range" has +he sr XG Q 50 220' 6" mea-Bsconsists of a faeility e^if4e^"' desig eafiring line or firing points, and „sod f r saf an impact area. A commercial shooting t)04600S f r ^ifi^ = M facility may include multiple shooting ranges. PROPOSED CHANGES TO JCC 18.20.350(8): (8) Non-commercial shooting facilities. Non- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of projectiles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The Sections I and 11 of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used in the devel . et:atiefi of fun,.�r eles ' 2 and 3 e� as minimum guidelines in the design, construction and operation of shooting ranges; 8of10 (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; (d) The sheefiffg-afea& hooting ranges shall be surrounded by an eight -foot -high noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, or be located in a minimal eight -foot deep depression; (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet, or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; (f) No structure or shooting a -eas hooting ranges associated with a sheeting fange on - commercial shootingfacility shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line; (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All shooting a -eas hooting ranges must be completely fenced; and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. M 9of10 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE USE TABLE: Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses. 10 of 10 Resource Lands Other Zones Types Forest — Other Zones Where Other Zones Where No Agricultural Commercial, Only Indoor Shooting Facility Allowed — Prime and Rural Commercial Shooting Local and Facility Allowed Inholdin Specific Land AG CF/RF/IF Rural Residential —1 Resource-based Use DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Industrial, Light Rural Residential —1 Industrial/Commercial DU/10 Acres (RR (LI/C), Light Industrial 1:10), Rural (LI), Light Residential — 1 DU/20 Industrial/Manufacturing Acres (RR 1:20), (LI/M), Heavy Industrial Convenience (HI) Crossroad (CC), NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads (NC), General Crossroad (GC), and Recreation, Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Parks, Preserves and Recreation PRR Indoor No C C No commercial shooting facility Outdoor No C No No commercial shooting facilit Otrtdee sheeting N -e G No No Non-commercial No C No No shooting facility 10 of 10 ON C, JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 ��$,o? 360-379-4450 1 email: PlanComm@co.jefferson.wa.us s.'` http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/580/Planning-Commission To: Board of County Commissioners From: Planning Commission Date: November 19, 2018 Subject: Planning Commission recommendations on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code, Title 18 relating to shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County Honorable Commissioners Sullivan, Kler, and Dean: The Jefferson County Planning Commission is pleased to transmit to the Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC') our recommended draft ordinance modifying Title 18 JCC relating to shooting facilities. The findings and recommendations presented in this transmittal, were approved with a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission on November 19, 2018. This report summarizes the process and the work product related to the proposed ordinance. Process On December 18, 2017, the BoCC approved a one-year moratorium on new and the expansion of existing commercial shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County. The moratorium was passed in order to protect the public safety and ensure future viability of commercial shooting facilities. The moratorium prohibits the "submission, acceptance, processing or approval of any Jefferson County permit application for any proposed use, development, proposal or project for the siting, construction or modification of any commercial shooting facility, during the period of development of an ordinance." Jefferson County Ordinance No. 05-1218-17. The moratorium defines a commercial shooting facility as a "commercial facility have one or more shooting ranges that for use of the facility require a contract, charge a fee, or require membership." Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 contained a workplan that required establishment of a review committee to advise to staff in the development of a commercial shooting facility ordinance ("CSFO"). The workplan required presentation by staff of a draft CSFO to the BoCC by August 23, 2018. The review committee established by Ordinance No. 05-1218-17 met 16 times over a number of months for a total of over 40 hours and developed a draft CSFO under Title 8 JCC, the Health and Safety Code, requiring an operating permit for any new or established commercial shooting facility in unincorporated Jefferson County. The detailed history of the work of the review committee is at httmYco.efferso?i.wa.us/1291/Commercial- Shooting-Facility-Review-Comm. The draft CSFO ordinance was transmitted to the BoCC by staff as Appendix 1 to an August 23, 2018 Staff Report. The August 23, 2018 Staff Report described the review committee process and the draft CSFO ordinance. The BoCC was briefed by staff twice on the staff report and draft CSFO ordinance, once on August 26, 2018 and again on September 9, 2018. On September 10, 2018 the BoCC referred to the Planning Commission and staff the development of a draft ordinance under Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code ("JCC') otherwise known as the Unified Development Code ("UDC'). The draft UDC ordinance was described in the August 23, 2018 staff report. The proposed ordinance amending the UDC relating to shooting facilities did not require that the CSFO be adopted before considering draft UDC ordinance. The draft UDC ordinance clarifies definitions, clarifies the small-scale tourist and recreation uses, and updates allowable and prohibited uses under the PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners JCC 18.15.40 Table 3-1 "Allowable and Prohibited Uses". The draft UDC ordinance could be considered independently of the proposed CSFO. However, on November 2, 2018, the BoCC adopted a CSFO in Ordinance No. 12-1102-18. On September 17, 2018 staff made a presentation to the Planning Commission describing potential loopholes in the UDC that would be closed by the draft UDC ordinance. A second staff briefing to the Planning Commission took place on October 17, 2018 when a proposed draft UDC ordinance was provided. The Planning Commission accepted written comments from October 24, 2018 until November 16, 2018 regarding the draft UDC ordinance. Public Hearin The Planning Commission held a public hearing, accepting verbal and written testimony, on the proposed draft UDC ordinance on November 7, 2018. Proposed Amendments to Unified Development Code 1. Summary of Proposal and Amendments Selected definitions are updated, improved, and consistent. 0 Outdoor commercial shooting facilities become a Conditional Use Permit (Type III) in Commercial Forest, Rural Forest, and Inholding Forest. Non-commercial shooting facilities continue to require a Conditional Use Permit (Type III) in Commercial Forest, Rural Forest, and Inholding Forest. This changes JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1, Allowable and Prohibited Uses from "outdoor shooting ranges" to "non-commercial shooting ranges". This use still requires compliance with the small-scale tourist and recreation use criteria. Consistency updates to the small-scale tourist and recreation use criteria, JCC 18.20.350(8). 2. Definitions (underlines are additions and strikethroughs are proposed deletions) 18.10.030 C definitions. "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational trailninq for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ran es located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentafft of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners 18.10.060 F definitions. "Firearm" means a wea on or device from which a promectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol. rifle, short -barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fail within this definition; or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C: §921(a)(2).. 18.10.0901 definitions. "Indoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure. 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shootinn facility" means any portion.of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting ractice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Ranqe Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. 18.10.150 O definitions. "Outdoor commercial shooting facility" means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility. 18.10.160 P definitions. "Proiectile" means an obiect fired from a firearm. 18.10.190 S definitions. "Shooting range consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges. 3. Table 3-1, Allowable and Prohibited Use Table ("Use Table") (underlines are additions and strikethFgughs are proposed deletions) PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners Specific Land Use Indoor commercial shooting facility Outdoor commercial shooting facility Outdoor -&ho t+;g mages Non-commercial Resource Lands Forest — Agricultural Commercial, — Prime and Rural Local and Inholdin AG CF/RF/IF No C No C NO G No 19 Other Zones Types Other Zones Where Other Zones Where No Only Indoor Shooting Facility Allowed Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Residential —1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Rural Residential —1 DU/20 Acres (RR 1:20), Convenience Crossroad (CC), Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC), General Crossroad (GC), and Recreation, Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Parks, Preserves and Recreation (PRR) C No No No Resource-based Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M), Heavy Industrial (HI) 4. Modifications to the small-scale tourist and recreation uses (JCC 18.20.350(8)) (underlines are additions and st ikethrsuos are proposed deletions) (8) Outdow Sheating DaNon-commercial shooting facilities. nut.a^^F sh^^+gag rangesNon- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of ammun4finRprojectiles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The National i Range ManuaiSections I and II of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used in the development and ap "a of s /1 isles 1 arida flf tb8--sa# FeGO 4 ^ ioA&4*-G6tdoor shooting Fanges shall be wsed as minimum guidelines in the design, and construction and operation of shooting ranges; (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners (d) The s#aetinj-afeasshooting rangers shall be surrounded by an eight -foot -high noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, or be located in a minimal eight -foot deep depression, (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet, or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; (f) No structure or &hooting armshooting ranges associated with a shooting -tenon -commercial shooting facility shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line; (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All shooting area6shooting ranges must be completely fenced, and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. Required Findings In support of this recommendation for the Comprehensive Plan and UDC amendments, the Planning Commission enters the following findings and conclusions: Required findings; adapted from JCC 18.45.080 (1)(b)(i-iii) (i) Have circumstances related to the proposed amendment and/or the area in which it is located substantially changed since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan's implementing regulations (Title 18, Jefferson County Code / Unified Development Code) require updates to ensure consistency, improve usability, and close loopholes. Circumstances have substantially changed in the County requiring these updates. On November 2, 2018, the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners ("BoCC") passed Ordinance No. 12-1102-18, the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance ("CSFO"), which adopts health and safety regulations relating to commercial shooting facilities in the County. (ii) Are the assumptions upon which the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is based no longer valid; or is new information available which was not considered during the adoption process or any annual amendments of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that new information relating to shooting facilities is available, which was not considered in the adopted Comprehensive Plan, nor the draft Comprehensive Plan periodic review and update. Information includes application of development regulations and their impacts on the County. PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners (iii) Does the proposed amendment reflect current, widely held values of the residents of Jefferson County? The Planning Commission finds the proposal reflects currently widely held values. The Planning Commission received extensive public comment on this proposal. Unlike the public comment asserts, this proposal expressly names an potential unnamed use (commercial shooting facility), limiting the proposed use's location to the rural forest, commercial forest, and inholding forest zoning classifications as a conditional use permit. Under the current development regulations, an unnamed use may be located in substantially more zoning classifications than this proposal. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal reflects currently widely held values. II. Required Findings from JCC 18.45.050(4)(b)(i) through (4)(b)(vii) Growth Management Indicators i) Is growth and development as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan occurring faster or slower than anticipated, or is it failing to materialize? The Planning Commission finds that in part that development is occurring slower than envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. ii) Has the capacity of the county to provide adequate services diminished or increased? The Planning Commission finds that the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not diminished or increased relating to this proposal. iii) Is there sufficient urban land, as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need? The Planning Commission finds there is sufficient urban land as designated and zoned to meet projected demand and need. iv) Are any of the assumptions upon which the plan is based no longer found to be valid? The Planning Commission finds that all assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan are valid. V) Are there changes in the county -wide attitudes? Do they necessitate amendments to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the basic values embodied within the Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement? The Planning Commission finds that the county -wide attitudes have changed since the last adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. However, major amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are currently being deliberated by the BoCC, including amendments to the Comprehensive Plan's Vision Statement. Changes in county -wide attitude necessitate the proposal. vi) Are there changes in circumstances which dictate a need for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission finds that changes in circumstances require the proposal, which updates the Comprehensive Plan's implementing development regulations. This PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners includes changes in county -wide attitudes relating to commercial shooting facilities, siting issues, and potential loopholes in the current UDC. vii) Do inconsistencies exist between the Comprehensive Plan and the GMA or the Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies for Jefferson County? The Planning Commission finds that there are no inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan, GMA, and County -wide Planning Policies. III. Additional Findings from JCC 18.45.080(1)(c)(i-vii) The proposed site-specific amendment meets concurrency requirements for transportation and does not adversely affect adopted level of service standards for other public facilities and services (e.g., sheriff, fire and emergency medical services, parks, fire flow, and general governmental services); The Planning Commission finds that this is not applicable to the proposal. The proposal is not site-specific. II. The proposed site-specific amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation strategies of the various elements of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal requires all site specific proposals to be processed as Type III Conditional Use Permit, which requires the site specific proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in its entirety. III. The proposed site-specific amendment will not result in probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features that cannot be mitigated, and will not place uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not result in probable significant adverse impact county's transportation network, capital facilities, utilities, parks, and environmental features. All site specific commercial shooting facilities, will be processed as a Type III Conditional Use Permit, requiring compliance with the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria and the State Environmental Policy Act. IV. In the case of a site-specific amendment to the Land Use Map, that the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, the following: a. Access; b. Provision of utilities; and c. Compatibility with existing and planning surrounding land uses; The Planning Commission finds that this criteria is not applicable to the proposal. V. The proposed site-specific amendment will not create a pressure to change the land use designation of other properties, unless the change of land use designation for other properties is in the long-term best interests of the county as a whole; PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners The Planning Commission finds that the proposal will not create pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal limits potential future pressure to change the land use designation of other properties. VI. The proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the land use and population growth projections that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan; The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not materially affect the land use and population projects that are the bases of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. VII. If within an unincorporated urban growth area ("UGA"), the proposed site-specific amendment does not materially affect the adequacy or availability of urban facilities and services to the immediate area and the overall UGA; The Planning Commission finds that this criteria is not applicable to the proposal. VIII. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), the County -Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County, any other applicable inter -jurisdictional policies or agreements, and any other local, state or federal laws. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, while not a site-specific amendment is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, GMA, the Jefferson County county -wide Planning Policies, and other applicable regulations, rules, or statutes. The proposal clarifies definitions, updates references, and expressly allows previously unnamed uses as a Conditional Use Permit, in limited zoning classifications, under the Allowable and Prohibited Uses Table. As currently drafted, commercial shooting facilities are an unnamed use under the Jefferson County Code, which may result in an allowable or conditional use in all zoning classifications. The proposal requires all site specific proposals to be processed as Type III Conditional Use Permit, which requires the site specific proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in its entirety. [end of required findings] PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners Recommendations Based upon formal deliberation concerning these proposed amendments reviewed under MLA18-00098, the Planning Commission recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners include the following: 1. The proposed changes to 18.30.0 definitions are recommended as approved. 2. The proposed changes to 18.60.F definitions are recommended as approved. 3. The proposed changes to 18.90.1 definitions are recommended as approved. 4. The proposed changes to 18.140.N definitions are recommended as approved. 5. The proposed changes to 18.150.0 definitions are recommended as approved. 6. The proposed changes to 18.160.P definitions are recommended as approved. 7. The proposed changes to 18.190.S definitions are recommended as approved. 8. The proposed changes to 18.20.350(8) are recommended as approved, as modified as follows: a. 18.20.350(8)(d) should be modified to read: The shooting ranges shall be surrounded by a minimum sixteen -foot high above grade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm, or wall.; and, b. 18.20.350(8)(h) should be modified to read: All shooting ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. 9. The proposed changes to Table 3-1 Allowable and Prohibited Uses for Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities are recommended as approved. 10. The proposed changes to Table 3-1 Allowable and Prohibited Uses for Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities are recommended as approved, except as follows: a. Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Residential — 1 DUM 0 Acres (RR 1:10), Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR 1:20) should be listed as "No" in the column for Other Zones Where Only Indoor Shooting Facility Allowed; and, b. Resource-based Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M), Heavy Industrial (HI) should listed as "C" in the column for Other Zones Where Only Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed. 11. Additional requirements should be added to Title 18 JCC as follows: a. 18.010 A definitions should be amended to add a definition of armed forces as follows: "'Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." b. 18.160 P definitions should be amended to add a definition for paramilitary organization as follows: "'Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of a the armed forces. c. A new section "18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be added as follows: 18.20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited at any commercial shooting facility or any non-commercial shooting facility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shooting facility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting facility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a minimum 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. A revised proposed ordinance is attached as Appendix 1. The Planning Commission wishes to thank the Board for the opportunity to work in our communities and bring forward these recommendations. We look forward to working with the Board on the implementation projects that follow from the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. 0 PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners Transmitted File Location The transmitted files that accompany these finding and recommendations are located in the Community Development Laserfiche repository, accessible with the following web link: bttp.//Iesi.co.iietferson.wa.us/web l inkexternal/0/fol/ 1898072/Row 1.aspx Sincerely, Michael Nilssen Planning Commission Chair 10 PC Recommendations Ordinance Modifying Title 18 JCC re Commercial Shooting Facilities To Board of County Commissioners APPENDIX 1 11 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON STATE OF WASHINGTON An Ordinance Harmonizing Title 18 JCC } with the Commercial Shooting Facilities } ORDINANCE NO. 12-1102-18 Ordinance No. } WHEREAS, on December 18, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopted Ordinance No. 05-1218-17, an Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson County (the Moratorium); and, WHEREAS, staff recommended changes to Title 18 JCC in order to harmonize Title 18 JCC with the new draft Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a hearing and has received public comment on the draft ordinance proposed by staff that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded its recommendations to the BoCC regarding the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission's consideration of the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC, the BoCC has held a hearing and has received public comment on the draft ordinance proposed by staff that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC; and, WHEREAS, in response to the public comment and testimony, additional improvements to the proposed ordinance that that improves Title 18 JCC and would be consistent with the new Article III, Chapter 8.50 JCC, NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained that: Section 1. Modification of Title 18 JCC. Title 18 JCC shall be modified as set forth in Appendix A, including as follows: a. Approve the use of indoor commercial shooting facilities that improves Title 18 JCC and would comply with the new commercial shooting facility ordinance, the following zones with as a conditional use: Convenience Crossroad (CC), General Crossroad (GC), Heavy Industrial (HI), Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light 1 of 12 Industrial/Manufacturiniz (LUM))_ Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroads (NC), Parks, Preserves and Recreation (PRR), but, not allowed in the following zones: Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), Rural Residential — 1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR 1:20).i* 6F FeS6ztf o.a�lrrgh+ ;, 2of12 „. „. 1111110,111011. 1 19. N. 111111M., IMM W 101. MIMM .. .111111111110-1. . . .. • . . '10, 111111111111111111M. M M� 1- 1 M.. 10 • . . I.M.. W.1111111111, mv I 2of12 Eb. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.090: "`Indoor facility' means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure." d -c. Add definitions to Title 18 JCC needed for consistency with the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance. For example, a definition of commercial shooting facility that incorporates the definition in the new commercial shooting facility ordinance shall be added to Title 18. Specifically: i. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.030: "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shooting facility. The term commercial shooting facility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington; (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. ii. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.060: "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short - barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail guns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition; or, (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(2). iii. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.140: "`Non-commercial shooting facility' means any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person." 3of12 iv. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.140: "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. V. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.150: "`Outdoor commercial shooting facility' means a commercial shooting facility that is not an indoor facility." vi. Delete the definition of "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.10.150. i. Add the following definition to JCC 18.10.160: "`Projectile' means an object fired from a firearm." ii. The definition of "shooting range" in JCC 18.10.190 shall be changed to "` Shooting range' consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shooting facility may include multiple shooting ranges." e—. d. Modify JCC 18.20.350(8) for small-scale recreation and tourist uses and other provisions of Title 18 JCC that improves it and would be consistent with the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance, while preserving their limitations for uses in effect before adoption of the new draft commercial shooting facility ordinance. Specifically: i. Change "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8), to "non-commercial outdoor shooting ranges." ii. Change "ammunition" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) to "projectile." iii. Change "NRA Range Manual" in JCC 1820.350(8)(b) to "NRA Source Book." iv. Change "shooting areas" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(d), JCC 18.30.350(8)(f), and JCC 18.20.350(8)(h) to "shooting ranges." V. Change "shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8)(f) to "non-commercial shooting facility." Vie. Modify Table 3-1 in Title 18 that improves it and would be consistent with the new commercial shooting facility ordinance and the Growth Management Act (GMA), while preserving their limitations for uses in effect before adoption of this ordinance. Specifically: 4of12 Change "outdoor shooting ranges" used in Table 3-1 to "non-commercial shooting facilities." Add "indoor commercial shooting facilities" to Table 3-1 in the following zones as a conditional use: Convenience Crossroad (CC). General Crossroad (GC Industrial (HI), Industrial, Light Industrial/Commercial (LI/C), Light Industrial (LI), Light Industrial/Manufacturing (LI/M)), Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), NeighborhoodNisitor Crossroads (NC), Parks, Preserves and Recreation (PRR)_ but. not allowed in the following zones: Rural Residential — 1 DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5). Rural Residential — 1 DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10). Rural Residential — 1 DU/20 Acres (RR 11agrietilttH- 6tir" ,gflElilttir-a lands) » . in&stfial ise, heaA,, OF f:esettf:ee based" ii. Add outdoor commercial shooting ranges to Table 3-1 as a conditional use in RF, CF and IF zones only. f. Add the following provisions as recommended by the Jefferson County Planning Commission on November 19. 2018: i. The proposed changes to 18.20.350(8) are recommended as approved, as modified as follows - (a) 18.20.350(8)(d) should be modified to read: The shooting ranges shall be surrounded by a minimum sixteen -foot high above grade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm, or wall., and, (b) 18.20.350(8) h) should be modified to read: All shooting ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. ii. 18.010 A definitions should be amended to add a definition of armed forces as follows: "`Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." iii. 18.160 P definitions should be amended to add a definition for paramilitm organization as follows: "`Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of a the armed forces iv. A new section "18.20.4-230 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be added as follows: 5of12 18.20.43-20 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited any commercial shootingfacili . or any commercial shootingfacility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shootingfacility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shootingfacility acilit discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shooting _ facility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson Coun , must provide a 500 -.yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. Section 2. Findings. The BoCC hereby adopts the above recitals (the "WHEREAS" statements) as its findings of fact in support of this Ordinance. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared separate and severable. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, then the remainder of this Ordinance or application of its provisions to other persons or circumstances shall remain valid and unaffected. Section 4. Repeal and Replace. The changes authorized above are to repeal and replace the relevant provisions in Title 18 JCC. However, legal nonconforming uses that have been established prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall continue to be bound by the requirements in JCC 18.20.350(8) as it existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective immediately upon adoption. (SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE) 6of12 ADOPTED this day of 2018, at a.m. SEAL: ATTEST: Carolyn Gallaway, Deputy Clerk of the Board 7of12 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS David Sullivan, Chair Kathleen Kler, Member Kate Dean, Member APPROVED AS TO FORM: Philip C. Hunsucker, Date Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney APPENDIX A PROPOSED ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO DEFINITIONS: 18.010 A definitions. "`Armed forces' means the armed forces of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves." 18.10.030 C definitions. (1) "Commercial shooting facility" means an indoor facility or outdoor facility designed and specifically designated for safe shooting practice with firearms, whether open to the public, open only private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above. There may be one or more shooting ranges located at a commercial shootingfacility. The term commercial shootingfacility acility does not include: (a) Shooting facilities that are both owned and operated by any instrumentality of the United States, the State of Washington, or any political subdivision of the State of Washington, (b) Any portion of a privately -owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. 18.10.060 F definitions. "Firearm" means a weapon or device from which a nroiectile or vroiectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder. The definition of "firearm" includes the terms pistol, rifle, short - barreled rifle, shotgun, short -barreled shotgun, machine gun, and antique firearm as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010. The term "firearm" shall not include: (a) devices, including but not limited to "nail suns," which are used as tools in the construction or building industries and which would otherwise fall within this definition_ or. (b) a "destructive device" as defined in 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(2 8of12 18.10.090 I definitions. "Indoor facility" means a commercial shooting facility within a fully enclosed structure. 18.10.140 N definitions. "Non-commercial shooting facility" means any portion of a privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation to the owner of the privately owned property or to any other person. "NRA Range Source Book" means the most current version of The NRA Range Source Book published by the National Rifle Association. 18.10.150 O definitions. "Outdoor commercial shooting _ facility" acility" means a commercial shooting _ facility that is not an indoor facility. 18.10.160 P definitions. "`Paramilitary organization' means a semi -militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and function are similar to those of the armed forces, but which is not included as part of a the armed forces. "Projectile" means an object fired from a firearm. 18.10.190 S definitions. "Shooting range" consists of a firing line or firing points, and an impact area. A commercial shootiniz facilitv may include multiple shootiniz ranizes. PROPOSED CHANGES TO JCC 18.20.350(8): (8) Non-commercial shooting facilities. Non- commercial shooting facilities are subject to the following standards: (a) They shall be located, designed, constructed and operated to prevent the likelihood of discharge of projectiles beyond the boundaries of the parcel where they occur; (b) The Sections I and 11 of the NRA Source Book shall be consulted and used ihedeve-1 . efution of fun,.�r eles 1, 2, and 3 e as minimum guidelines in the design, construction and operation of shooting ranges; 9of12 (c) Warning and trespass signs advising of the range operation shall be placed on the perimeter of the property at intervals no greater than 50 feet; (d) The she shooting ranges shall be surrounded by an sixteen-foot-high above grade noise barrier in the form of an earth berm or wall, at: be lee4ed it ^ minima' eight feet. deep depfessieii; (e) The minimum lot size for an outdoor rifle, trap, skeet, or pistol range used by an organization shall be 10 acres. For an outdoor archery range used by an organization, minimum lot size shall be five acres; (f) No structure or sheepshooting ranges associated with a sheefi g fange on- commercial shooting facility shall be located closer than 100 feet to any lot line; (g) A minimum location of 500 feet is required from any occupied dwelling other than the dwelling of the owner; (h) All sheepshooting ranges must be completely fenced to a minimum height of eight feet; and (i) In the consideration of an application for permit, the approval authority shall take into account both safety and noise factors, and may prescribe additional conditions with respect thereto. 18.20.420 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities (1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited any commercial shooting _ facility acility or any non-commercial shooting _ facility. acility. (2) All outdoor shooting at a commercial shootingfacility must occur only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (3) It is unlawful to land any aircraft at a commercial shootingfacility acility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft or drone at any commercial shootingfacility. acility. (4) Commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County must provide a 500 -yard buffer around any lake greater than 20 acres in size. 10 of 12 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE USE TABLE: Table 3-1. Allowable and Prohibited Uses. 11 of 12 Resource Lands Other Zones Types Forest - Other Zones Where Only Other Zones Where No Agricultural Commercial, Indoor Commercial Shooting Facility Allowed - Prime and Rural Shooting Facility Allowed Local and Inholdin Specific AG CF/RF/IF Convenience Crossroad Rural Residential - 1 Land Use (CC), General Crossroad DU/5 Acres (RR 1:5), (GC), Heavy Industrial Rural Residential - 1 (HI), Industrial, Light DU/10 Acres (RR 1:10), Industrial/Commercial Rural Residential - 1 (LI/C), Light Industrial DU/20 Acres (RR (LI), Light 1.20 Industrial/Manufacturin2 industr4al, (LI/M)), Irondale and Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), Nei2hborhoodNisitor , Light industrial (-h I), bt Crossroads (NC), Parks, , {44} Preserves and Recreation (PR R ]Rtw ,, Resi e tifh 1;5), i ur-n! nes ae tin! 1 , i ur-n! Residential 1 DU/20 Aer-es (RR , (C -C+1 Crossroads (NC-), General Crossroad (CC+, Growth Ar -eft (UGA), ReeFention PR Indoor No C C No commercial shooting facility Outdoor No C No No commercial shooting facility 11 of 12 weer shooting N -e E No No Non- No C No No commercial shooting facility 12 of 12 "ON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommunitydevelopment O� Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451 1 Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us `QSN I N G� Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning Date: November 18, 2018 Issued by: Austin Watkins, Planning Manager, UDC Administrator Subject: Summary of comments regarding proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code, Title 18 relating to shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County Summary Jefferson County proposes amendments to the Unified Development Code, Title 18 relating to shooting facilities in unincorporated Jefferson County ("proposal"). On October 24, 2018, Jefferson County noticed the proposal with a comment period of October 24, 2018 until November 16, 2018. On November 7, 2018, the Jefferson County Planning Commission held a public hearing receiving verbal and written testimony regarding the proposal. Jefferson County received a total of 77 written comments regarding the proposal. All timely written comments received are attached. During the November 7, 2018 Planning Commission public hearing 21 individuals gave verbal testimony regarding the proposal. The proposal includes text amendments to the Jefferson County Unified Development Code, which are development regulations. Jefferson County is not considering any specific proposals for shooting facilities under the current proposal. Summary of Written Comments Of the 77 written comments received, the vast majority oppose the current proposal. Below is a list of common themes from the comment letters: General • Oppose any additional shooting facilities. • Oppose military and paramilitary training. • Favor small scale shooting ranges. Indication that current code only allows small scale shooting ranges. • Desire to leave the UDC as currently written. • Indication that additional loopholes in the UDC exist, such as cottage industries. • Indicate a lack of State Environmental Policy Act review. • Belief that the proposal is inconsistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. • Comments that shooting facilities are not an essential public facility under the UDC or Comprehensive Plan. • Lack of code enforcement in Jefferson County. • Existing negative impacts from the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association and outdoor shooting ranges in residential areas. • Possible implications on property rights. • Oppose aircraft movements, including helicopters. • Desire to maintain the current use of Tarboo Lake for recreational purposes. Summary of Comments —November 18, 2018 "ON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommunitydevelopment O� Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451 1 Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us `QSN I N G� Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning • Desire to maintain Jefferson County's rural character. • Desire to maintain Jefferson County's rural economy. • Impacts to existing and proposed business which rely on the peaceful nature of the area surrounding Tarboo Lake. • Comments relating to opposition of the commercial shooting facility ordinance. Environment • Environmental impacts from future proposed shooting facilities. • Possible lead contamination from shooting facilities. • Restoration efforts of Tarboo Creek and surrounding environs. Noise and Human Health • Noise impacts from future proposed shooting facilities. • Potential impacts to humans relating to noise, environment, and public safety. • Desire for limitation on days and hours of operations. Tarboo Ridge Coalition proposal [included as common theme from written comments] • No outdoor night shooting. • Limit on number of firing points. • No aircraft. • No overnight accommodations. • Nuisance noise defines and prohibited. • Military and law enforcement certification. • 500-yeard buffer around lakes. • 1,000 foot setback from property lines. • Clear definition that gun ranges are not essential public facilities. • Clear definition that gun ranges are small-scale recreation and tourist uses. Agency Comments • Department of Ecology commented that shooting facilities typically have lead and other environmental contaminations. Staff Review The Jefferson County Department of Community Development has reviewed timely written and verbal testimony and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval on the proposal as drafted. Existing land use regulations in Title 18 JCC, including the applicable conditional use requirements that would apply to a proposed commercial shooting facility, and the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") require significant protections related to siting a commercial shooting facility. In particular, for siting any facility, the SEPA checklist mandated by state law and Title 18 JCC requires mitigation of almost all of the concerns raised in the comments, including impacts from noise, impacts Summary of Comments —November 18, 2018 2 "ON JEFFERSON JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street I Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommunitydevelopment O� Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax: 360.379.4451 1 Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us `QSN I N G� Building Permits & Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning to critical areas, and other impacts to the environment. A number of the suggestions in comments were considered but not adopted by the County Board of Commissioners in connection with its adoption on November 2, 2018 of Ordinance No. 12-1102-18, the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance, codified in Article III of Chapter 8.50 JCC. All written testimony is attached for the Planning Commission's inclusion during deliberation. Comments may also be viewed at http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/weblinkexternal/O/fol/1898074/Rowl . aspx. Jefferson County Community Development 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 Mon-Thurs 9am - 4:30pm, closed from 12-1 Ph: 360-379-4450 Fax: 360-379-4451 Summary of Comments —November 18, 2018 Comments to the Jefferson County Planning Commission: Land use impacts of new gun range ordinance From: Scott Freeman 2110 East Quilcene Road Quilcene WA 98376 sfreeman991@gmail.com I am writing to thank the Planning Commission for taking up the issue of how the new Jefferson County ordinance regulating gun ranges impacts land use. Because of the impacts on public safety, noise pollution, and lead and copper contamination, developing new outdoor gun ranges in a way that is compatible with existing land use is fraught—perhaps even impossible in County with a large rural population and a heavy dependence on forestry, tourism, and agriculture as economic engines. To address specific issues in the draft ordinance regulating commercial gun ranges, I would like to make two points on behalf of my family and the Tarboo Ridge Coalitiona group that we actively support: 1. We oppose the use of commercial gun ranges for military and paramilitary training, and 2. We endorse 500 yard setbacks from public waterways and shorelines to protect public safety and preserve the integrity of public recreation areas. One of the most important issues for the Planning Commission concerns a serious technical flaw in the new ordinance: It allows military and paramilitary use, which conflicts with defining gun ranges as SSRT uses. Military and paramilitary use is not small scale, it is not recreational, and it is not tourist—so it should not be allowed under County land -use code. We endorse training by local law enforcement at Jefferson County gun ranges, including municipal police, sheriff s deputies, and tribal officers, and note that local law enforcement entities have confirmed that all of their needs are met by training at the existing range at the Sportsmen's Club. Our military personnel should train at bases where they can operate safely and effectively. In this context, it is important to point out that there are over 940,000 acres of secured facilities in Washington state where military units can train in secret. Military use of privately owned commercial facilities presents issues of intensity and scale that are incompatible with the rural economy and rural residents of Jefferson County. TRC is particularly concerned about this issue because it is not hypothetical: Both military and para -military training were occurring at a gun range near Discovery Bay that was the source of long-term conflicts with the County and that was recently shut down by the landowner. Military use exacerbates all three issues that gun ranges raise: lead and copper contamination, noise, and public safety. The second ask I am making on behalf of TRC's Board and membership and my family concerns setbacks from public shorelines, including lakes and other waterways. Lakes, rivers, and other waterways are public assets that are important for fishing, boating, swimming, and general 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00001 enjoyment of open space. All of these values are compromised by the proximity of a gun range. Even if ranges are directly away from shorelines, the danger posed by stray bullets is real. No responsible parent will be comfortable watching their child swim or boat or fish a stone's throw away from active shootersespecially with shooting at the intensity of a gun range. Jefferson County is a national model for the revitalization of rural American based on innovative family farms and agricultural businesses, small-scale forestry, agricultural tourism, and tourism that is focused on hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, and boating. Our county has become a magnet for young people who are starting rural -based businesses and starting families. Allowing large- scale outdoor gun ranges would be a major and perhaps permanent setback to our vision for the future of Jefferson County and rural America. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00002 Fwd: ZON18 - 00036 Fwd: ZON18 - 00036 Page 1 of 1 X DPH TE REPLY *C— REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• k2 ----- <kkennell@gmail.com> mark as unread Mon 11/5/2018 10:52 PM To: Planning Commission Desk; Bing Maps Action Items Subject: ZON18 - 00036 + Get more apps I am against a new outdoor shooting facility in rural Jefferson County. I am particularly concerned about any paramilitary training going on anywhere in our county. Is this what we want to promote in our rural landscape? How might this impact the ecosystems and the rural residents who have sought out farming in the area and peaceful places for wildlife to thrive? I urge you not to make amendments to the current Title 18 ordinance that keeps these facilities small and recreational. Thank you, K. Kennell PO Box 598 Quilcene, WA 98376 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00003 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/6/2018 Tarboo Ridge firearm proposal Page 1 of 1 Tarboo Ridge firearm proposal X DFiITE +- REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• Ric Brewer <ric.d.brewer@gmail.com> mark as unread Tue 11/6/2018 5:42 AM To: jeffbocc@cojefferson.wa.us; Cc: DCD Front Staff; Planning Commission Desk; #Long -Range Planning; As a landowner in Quilcene and a native resident of the area, I am distressed to hear of this proposal going forward. While I am not anti -firearm or proper training for this kind of activity, the problem with this situation is the prevalent and questionable character of the company making this proposal, the ill-suited nature of this area for this type of activity, and the type of activity that it could encourage. I highly encourage that any legal means necessary go toward denying this proposal from happening. While there may be a short-term "pay-off" for the county in financial terms, the long-term effects --financial, environmental, and cultural --will end up costing far more than it's worth in the long. Ric Brewer Quilcene 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00004 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/6/2018 Leopold -Freeman Forests LLC 8412 36th Avenue NE Seattle WA 98115 USA tel. 206.300.4448 sfreeman991@gmail.com 5 November 2018 Planning Commission Jefferson County Dear Planning Commission Members: I co-own a small forest products company that owns and manages about 215 acres of commercial forest in the Tarboo Creek watershed of east Jefferson County. Our business is registered in Seattle for the purposes of licensing, but all of our operations occur in Jefferson County. Although our company is young and currently small, we are growing into a vertically integrated operation that grows, processes, and sells high-value timber products for furniture and architectural applications. We are following the progress of the Chimacum Community Forest and supporting the effort, and partner with other small milling and wood processing businesses in south Jefferson County. Like the recent renaissance of small-scale agriculture and agritourism throughout the county, we see small-scale, high-value forest products as a key to the continued revitalization of our rural economy. Good things are happening. I am writing because our company is concerned about the recent gun range ordinance, which clears the way for large-scale conversion of commercial forest land in Jefferson County for use as privately owned military and paramilitary training centers. This land use is incompatible with the longstanding commitment of the County to an economy based on forestry and agriculture, and a threat to the growth of innovative forestry based businesses. Architects and contractors tour our forest to choose trees for projects. They will not support our business if those tours are accompanied by automatic weapons fire. Similarly, the young people that we employ to do thinning and pruning work do not want to spend time in a forest that is bombarded with gun noise. Land use decisions are all about what kind of county we want to be. Please support the vision of a growing, vital rural economy in Jefferson County that is grounded in working with and on the land. Protect commercial forestland. Endorse sensible restrictions on the size, location, and intensity of gun ranges, or simply require new ranges to be built indoors. Sincerely, Scott Freeman, Manager 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00005 ZON18-00036 ZON18-00036 Page 1 of 1 X DEiATE F REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• Judy Edwards <judyed45@embargmai1.com> mark as unread Tue 11/6/2018 9:31 AM To: Planning Commission Desk; jeffbocc; Planning Commission Desk; The message sender has requested a read receipt. To send a receipt, click here. Bing Maps Dear Commissioners and Planning committee members, I am thoroughly disappointed in the ordinance passed re new gun range permitting. It seems to me to be ludicrous that we in Jefferson County, who still have a chance to preserve some of the beauty, wildness, and water in our county, would adopt an ordinance requiring even LESS stringent requirements than that passed in Kitsap County!! Specifically - I am aghast that we are allowing ranges (OUTDOOR) within 250 yards of waterfront - whereas Kitsap has required 500 yards! 500 yards seems to me to be the absolute minimum that would possibly preserve our lakes, rivers, creeks and bays. To willfully disregard the safety of the water, the folks who play, swim, fish, boat on and in our waters, and the animals who use this water, is unconscionable! I do not know if the planning commission can still rectify this grossly negligent component of the ordinance or not - but I surely hope so. To open all the county's waterways to this pollution would be a serious mistake injudgement that your grandchildren will hate you for!! Hoping that you come to your senses, I am submitting these remarks, Judy B Edwards 993 Old Tarboo Road Quilcene, WA 98376 + Get more apps 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00006 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/6/2018 Tarboo Ridge Tarboo Ridge Page 1 of 1 X DFiITE +- REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• Linda Huberman <onecloudysummer@yahoo.com> mark as unread Tue 11/6/2018 9:34 AM To: Planning Commission Desk; Action Items + Get more apps As a twenty year permanent resident of Quilcene and forty year visitor, I am appalled at the prospect of a shooting range being allowed in the area. Disturbing the serene nature of this beautiful part of Jefferson County is an abomination. Please, please make the common sense decision to stop this. I have seen Quilcene go from a thriving logging community into hard times and emerge as a retirement haven. Who is going to want to come to this area, buy a property or vacation here with a shooting range disturbing the peace? Furthermore, those who do choose to come for the shooting, bringing their assault weapons into town, are not people I want shopping for groceries across from the school where our children and grandchildren spend their days. I urge you to use good judgement and deny access to this violence producing enterprise. Thank you, Linda Vliet Huberman 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00007 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/6/2018 ZON18-00036, Comments on changes to Title 18 for... - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 1 ZON18-00036, Comments on changes to Title 18 for Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County Riley Parker <rileyparker072@gmail.com> Tue 11/6/2018 10:40 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Dear Planning Commissioners, First let me introduce myself. I am a resident of Quilcene here in Jefferson County, live on Tarboo Ridge, a board member of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition, and a District 3 Representative to the Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County. As you are aware the work of the Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities was focused on Title 8 issues concerning Health and Safety. As we transition to Title 18 to establish appropriate land use rules for siting which "ensures compatibility with neighboring land uses" I would like to provide my perspective to you. I believe the issues surrounding land use is regional and notjust an individual county issue. The creation of an ordinance with less restrictive requirements than its neighboring counties is a recipe for disaster. Having a recently created ordinance in Kitsap County, and Jefferson County using it as a model to create its own ordinance, was a wise decision. There is one specific land use requirement in the Kitsap Ordinance which I believe we should incorporate in our ordinance. Kitsap County chose to establish a 500 yard no shooting setback from 12 public lakes to preserve these aquatic recreational resources for the residents of the State of Washington and future generations. They realized that the noise from an outdoor shooting facility would be incompatible with the enjoyment of the lakes we all use for fishing, swimming and just enjoying the piece and quiet of nature. There are 10 lakes here is Jefferson County, identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which are annually stocked with fish and facilities are provided by either Jefferson County or the State of Washington. These lakes are, Anderson Lake, Gibbs Lake, Horseshoe Lake, Leland Lake, Ludlow Lake, Sandy Shore Lake, Silent Lake, Tarboo Lake, Teal Lake and Yahoo Lake. Please consider including a minimum of 500 yards as a setback from these lakes when you develop land use rules for siting of Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County. There is another requirement in the Kitsap Ordinance which I would also like to bring to your attention. Kitsap chose to place requirements on organized military training because of the intensity of noise from this type of use and the impacts on neighboring lands. May I suggest for your consideration incorporating the Kitsap Ordinance language on military training in the Jefferson County Commercial Shooting Ordinance, again for consistency on a regional basis and for compatibility with neighboring land uses. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these two suggestions. Riley Parker. Sent from my iPad 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00008 https:Howa.cojefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 snuffy@olypen.com Tue 11/6/2018 10:53 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Dear Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners; We oppose any attempt in the County's draft ordinance to re -designate commercial shooting facilities other than small-scale recreational tourist uses. There is no reason to change that designation. There should be no military training, the Federal Government trains our troops. We have Bangor, Naval Air Station Whidbey, Naval Station Everett, and Fort Lewis nearby for that. All new gun ranges should be indoors. That will solve the problems of noise pollution, stray bullets, and environmental pollution. The salmon seem to have more protections than residents do. The proposed range at Tarboo is not in an isolated area. There are families and businesses in the vicinity that will be adversley affected by this proposal. It is not compatible to our agricultural, and peacwful existence. Any new ranges should be 500 yards from any water/lake front. The Kitsap County Ordinance is a good reference to consider Also,a 1000 foot setback from the property line to the nearest edge of any part of the shooting range (bullet safety). There is no basis for granting any commercial shooting range Essential Public Facility (FPF) status. Commercial shooting Page 1 of 2 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00009 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk facilities are not essential to the public welfare of Jefferson County. Commercial shooting ranges are not exempt from zoning laws. In summary, preserve our current land use code and protect our quality of life. It is so very, very important to protect our area. We have lived here over three decades and do not want to be forced out by inappropriate ordinances. Please hear us. Stephen and Christine Edwards 995 Old Tarboo Road Quilcene, WA 98376 Page 2 of 2 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00010 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Emma Bolin From: Patty Charnas Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 2:56 PM To: Austin Watkins Cc: Emma Bolin Subject: FW: ZON18-00036 For the record Patty Charnas - Director Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4493 — Fax 360-379-4451 pcharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us -----Original Message ----- From: jeffbocc Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 2:42 PM To: David Sullivan <dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kathleen Kler <KKler@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Kate Dean <KDean@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Philip Morley <pmorley@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Patty Charnas <PCharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Philip Hunsucker <PHunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: FW: ZON18-00036 -----Original Message ----- From: Judy Edwards <judyed45@embarqmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 9:32 AM To: Planning Commission Desk <PCommission Desk@co.jefferson.wa. us>; jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommission Desk@co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: ZON18-00036 Dear Commissioners and Planning committee members, I am thoroughly disappointed in the ordinance passed re new gun range permitting. It seems to me to be ludicrous that we in Jefferson County, who still have a chance to preserve some of the beauty, wildness, and water in our county, would adopt an ordinance requiring even LESS stringent requirements than that passed in Kitsap County!! Specifically - I am aghast that we are allowing ranges (OUTDOOR) within 250 yards of waterfront - whereas Kitsap has required 500 yards! 500 yards seems to me to be the absolute minimum that would possibly preserve our lakes, rivers, creeks and bays. To willfully disregard the safety of the water, the folks who play, swim, fish, boat on and in our waters, and the animals who use this water, is unconscionable! I do not know if the planning commission can still rectify this grossly negligent component of the ordinance or not - but I surely hope so. To open all the county's waterways to this pollution would be a serious mistake in judgement that your grandchildren will hate you for!! Hoping that you come to your senses, I am submitting these remarks, Judy B Edwards 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00011 993 Old Tarboo Road Quilcene, WA 98376 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00012 Emma Bolin From: Patty Charnas Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 2:57 PM To: Austin Watkins; Emma Bolin Cc: Joel Peterson Subject: RE: Regarding Amendments to Title 18 of the Unified Development Code Please ensure this gets into the record. Joel — Please disregard/do not reply unless Austin has assigned portions of this project for your attention. Thank you very much, Patty Charnas - Director Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone 360-379-4493 — Fax 360-379-4451 pcharnas@cojefferson.wa.us From: jeffbocc Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 2:42 PM To: Austin Watkins <AWatkins@co.jefferson.wa.us> Cc: Patty Charnas <PCharnas@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Joel Peterson <J Peterson @co.jefferson.wa.us> Subject: FW: Regarding Amendments to Title 18 of the Unified Development Code From: franpost254 <franpost254@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2018 9:42 AM To: jeffbocc <ieffbocc@co.iefferson.wa.us> Subject: Regarding Amendments to Title 18 of the Unified Development Code Dear Board of County Commissioners I am writing about my very serious concern regarding your proposed amendments. I believe that there needs to be a setback to the shorelines of any body of water of AT LEAST 500 yards or more for any private use such as gun ranges. In addition if a gun range is developed I believe that there should be restrictions placed upon the sizes and types of weapons used as well as who is trained on these ranges. I am requesting that ANY gun range be used only by individuals for personal use, that only single shot weapons be allowed and that no military or police training be permitted. As it is we listen to noisy and sometimes ongoing overflights by the Navy for hours on end. We do NOT need more racket for the financial gain or pleasure of a few individuals. Sincerely, Fran Post, resident of Jefferson County 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00013 ZON18-00036 ZON18-00036 Page 1 of 1 X DFiITE +- REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• Jan Misner <jan@happytailsranchnw.com> mark as unread Tue 11/6/2018 11:26 AM To: Planning Commission Desk; 5 1 attachment Letter to J-.docx 4 ► Please read my attached letter regarding land use issues on siting of Commercial Shooting Facilities in Jefferson County. Thank you, Jan Misner 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00014 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/6/2018 November 6, 2018 RE: ZON18-00036 Dear Jefferson County Planning Commissioners, I am writing this letter because our way of life here in the Tarboo Valley in Jefferson County WA has come under attack with a proposed Commercial Shooting Facility. According to an application submitted to Jefferson County this 40acre gun range would be located on the shores of Tarboo Lake, a recreational lake for all citizens to use for fishing, boating, picnicking, swimming..... This shooting facility would have 7 shooting ranges, 3 helipads, a gun store, several buildings, a dock and much more. From what I understand the plans are to train the US Military, law enforcement, and the gun range's members. It would be open 7 days a week, with endless loud gunfire including long range repeating assault weapons, helicopters landing and taking off, and simulated bombs. It would pollute Tarboo Lake that feeds into Tarboo Creek, and Dabob Bay with lead and copper from gun residue and discharge. It would destroy the safety, peace, and tranquility of homes and farms in our area, along with Tarboo Lake for recreation, and the surrounding open space regulated by the DNR for hiking, horse riding, and recreating. Over the last decade caring hard working environmental groups and volunteers along with millions of dollars have restored Tarboo Valley. This includes restoring Tarboo Creek that is once again a Salmon run, and the wild life habitat we coexist with here. All of this would be gone with the disruption of a shooting facility moving in. We are residents living north of Quilcene in Jefferson County, WA. just a short distance from the proposed gun range. We live on a farm and I ride and train horses, we have cattle, and a garden. We spend endless hours in the outdoors working and enjoying the peace and tranquility of our farm and the surrounding open space in our area. This would all be lost if this proposed gun range is allowed in our area. Our neighbors for miles around us are feeling the same possibility of loss. We are asking for your help to capture the needed land use issues to keep our homes, farms and open space in this entire valley from being destroyed. Why should all of us living a peaceful caring existence lose it all to such a disturbing change in our lives for one selfish individual moving in for his personal profit. Note: The person proposing the new gun range has filed several law suits against the county through out this entire ordinance building and permitting process. I see this as what might be classified as `paper terrorism' as he is the only one that benefits from the new ordinance as it is now written. Please also note: The person proposing this project has a web site that sells assault weapons and much more. See website: https://www.fortdiscoveryusa.com I urge the County Planning Commission to take under consideration what this beautiful area is now and how it would be destroyed for all who live, work, and recreate here. It would change the entire environment to accommodate only one kind of new commercial business that is polluting, loud, and disturbing to all that are in the vicinity. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00015 November 6, 2018 Here are some thoughts that may be of use in planning for a recreational facility that has so much negative impact on the existing area. Require at a minimum of 500 yards set back from all lakes and streams for all shooting ranges. This would help protect the waters from lead and copper contamination. All shooting ranges have a clean up requirement to remove lead and copper on a regular basis. Lead contamination is a huge issue. It is not just the shells and bullets it is also the residue from the discharge of the weapon. We banned lead from gasoline in 1995. We banned lead in house paint in 1978. It is a health hazard that needs to be addressed. Please see link below to website for more information on lead contamination at shooting ranges. httys:Hehiournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/sl2940-017-0246-0 2. Prohibit "organizational training for all members of the armed forces" at all commercial shooting facilities. We have State and Federal military installations already set up for that kind of training. To also prohibit training of all private and public law enforcement at privately owned commercial ranges. There are also facilities set up for this at police training facilities. Privately owned ranges are to be used for recreational use only. 3. Prohibit commercial shooting facilities from being built near existing public and private lands, lakes, and streams designated for fishing and recreating where there would be a disruption from noise and possible stray bullets. 4. Prohibit commercial shooting facilities from being built near existing homes, farms, roads, and businesses that would be impacted by noise, lead, and possible stray bullets. 5. Limit the hours of operation to a couple days a week with shorter hours. So others can enjoy the outdoors without the impact of loud gunfire, helicopters flying in and out, and bombs going off from 7AM to I OPM 7 days a week. 6. Do not allow aircraft landing sites at shooting ranges. This being said I truly feel any and all new shooting ranges should be constructed indoors in commercial industrial areas where lead, bullets, and noise can all be contained. This would address all the issues that are important to our environment and still give folks who enjoy shooting for recreation a place to go. Thank you for reading this and I hope it helps you to make the right decision on the land use issues that are at stake here. Sincerely, Jan Misner P.O. Box 638 Quilcene, WA 98376 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00016 November 6, 2018 Jan@happytailsranchnw.com 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00017 ZON18-00036 Paramilitary gun range ZON18-00036 Paramilitary gun range Page 1 of 1 X DF.IATE F REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• Leslie Hoge <leslie@hogedesign.biz> mark as unread • Wed 11/7/2018 11:56 AM To: Planning Commission Desk; Please do not change our land use code for the proposed paramilitary gun range. This is a dangerous addition to our community and a dangerous precedent to set. The original ordinance, Title 18, should prevail over Title 8. We are concerned about safety, environmental degradation and the intrusion to our community. This is not forward progress with consideration for a community's right to live in peace; it is a large-scale industrial operation that will profit only the business owners. Please consider the rights of the many over the profit of a few. Helicopters? Military exercises? Sleep -over shooter camp? They're terribly out of place. I don't want to open my windows to the sound of rapid-fire guns. Nor do I want Jefferson County to become a go -to destination for this sort of activity. Thank you, Leslie Hoge 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00018 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/7/2018 RE: ZON 18-00036 Dear Jefferson County Plarming Commissioners, I am writing this letter because our way of life here in the Tarboo Valley hlo ' ' CSC IE 0V E in Jellierson Countv WA has come under attack with a proposed Commercial Shooting Facility. According to an application submitted to Jefferson County this 40acre gun range would be located on the shores of Tarboo Lake, a recreational lake for all citizens to use for fishing, boating, picnicking, swimming..... This shooting facility would have 7 shooting ranges, 3 helipads, a gun store, several buildings, a dock and much more. From what I understand the plans are to train the US Military, law enforcement, and the gun range's members. It would be open 7 days a week, with endless loud gunfire including long range repeating assault weapons, helicopters landing and taking off, and simulated bombs. It would pollute Tarboo Lake that feeds into Tarboo Creek, and Dabob Bay with lead and copper from gun residue and discharge. It would destroy the safety, peace, and tranquility of homes and farms in our area, along with Tarboo Lake for recreating, and the surrounding open space regulated by the DNR for hiking, horse riding, and recreating. Over the last decade caring hard working environmental groups and volunteers along with millions of dollars have restored Tarboo Valley. This includes restoring Tarboo Creek that is once again a Salmon run, and the wild life habitat we coexist with here. All of this would be gone with the disruption of a shooting facility moving in. We are residents living north of Quilcene in Jefferson County, WA. just a short distance from the proposed gun range. We live on a farm and I ride and train horses, we have cattle, and a garden. We spend endless hours in the outdoors working and enjoying the peace and tranquility of our farm and the surrounding open space in our area. This would all be lost if this proposed gun range is allowed in our area. Our neighhors for miles around us are feeling the same possibility of loss. We are asking for your belp to capture the needed land use issues to keep our homes, farms and open space in this entire valley from being destroyed. Why should all of us living a peaceful caring existence lose it all to such a disturbing change in our lives for one selfish individual moving in for his personal profit. Note: The person proposing the new gun range has filed several law suits against the county through out this entire permitting process. I see this as what might be classified as `paper terrorism'. Please also note: The person proposing this project has a web site that sells assault weapons and much more. See website: liltps:,'/www.forldiscover�,usa.coni I urge the County Planning Commission to take under consideration what this beautiful area is now and how it would be destroyed for all who live, work, and recreate here. It would change the entire environment to accommodate only one kind of new recreation that is polluting, loud. and disturbing to all that are in the vicinity. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00019 November 6, 20I 8 Here are some thoughts that may be of use in planning for a recreational facility that has so much negative impact on the existing area. Require at a minimum of 500 yards set back from all lakes and streams for all shooting ranges. This would help protect the waters from lead and copper contamination. All shooting ranges have a clean up requirement to remove lead and copper on a regular basis. Lead contamination is a huge issue. It is not just the shells and bullets it is also the residue from the discharge of the weapon. We banned lead from gasoline in 1995. We banned lead in house paint in 1978. It is a health hazard that needs to be addressed. Please see link below to website for more information on lead contamination at shooting ranges. https.//ehiourn rl.hk)r i,.:dceiiira1.cum/articles!-1 0.1.1'86/s1294()-117-0246-0 2. Prohibit "organizational training for all members of the armed forces" at all commercial shooting facilities. We have State and Federal military installations already set up for that kind of training. To also prohibit training of all private and public law enforcement at privately owned commercial ranges. There are also facilities set up for this at police training facilities. Privately owned ranges are to be used for recreational use only. 3. Prohibit commercial shooting facilities from being built near existing public and private lands, lakes, and streams designated for fishing and recreating where there would be a disruption from noise and possible stray bullets. 4. Prohibit commercial shooting facilities from being built near existing homes, farms, roads, and businesses that would be impacted by noise, lead, and possible stray bullets. 5. Limit the hours of operation to a couple days a week with shorter hours. So others can enjoy the outdoors without the impact of loud gunfire, helicopters flying in and out, and bombs going off from 7AM to I OPM 7 days a week. 6. Do not allow aircraft landing sites at shooting ranges. This being said I truly feel any and all new shooting ranges should be constructed indoors in commercial industrial areas where lead, bullets, and noise can all be contained. This would address all the issues that are important to our environment and still give folks who enjoy shooting for recreation a place to go. Thank you for reading this and I hope it helps you to make the right decision on the land use issues that are at stake here. Sincerely, San isner P.Q. Box 638 Quilcene, WA 98376 Jan Crr4.happy tails rant h n w. c o m 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00020 �l HRiCKLIN & NEWMAN LLF• IeioV y:.i5 v�r.r� ii i? I •r r h F e1-,1 1 .�r1.91enI TO: Jefferson County Planning Commission. FROM: Bricklin and Newman LLP on behalf of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition ❑ATE: November 7, 2018 RE: Amendment to Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities. The Tarboo Ridge Coalition submits this public comment regarding proposed amendments to Title 18 relating to shooting facilities. County staff has characterized this amendment as a mere "harmonization" ordinance designed to prevent inconsistencies between Title 18 (the land use code) and the commercial shooting facilities ordinance recently passed. This characterization is incorrect. The proposed 'Title 18 ordinance goes far beyond mere harmonization. It creates an entirely new land use category in Jefferson County: gun ranges of unlimited size and intensity. The existing land use code restricts the size of gun ranges. There is no reason to allow unlimited -size gun ranges. The Tarboo Ridge Coalition urges you to reject this massive expansion of gun ranges. Instead, the Tarboo Ridge Coalition encourages the Planning Commission to adopt a series of common-sense amendments to Title 18 that keep gun ranges in their proper place: as small-scale, recreation -focused, environmentally safe activities. These amendments are outlined at the end of this comment. I. Existing Land Use Code Regarding Gun Ranges Currently, gun ranges are only allowed as "small-scale recreation and tourist uses." JCC 19.20.350.9. "Small scale means of a size or intensity which has minimal impacts on the surrounding area and which makes minimal demands on the existing infrastructure." JCC 18.10.194. "Small-scale recreation or tourist uses means those isolated uses which are leisure or recreational in nature: are reliant upon a rural setting or location; do not include any new residential development beyond that allowed in the underlying land use district." JCC 19,10.194. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00021 These definitions mean that gun ranges are currently limited to recreational users, meaning no police, no military, and no militia training. Moreover, gun ranges that are allowed must be small enough that there is minimal impact on the surrounding area. The Tarboo Ridge Coalition supports these definitions and thinks they should stay. There is no need in Jefferson County for large gun ranges with unlimited numbers of shooters or high-intensity shooting such as SWAT or military training. Small, family -friendly gun ranges in appropriate locations are a great thing to have in Jefferson County. Overnight militia training compounds are not. it. Staff's Title 18 Amendment Staff's proposed amendment to Title 18 does away with these limitations. Staff's proposal would mean that the "small scale" and "recreational or tourist" rules only apply to personal gun ranges, that is a gun range in someone's back yard or "back forty" where no fee is charged. For commercial gun ranges, meaning ranges where money changes hands, the proposed amendment provides no limits at all on size, intensity. or duration of use. Under the proposed rules, a commercial facility could have dozens of gun ranges in operation simultaneously, with hundreds of shooters. SWAT units and military units firing niachine- guns, night-time shooting, and overnight accommodations for the shooters. The staff report fails to inform the Planning Commission of the true nature of the Title 18 amendment. This amendment fundamentally changes the character of gun ranges in Jefferson County. if this amendment passes, gun ranges will be totally unlimited in their size and intensity. For this reason. the Planning Commission should reject the Title 18 ordinance. III. Inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan Under the current zoning laws, gun ranges are allowed as a small-scale recreation and tourist use on forest lands. In other words, gun ranges and forestry can co -exist, but the gun ranges have to be small in scale and limited in intensity, The Tarboo Ridge Coalition agrees that this regulatory scheme makes sense. Staff`s proposed Title 18 ordinance would still allow gun ranges on forest lands, but now, the gun ranges could be of unlimited size. The switch from limited -size gun ranges to unlimited -size gun ranges creates an inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Under the Jefferson County Comp Plan, the County must: NRP 1. 1: Designate lands where the preferred and principal land uses are resource- based economic activities as Natural Resource lands. NRP 1.2: Require land use activities adjacent to resource lands to be sited and designed so as to minimize conflicts with resource based economic activities. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00022 NRP 1.5: Support resource-based economic activities that comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. NRG 3.0: Conserve and protect Forest Resource Lands for long-term economic use. NRG 4.0: Minimi7c potential conflicts hetween forest management activities and land use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands. NRP 4.3: Minimize conflicts with Forest Land activities by developing site and design requirements for land use activities adjacent to designated forest land. NRP 4.5: Minimize conflict between primary and secondary forest production t`acilities and related developments and forest management activities through siting and design requirements. All of these requirements are violated by staff s proposed Title 18 ordinance, because a gun range of unlimited size is not compatible with the continuing use of forest land for forestry. Gun ranges require long, open sightlines, where no trees grow. Under staff's Title 18 ordinance, an entire forest lands parcel could be converted to gun range uses, leaving no land left for forestry. When a development regulation is inconsistent with a Comp Plan, the development regulation is unlawful. The Planning Commission should reject staffs proposed Title 18 ordinance. IV. Tarboo Ridge Coalition Proposes a Better Alternative The Tarboo Ridge Coalition proposes a better alternative that fixes the Title 8 — Title 18 inconsistency and keeps gun ranges in their existing category: small-scale recreation and tourist uses. The 'Tarboo Ridge Coalition proposes the following changes to the Title 18 ordinance: 1. No outdoor night shooting. 2. Limit on number of firing points. 3. No aircraft. 4. No overnight accommodations. 5. Nuisances noise defined and prohibited. 6. Military and law enforcement certification. 7. 500 -yard buffer around lakes. 8. 1,000 -foot setback from property lines. 9. Clear definition that gun ranges are not essential public facilities. 10. Clear definition that gun ranges are small-scale recreation and tourist uses. The changes recommended by TRC are aimed at bringing the staffs draft ordinance more into line with Kitsap County's ordinance. which we consider a model of good gun range regulation that 3 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00023 Jefferson County should emulate. The Kitsap County ordinance has already been upheld by the Washington State Court of Appeals. Jefferson County can be confident that the proposed changes will also withstand legal challenge. Summary of Changes 1. No outdoor night shooting. The risks associated with shooting increase at night due to decreased visibility. The existing Title 8 ordinance defines "daylight hours" but makes no use of that definition anywhere_ Our amendment adds a requirement that all outdoor shooting at commercial shooting facilities occur during daylight hours only. 2. Limit on number of firigg points. Nothing in the County's existing Title $ ordinance or draft Title 18 ordinance limits the intensity of shooting that is allowed at commercial shooting facilities. Nor is any such limit established by the NRA guidelines. In fact, with the exception of a single, specific type of shooting called "action pistol shooting," the NRA guidelines do not even establish a ratio of safety officers to shooters. Thus, under the staffs draft ordinance, a commercial shooting facility could legally host dozens (or hundreds) of shooters firing simultaneously under the supervision of a single range safety officer_ It is unrealistic to expect a single range safety officer to exercise supervision or control over an unlimited number of shooters. The staff's failure to propose a limit on the intensity of shooting creates a safety hazard. Our proposed amendment, by contrast, sets a Iimit of twenty firing points that may be active at any one time aboard a commercial shooting facility. Twenty active firing points is a small enough number that a single range safety officer {all that is required by the NRA} can supervise the shooters, yet it is large enough to allow families and other groups to shoot together. 3. No aircraft. Neither the new Title 8 ordinance nor the draft Title 18 ordinance does not address the relationship between aircraft and firearms_ We propose to make it unlawful to land an aircraft at a commercial shooting facility or to discharge firearms from an aircraft at a commercial shooting facility. Landing an aircraft at a gun range poses obvious safety risks, in that the arrival of an aircraft distracts shooters and prevents them by its engine noise from hearing the commands of the range safety officer. The shooters, in turn, pose a threat to the aircraft due to the danger of bullet ricochets. Nor is it safe to discharge firearms From an aircraft, due to the fast and sometimes unpredictable motion of the aircraft. which can throw off a shooter's aim, and the impossibility of controlling stray shots by the use of haff7es or berms. 4. No overnight accommodations. Our amendment would prohibit overnight accommodations at a commercial shooting facility, including a prohibition on camping or the use of RVs. Staff at commercial shooting facilities need to focus on shooting safety at all times. The presence of overnight guests both distracts from that mission and increases the number of people who need to be monitored and controlled. 4 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00024 Overnight uses, as opposed to day uses, create a fundamentally different sort of shooting practice on a gun range_ With overnight uses, long-term, high-intensity training programs by out -of -county or out-of-state customers becomes possible. Overnight uses leads to much more intensive shooting than simple day uses. 5. Nuisance noises defined and prohibited. Under WAC 173-60-060. counties have the power to regulate noise from any source as a nuisance and that power is not pre-empted by the state.' Our amendment reiterates that commercial shooting facilities are subject to the existing Jefferson County regulations regarding public nuisances. Our amendment leaves untouched the nuisance exemption for firearms discharge not associated with a commercial shooting facility, such as hunters. It is necessary to treat the noise of commercial shooting facilities differently than the noise from other shooters such as hunters because of the high intensity and prolonged duration in a single location of the noise from commercial shooting facilities. Hunters and other shooters, by contrast, are a welcome and dispersed part of rural life. b. Military and law enforcement certification. Staffs draft ordinance allows military and law enforcement units to conduct training at commercial shooting facilities. The Tarboo Ridge Coalition opposes the amendment of the land use code outside the Planning, Commission process. We also oppose the redefinition of outdoor shooting ranges, regardless of which amendment process is used. The current small-scale recreation and tourist use designation is preferable, both in terms of land use and safety_ Smaller ranges are inherently safer than ranges of unlimited size, like those permitted under the staff's draft ordinance. Our amendment keeps the current definition of outdoor shooting facilities, which precludes military and police training. However, even though military and police training is already unlawful under the current definition, we propose to incorporate a measure from the Kitsap ordinance: the certification of gun ranges by military and police headquarters if any military or police training is proposed. This certification requirement would take effect if the current definition of shooting facilities is ever amended such that military and police training becomes possible at commercial shooting facilities. This ceilification requirement is necessary, because military and police training can involve more intense shooting than other types of shooting sports. Training at an uncertified facility poses a safety risk, because there is no way to veri ry that the specific training that will be conducted is safe at that facility_ As such. it is important that military and poiiee units' headquarters confirm that a commercial shooting facility meets the safety requirements particular to those organizations' highly specialized types of shooting. The Court of Appeals has considered this very issue and confirmed that counties can regulate noise from shooting ranges as a nuisance. Kileup Count, v. f;idsup Rifle and Revolver Cluh, 184 Wn. App. 252, 280, 337 P.3d 328 (2014) (not the same case as the 2017 Kilrap County case cited earlier). 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00025 7. Adoption of a 540 -yard buffer zone around lakes. A buffer zone for lakes appears in the Kitsap County ordinance and should appear in ours. The County staff recommended against adopting this provision on the grounds that it is unnecessary, since the draft ordinance will orient shooting ranges away from lakes; unreasonable, because duck hunters can shoot on lakes: and likely to result in a costly legal challenge and expose the County to liability for property owners" attorney's fees under RCW 64.40 and 42 U_S_C, 1983. None of these justifications is correct. The County should adopt the buffer zone. Orientation of shooting ranges alone will not protect lakes, contrary to the staff report. Bullets do not always travel in a straight line; they ricochet.'- Nor does the presence of duck hunters on lakes justify the presence of shooting ranges next to lakes, since duck hunters tire only occasional blasts of short-range shotgun pellets, whereas gun ranges fire hundreds or thousands of rounds of long- range rifle bullets. Given the much higher volume of more dangerous projectiles, a Kitsap County - style lake buffer for shooting ranges is necessary and proper. Nor is it the case, as the staff report argues, that RCW 54.40 or 42 U.S.C. 1983 create financial liability for the County if the County adopts a lake buffer. RCW 64.40 applies only to land use permits that have been denied in violation of the law. tt does not apply to changes in the law itself that occur outside the context of a permit application, as is the case with this ordinance. As for 42 U.S.C. 1981 it only applies when federal rights (here, presumably, Constitutional gun rights or property rights) have been abridged. But the Kitsap ordinance with its Iake butler has already survived a Constitutional challenge with regard to gun rights. Itit,►up (ounn, v. Kifsup Rifle ural Revolver Ouh, 1 Wn. App. 2d 393, 418, 405 P -3d 1026 (2017.). As for property rights, an ordinance aimed at "safeguard fing] the public interest in health, safety_ the environment, or the fiscal integrity of the area" is not a Constitutional violation and does not give rise to a claim for damages or compensation. Guimonl v. Ourke, 121 Wn.2d 586.603, 854 P.2d I (1993). The staff report's fears are groundless. 8. _Adoption of a 1,404 -foot setback from property line. A setback of 1.000 feet from the property line to the nearest edge of any part of the shooting range is critical. It would be easy to justify a larger setback than this. As with the setback for lakes, the main issue here is bullet safety. In addition, a 1,000 -foot setback will mitigate (though hardly eliminate) noise impacts from a commercial shooting facility. Setbacks are a common feature of land use regulations, even for relatively innocuous land uses like single-family houses. Imposing a setback on commercial shooting facilities is reasonable to protect the safety of persons on neighboring properties and has the secondary benefit of reducing the uniquely noisy impacts of these facilities. 9. Commercial shooting facilities are not essential public facilities. An essential public facility (FPF) is one that is necessary to serve the public welfare, such as airports, schools, in- patient facilities, sanitation facilities, and transportation infrastructure such as highways and Footage of tracer bullets ricocheting in various directions after impact: hlttati: +kAw%0U[uhe.CC+ttI.\NJTLh'y=6ULl3X8ut9AU;httpS://NV vw.youtube.Com/watch'}v='SUrI\4Vd74-. heti;. Y, 4ti„\t+utube.coitv4t.itcli?y-UxCpgOkMY-1, htlps;l/www_youtube.coni/watuh"v-QZW91+1Ka:'Bo ht s:-+s+%s%.�oulube.com/t%-arch?v=NhlfG E-ks-8. 1, 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00026 airports. These facilities are exempt from most zoning laws, because they are "difficult to site" but also provide services necessary for the public welfare. WAC 365-196-550. A commercial shooting facility might be difficult to site, but it is not essential to the public welfare of Jetiierson County. There are plenty of gun ranges within reasonable driving distance at which Countv law enforcement can train and civilians can shoot for fun_ There is no basis for granting any commercial shooting facility EPF status. There is no history in Jefferson County or any other county or city in Washington State of granting EPF status to commercial shooting facilities. Therefore, our draft ordinance includes a statement that commercial shooting facilities are not EPFs, and thus are not exempt From zoning laws. 10. Commercial shooting facilities remain small-scale recreational tourist uses. The land use code currently provides that all gun ranges must be small-scale recreational tourist uses. JCC 18.15.040, Table 3-1. We believe this is an appropriate designation for commercial shooting facilities. Such facilities should be kept small, be aimed at recreational (as opposed to professional) uses, and have a tourism (as opposed to training) focus. Our draft ordinance proposes retaining this long-standing designation. And naturally, small-scale recreational tourist shooting facilities must still comply with the new safety and land -use regulations proposed for shooting facilities. We oppose any attempt in the County's draft ordinance to re -designate commercial shooting facilities as something other than small-scale recreational tourist uses. Gun ranges in this county have always been small-scale recreational tourist uses. There is no basis for changing that designation. Recreational shooting will always be welcome in our county: sprawling training facilities will not. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns and proposals. 7 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00027 November 7, 2017 Testimony to the Jefferson County Planning Commission Title 18 Shooting Ordinance Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Peter Newland. 1 live on Tarboo Bay. 1 am a member of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition. You are being asked to "harmonize" the existing Title 18 Land Use Code with a recently passed Title 8 Health and Safety Ordinance. Title 8 has created a new gun range category of "Commercial Shooting facilities" governed only by Title 8. You're being asked to change the existing Title 18 definition of"outdoor shooting ranges" to mean "non- commercial shooting ranges. DCD first issued a notice of a pending SEPA decision for this proposed "harmonizing" but has since withdrawn the notice. Withdrawal is an error. We will submit written comments explaining our rationale. Further, we submit that the creation of a new land use category "Commercial Shooting Facilities" in Title 8 is actually a land use action and should have been subjected to the process and scrutiny of this body. It was not. That is a violation of the Growth Management Act which is appealable to the Growth Management Hearings Board. In addition, no Title 8 SEPA checklist was prepared and no determination has heen issued. On its face Title 8 could have significant adverse impacts. Without benefit of your wisdom, "Commercial Shooting Facilities" as defined in Title 8 allows for private commercial gun ranges of unlimited size, unbounded by the need to be "recreational and small scale." Title 8 allows for military and law enforcement training which is neither a tourist or recreational use. Those training needs are currently satisfied by JCSA. Expanding the size of gun ranges in inholding forest lands violates the requirement to be consistent with the Camp Plan. Comp Plan goals include: ■ Conserve and manage the forest resources of Jefferson County for sustainable resource based economic activities that are compatible with surrounding land uses. ■ Conserve and protect forest resource lands for long term economic use. ■ Minimize potential conflicts between forest management activities and land use activities within or adjacent to designated forest lands. The Planning Commission has an opportunity to rescue the BoCC fi°om these Title 8 missteps. It was never anyone's intent that Jefferson County will go from allowing only small- scale recreation and tourist gun ranges to allowing gun ranges of unlimited size and intensity. PLEASE DO NOT accept the proposed definition 18.10.030 for "commercial shootin facilities" as presented in -your packet. There is no hurry. There is plenty of time left on the shot clock Let's Esse it to do some sensihle planning. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00028 November 3, 2018 �9 n RIDGE coo P.O. Box 977 • QUILCENE, WA. 98376 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE New County Ordinance Opens Jefferson County Commercial Forests to For- profit Military and Paramilitary Training On Friday November 2, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners approved an ordinance that opens commercial forest in Jefferson County to large-scale, for-profit military and paramilitary training. Because the ordinance contains no restrictions on the scale or types of shooting or tactical training that is allowed, Jefferson County will likely become a magnet for outdoor gun range development. Ranges could be hundreds of acres in size. Helicopters and other aircraft are permitted as is shooting at night. In effect the County could be trading an economy based on agriculture, forestEm and tourism to one focused on commercial operations that host military and paramilitary training. The ordinance was the culmination of a year-long moratorium on siting gun ranges that was approved by the County Commissioners in December of 2017. Even though the ordinance that established the moratorium expressly stated that recent regulations passed by Kitsap County should serve as a model, the new Jefferson County ordinance is much less restrictive. The Jefferson County rules allow gun range development along public lakes and streams. In addition, it permits any type of training desired by military or paramilitary groups. Overnight accommodations are allowed, making long-term, high-intensity training programs permissible. The Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC) wanted the ordinance to protect the citizens of Jefferson County, our forest economy and the environment. They advocated for maximizing public safety and minimizing the impact of lead, copper, and noise pollution. The new ordinance fails to address the dangers posed to the public and wildlife by copper pollution. The new ordinance also ignores concerns raised by the Jefferson County Sportsmen's Association, a 700 -member non-profit that had lobbied for measures that would help their facility meet the design changes mandated in the new law. Page 1 of 2 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00029 TRC Press Release Page 2 of 2 TRCfavors indoor gun ranges and opposes outdoor gun ranges that are located near lakes and other public recreation areas, or that are large-scale and designed for military or paramilitary training. Although the Commissioners received hundreds of written comments and heard over 6 hours of testimony, that public input was not reflected in the ordinance. "While the Tarboo Ridge Coalition is very disappointed that the BOCC adopted this flawed ordinance, we are in no way less determined to use every available resource to prevent the establishment of any military/ paramilitary training center on the shores of Tarboo Lake or any place else in Jefferson County," said Jim Smith, a Tarboo Ridge Coalition member. For more information contact: Peter Newland, 360-765-0600 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00030 November 7, 2018 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission Re: Public Comment on proposed changes to Title 18, JCC 18.20354 Good evening. Commissioners My name is Robyn Johnson, and I live on Tarboo Bay, one of the jewels of Jefferson County. The moment my husband and 1 stepped onto the land where we built our home and have lived for 15 years, we knew that this was a very special place. Over the years we became volunteers in environmental stewardship, got to know our neighhors, local farms and businesses, and relished the rhythm of rural life. Every day, we are grateful. The Tarboo Creek watershed has high regional significance_ Many people and organizations give their time and money to preserve it. State and federal agencies have invested grants and partnerships. Education and stewardship programs like the Northwest Watershed Institute's annual Plant -A -Than, which for over a decade has engaged school children to plant thousands of trees in the Tarboo Valley, and, the partnerships with the Jefferson Land Trust, continue to restore and preserve the Tarboo watershed. I don't have time here to list the number of people and organizations that give so generously and consistently to keep the rural character of Jefferson County alive and well. Urn submitting, two publications about successful Tarboo restoration efforts. They were special inserts in the Seattle 'limes. The ecological health of Jefferson County has been making news for years, and attracts eco-fiiendly tourism which strengthens the natural resources of rural Jefferson County. We have incredible recreation opportunities, right in our backyard. Photography is one of my hobbies, and I discovered endless photo opps at Tarboo Lake, the headwaters of the Tarboo Creek watershed and one of our many beautiful public lakes. Here's one I took of Tarboo Lake, the serenity of which would be devastated if a commercial shooting complex were built on its shares. THIS is what a commercial gun range could ruin. The newly passed Commercial Shooting Range ordinance casts a deep shadow on the peace & quiet of our rural land. The negative impacts are many. In short, the ordinance is Pawed and threatens the character of our County. "Harmonizing" Title 18 with the new Title 8 ordinance increases the potential of debilitating effects on public health, safety and land use. We'd be better off leaving the Title 18 language as it now exists? 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00031 -PACIFIC NORTHWEST CQ)C1f,1tt1C7i11iC5 SUNDAY MAGAZINE I NGVEMBER R, 2008 Home A (magical toy land ' Nay A WATERSHED MOMENT One. rnan and his hand get clown in the mud to sage Puget Sound Darden Seabrook goes sustainable Dining The diva of authenticity ;. Alk :WINDDWWARES Hunteraau0las( �,I ARG IiIT E LLA" F ]ON EY CLIMB SHA D ES FREE ULTRAGLIDE' CORDLESS $250 REBATES r ENDS 12/13/08 YEAR END SALE 12 MONTH. No PAYMENTS, NO INTERESI flttAteCING AVAILAELf SURR:ISING PRICES COMPARED TO BOX STORFS AN) Say Goodbye to Stubborn Fat _.:b1 dept sits with 1 t1, t•1 no dawrihme. Less thou the cu5l Q; +•.syul a, Ilposuctrurr, Cool Lipo 1, the vee, T10 -a MULCe fur busy peoale +ehLi want T �nlinue their zict;se lifesryies Wh in •r �I lh-• i-'r,L. rhny &SCIII.. • Greirt for titre, hi^ lore handier, and nedrs • Performed with local ane,s0lesrs. it's proven sal, whir minimal bruising and downtime. •Thcnn�ye • liular Lusei fen Flute • Jand RAdm3w • FYlur • GOT f rA t.XWl CO' I sal • Pholofiiziaic Save 15% on a i., Cool Lipo or Thermage Treatment CosMedic Skincare of Seattle 901 Boren Ave. Suite 1940 Seattle 206-622-6444 www.seatiletrosrntidilSKlnCati .Cons 2 THE SEATTLE THRES Call Today for Your Free Consultation with Jodie Reirierston, M.D.11, After In this issue Cover story A WATERSHED MOMENT kv 11 rlrrrn Cnrn a •af f phalographed hr Ifan Re•r•rerr Saving Puget Sound, one piece of gm. and at a time s 14 ON THE Cover A tiny tree frog perches we Peter Eiahls'Rnger in tate Tarboo CreCA tretlarrd. Frogs and toads have benefitted fi-om the nwcland restoration - Plant Life AL 1WxbTook on the W ashi n {;ton toast, NI Lt:ut j 318 bjC I i vin g i% mu rw thall jiLSt a slogan r, Otla�r D�p:artaracaats Portraits s 8 Now and Then a 38 Taste I l i itniL Kennedy, U W di va otdoing u rig] 4 draws IIs the way towaird good, hoxrrsl fund a la Northwest living A "illectiblecramd couple tNillabonttes with a fine r: r I,Fwtiq'1• to tre a less I nal g is ill basement toy Ionil � 30 NEXT WEEK: FAT hat jetrel✓rs illuminate the 1'ibrdlif Norrhivest sCe'riC- *2001- SEASTI-f: lINl�r VOMPAMY �'Ilr $iodic Xintes STAFF EDITOR ilathy AndnSe%jv I ASSOCIATE EDITOR hrrlhiCen Triearh ti;ull I ASS LSTA NT E 0 TOR Belien-a Tea p' Ovir I ART DL R ECTO RS fair mil r1a LHgana, Alda Cflan I ►HOTOGRApmm Benjamin $ensnha idrr I WRITERS T%nrne BI'n5Pli, Bill Dieutirlt. llAi'u] 41. t151rY"ri visa Puufic Nolih west maga:+"[ online a www. sevtllcrinres. com/pacr/rc aw GALLA"Aw 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF -00034 I L ARG IiIT E LLA" F ]ON EY CLIMB SHA D ES FREE ULTRAGLIDE' CORDLESS $250 REBATES r ENDS 12/13/08 YEAR END SALE 12 MONTH. No PAYMENTS, NO INTERESI flttAteCING AVAILAELf SURR:ISING PRICES COMPARED TO BOX STORFS AN) Say Goodbye to Stubborn Fat _.:b1 dept sits with 1 t1, t•1 no dawrihme. Less thou the cu5l Q; +•.syul a, Ilposuctrurr, Cool Lipo 1, the vee, T10 -a MULCe fur busy peoale +ehLi want T �nlinue their zict;se lifesryies Wh in •r �I lh-• i-'r,L. rhny &SCIII.. • Greirt for titre, hi^ lore handier, and nedrs • Performed with local ane,s0lesrs. it's proven sal, whir minimal bruising and downtime. •Thcnn�ye • liular Lusei fen Flute • Jand RAdm3w • FYlur • GOT f rA t.XWl CO' I sal • Pholofiiziaic Save 15% on a i., Cool Lipo or Thermage Treatment CosMedic Skincare of Seattle 901 Boren Ave. Suite 1940 Seattle 206-622-6444 www.seatiletrosrntidilSKlnCati .Cons 2 THE SEATTLE THRES Call Today for Your Free Consultation with Jodie Reirierston, M.D.11, After In this issue Cover story A WATERSHED MOMENT kv 11 rlrrrn Cnrn a •af f phalographed hr Ifan Re•r•rerr Saving Puget Sound, one piece of gm. and at a time s 14 ON THE Cover A tiny tree frog perches we Peter Eiahls'Rnger in tate Tarboo CreCA tretlarrd. Frogs and toads have benefitted fi-om the nwcland restoration - Plant Life AL 1WxbTook on the W ashi n {;ton toast, NI Lt:ut j 318 bjC I i vin g i% mu rw thall jiLSt a slogan r, Otla�r D�p:artaracaats Portraits s 8 Now and Then a 38 Taste I l i itniL Kennedy, U W di va otdoing u rig] 4 draws IIs the way towaird good, hoxrrsl fund a la Northwest living A "illectiblecramd couple tNillabonttes with a fine r: r I,Fwtiq'1• to tre a less I nal g is ill basement toy Ionil � 30 NEXT WEEK: FAT hat jetrel✓rs illuminate the 1'ibrdlif Norrhivest sCe'riC- *2001- SEASTI-f: lINl�r VOMPAMY �'Ilr $iodic Xintes STAFF EDITOR ilathy AndnSe%jv I ASSOCIATE EDITOR hrrlhiCen Triearh ti;ull I ASS LSTA NT E 0 TOR Belien-a Tea p' Ovir I ART DL R ECTO RS fair mil r1a LHgana, Alda Cflan I ►HOTOGRApmm Benjamin $ensnha idrr I WRITERS T%nrne BI'n5Pli, Bill Dieutirlt. llAi'u] 41. t151rY"ri visa Puufic Nolih west maga:+"[ online a www. sevtllcrinres. com/pacr/rc aw GALLA"Aw 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF -00034 • � ` ��� f b _ 4 •r IL W -_ T, t , r r ' � M t .. p'�. d� It's a tough slog up `lar an7reck7rer arse ttf srtugs..fallett ` .] + �.� logs and the banks being too ttvergretwrr to negotiate -- where Peter Bolds goes weekli it) check for spawning salmon. "yort of fell in love with this little watershed." �- / -M-Sr SUN DAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2908 1 BAOf I{ NDR7 HWE:S1 :13 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00036 ! iL 10 Al {. fi f . r m , 1 I � r t �F r/ e OR dp. Ir 4_ Ilkj if 21 ONE CREED ONE PATCH OE -LAND AT A TIME - _ 1)J. H etre w f.il1'111va".I fthrtll),tvypltl'e1111. 111:11 fle°t•urv. III 1' XHh FAVI doesn't 111ok like tllnch. 1Vhftc pilitll I)CCIN frOLll the sides of clic old hare. M11.1 rovvr4 111V cunrr.IL' ticlors t1Flcrc' Cows Unit. wilited Ill 110 I110kc(1. A fat %pot 1711 it snralf hill 15.111 chili's left of 11101 which burned (11OW l dreadrs Ogo. Acres of 11':115t -hl} h %VOC[l5 bold to the auton111 n ind. glut pelvr Naills sees possihililics. liL CaNtwe old-gm"%th Sitl'a ti1)1- "i g illlove a ,milli creek lwhcl-C collo Salmon L01110 pith the_%Vitlter rains to sp.m w I le 1m lgmes m ushcv filled m1h the c vak of c+rest,1111 milds. �- Pat CN echo -A n^ith rile ship Lal bt,o1 ei tails and the cry of bald vilgles. .` Ira it TV;11 opllortltllit% 1t1 LL'�toiv a whole f cxlclpic hl.` he sacs. staring acrllss the tield. "r " .' " Look closer, wid alreack signs of chiingc: ilre emerging. Y — tr [c>,itltled on page 17 > s Waterstriders glide on Tarboo Creek with duckweed flouting at top. 16 THE SEATTEE TIMES 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00038 ONE CREED ONE PATCH OF LAND AT A TIME Continued ftom page 15 The stream, straightened neer decades to snake way for plows, weaves back and forth again. Logs crisscross the water, shading schools of tiny coho. Small plastic banners flap from a Few of the 50,000 thin young trees planted six months earlier — a forest in waiting. The revival of Tarboo Greek, in a small valley Feeding into Hood Canal, the slender western arm of Puget Sound, is the storyof n few dreamers who fell in love with a stream. For one, iI is also the revival of a family tra- dition reaching back to a founding Father of America's environmental movement. Most folks have never heard of the creek, Fewer have waded in it. But at a time when talk of Puget sound's problems often Turns into abstractions Like Superfund, stormwater runoff and toxic chemicals in parts-per.billion,this out-of- the-waY place shows how the possibility for revival also hinges on more primal elements like [stud, water and salmon, Passion and determination. WEN PETER Bahls comes to a valley, one of the first things he does is walk the streams, Like a cardiologist tracking a patient's blood vessels, the lanky 47 -year-old looks for signs of sickness, Undersized culverts that block the way for spawning salmon, ditches that drain water From marshes, and creeks forced into straight lines that send water rushing too fast for baby fish. Fie sees with the eyes of a fisheries biolo- gist. But before college, he'd already gotten Continued on next page n As the grand- daughter of Alda Leop- old, Susan Freeman is directly con - nected to one 6f the most I mportant environmental rhinkers of the 20th century. ausun rreeman s nusoanq Scott pulls on his well-worn boots at the family's cabin near Tarboo Creek far another day of work in the woods. SUN nAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2008 l PACIFIC NORTHWEST 17 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00039 Whips, Mends, and coddles. $50 instant savings on 5 quart; $75 instant savings on 7 quart 1 I The Viking nrnfessional Stand Mixer delivers the 'bks' ,,/ power and chef -friendly features to handle anything from the thickest dough to the fluffiest meringue. Shop quickly, this instant savings is a limited time offer. Price atter instant savings: 5 quart - $354, 7 quart - 5450- Cu*M Apple [lick's 4skLOM nick's R1,001"I abh M UPI cNkm $UP* waPv ieor.+le 1S0o16B23616 Bek&ve M'.vecnum 2(6J281 -W I425pag-r" 1350)B449259 GnlcMm J. kla6srnn [6chw o NmF rYlMrs Mr. veiwn 106ywn i Govrml .seoPle Srdnrrzh W! W-8747 EYerell r2W79+-8717 !:1'OJsv&7767 (125)22-1589' Mr. rs AK Cook's rhW When shop Ther Qcism flap cont tarerbzb UrwaptY VAoge Scullwerder Hor6931e helkmo secrale seomlle sestet e [425j455-= (296152&W f2m6242= R060104901 Not glchm llcp Thor ¢Rehm shop rw nkMn Shop ram Helen St" Aidenoed TQGQ= "I"Pla Kh* len1;e. Tocomo C*Mv- S&&G--e N251771-trSS j2i9)47�-7141 13FG115,}23d! [3M13m77-0Oi5 rh. Greer+ E"Imde e: Ttwnssremt ".-. . JWt3MAOM 16 THE SEATTLE TIMES CNE PATCH OF UND AT A TIME Continued from previous page an education in rivers. As a boy in Portland,. Bahls fell in love with them while steelhead fishing with his grandfather. This past Septem- ber, -on his annual steelhead fishing trip, he used his grandfather's SO -year-old fiberglass rod. "I try to save fish most of the year," he explains: "Anal kill 'em a few weeks of the year." In 1992, when Bahis first set foot in the Tar - boo Valley as a biologist working for the Part Gamble S'Klallanr 'Tribe. ii had been [ran,,; - formed by waves of settlement. The valley bot, torn, which once bristled with massive Sitka spruce and western red cedars, was a chain of pastures. An occasional stump, big as a kitchen table, offered a clue to what was once there, Tarboo Creek, the valley's main artey, met a fate familiar to nearly every river around Puget Sound. It was dammed to make ponds foo lim- ber mills and rerouted to clear pasture for dairy farms. Ditches were dug to drain marshes for farmland. But the valley has been spared some of the worst damage. Par from any business center, much of the shoreline is untouched by con- crete sea walls- Forests, regrown since the rav- ages of early logging, blanket the hillsides. The acres of pavement that come with subdivisions and shopping malls haven't reached here yet. Tarboo and Dabob bays — which are fed by Tarboo Creek and flow into each other — are so clean they host shellfish nurseries supplying many companies around Puger Sound - So in 200 1, when Bahis got fed upwith a job at an environmental consulting firm, hopping from project to project, his thoughts returned to Tarboo Valley. He was looking for a place to try a more grand plan. Not just a single Band-Aid but a methodical restoration of a whole stream sys- tem from the headwaters to the saltwater. "I was hoping it would work out in Tarboo because I thought it was a perfect place." he says.. "I sort of feIl in love with this little water- shed." AT FIRST, BAI°fLS doesn't seem like a sales- man. Instead of laud and gregarious, he is cairn, speaking in abbreviated sentences, his eyes separated from the world by simple; silver, rimmed glasses.. His grin, when he shows it, is boyish, almost shy. Jeans and worn hiking boots are his uniform. But there's a quiet intensity that never lets up- Bahls can spend all day driving from one spot to another in the valley, without any sign of fatigue or evidence that he's given the same tour ourttless times. Bit by bit„ he has turned his solitary vision into a movement. Today, groups working in the vallev include theSefferson Umd Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the state departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources, heat schools and a handful of landowners. "Whether you like Peter or -vou don't like Peter, he can talk vau into doing things ever[ you don't. want to do," says Gene Jones, an elder with the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. When Bahls worked for the tribe in the 1990s, Itc asked Jones to give a blessing. at a cele.hration cif a restoration project on Tarboo Creek. Jones turned him down at first, feeling that Bahls was ren casual about the blessing: But Bahis persuaded him.. Today, Jone sits on the board of the North- west Watershed Institute, the nonprofit Bahls created for his Tarbox Valley work. "He's just a dynamo. He's like the Energizer bunny," Jones says. "He just keeps going and going and going." Over the past seven years, Rahls and his sup- porters have bought or gotten permanent pro- tections for more than 150 acres of land, most of it along Tarboo Creek. They have reroured and restored. a. mile and a half of the main 5 -mile creek and planted more than 60,000 trees. The total bill: $4 million and counting.. Much of the money conies from government grants to revive flagging: salmon runs and protect wetlands and bays. Some crimes from environmental groups and donations from landowners. Now they are awaiting a critical decision by the state Department of Natural Resources that would set the stage for protecting more than 3,500 acres of forest- and shorelines, The pro- posed designation of rrtu,ch of the watershed as a natural area would enable the department to buy land from private landowners who want to se6l. The stare could also swap• state-owned ta.nd there that's logged to raise money for schools with land elsewhere, effectively put- ting the state land inside the natural area off- li.rnits to chainsaws. But all this work didn't happen at once. Bahls started smalf. He and his group removed a culvert in the stream that was too steep for spawning coho. The culvert lay under the driveway leading to the home of the Olym- pic Music Festival. Bahls' group replaced it with a picturesque wooden bridge, "We've built a lot of bridges with land• owners, literally;" he says. In a place this small, ticking off the neigh- hors can be fatal to environmental projects. He gradually worked his way into the fabric of the community, winning the trust of people who eventually sold him land, allowed trees to get planted along their streams or granted easements that sheltered land from develop- ment, Bahls met with old-timers to learn about the valley's history. When some landowners wor- ried a wetland restoration would flood their road, he promised to build them a new bridge. An annual tree -planting event draws 200 local schoolchildren and parents who use it as a fundraiser- and hands-on science project. "He's trying to make a connection for people with the place.," says Gaorge Pess, a. friend of Bahls and fellow biologist. "When you com- bine that with some substantive work, then all of a sudden you start seeing a ,place change aver time." 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00040 Restoring e watershed Environmental work in a shall valley feeding into Hood Canal is getting attention as a potential model for reviving parts of Puget Sound. The effort — mucli of it led by biologist Peter 8ahls — involves private landowners, nonprofits and governments. Private land along TarbOO Creek is being protected From development and restored to more natural conditions. Culverts and other barricades to Spawning salmon are being removed, State and local agencies have acquired land. The state Department of Natural Resources is considering designating much of it a naturalarea, which would make It eligible For money to buy and protect land DNP. Epr15t Land Pu 61 is protected areas Private re5f0ratfun and c.mervatiun areas Pr Ivatety owned ■ Fish passage projects 5ourcr. NorfAwrst H'OfcAshrd 1n5llfnte, FJepar[M211[ of No,, f Re"— Brown's i.okr " \ Tdiboo 0 Lake Watershed boundary 1 I b� I �r ' 1 f 1 � i Proposed DNR Iraturaf. area boundaTy Quilcelg� 1 4lattlr A k WASHIIWTON (tElif[�rFe Boy ij. EC'OLf3GICAL RESTORATION might sound romantic, But living it day-to-day isn't. Imagine weeding acid landscaping a neglected yard covering hundreds of acres, Susan f=reeman and her family knew that better than most. But even she wasn't quite prepared when she saw their 17 -acre share of the work. Bahls, ever the salesman, had driven them around the vallev first. He showed them a rebuilt stretch of the creek. They stood on the massive root of an old growth spruce tree, bridging a tributary where salmon spawn. He spoke. of a vision where trees like rhat would rise up and down the valley. Then, he took them to the land lie wanted them to buy. Walls of b [aekbet'ry brambles made it hard even to see the ditch -Like remains of the creek. The previous owner logged most of the big trees U-0 Bay THF SLATTLI YIMFF before putting the. land up for sale_ Someone with a penchant for dig- ging had bulldozed big piles of dirt and excavated two fake ponds. Something about it, though, recalled the peace that Freeman's grandfather turned into a birthplace of the modern environmental move- ment. And at least this property didn't have a fliac'k 3 feet deep in chicken manure. In 1935, Aldo Leop- old, a scientist and Freeman's grand- father, bought a worn-out 120 -acre farm, complete with cabin -turned - chicken -corp, in central Wisconsin. it became his laboratory, retreat and muse. He and his family restored the: shack and experimented with reviv- ing the woods and prairie. that once thrived there: The experience became Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac," a book revered by Ameri- can environmentalist's for its elegant Continued on page 22 > HERE ARE GREAT r TO CHANGE YOUR INSURER. AQarrn M4ndaE W h MD fbsw kin 5. MD AT..r. Fn ,I Wa q. 6- Mn 14 ]MS 51Y F. MO AArK lames R. MD Fd- Mrhrllr P. MD6 ,han Fe 1, MD sale, M& ­i J. MO AIII-- W coo LJ WV EsN t—q krstm t MD k.br Rrhard M. MO 'x*,oyQ Wm 1- Mo Arpeu Ikkard L. MD Fak- Mr... MD M n Krrnerrt, (n ,.y A, MD L.* Da rl R MD A—Cy,gh.. K Mn in.al wry LKw. MOK.W Ah. lee MD Sod— Todd J- Mn Army trap r MD F-Irkr law,nre kw _ Mo Laghanan Sean ;_ bPM U.Iv Jonathan 6. MD . u o Nrkan 5 Mn 1 r,rrkfin kx.arhaf ! . Mb lee Samson 7, MO ship. loef A. MD Auld M Ke MD Fremxle i Edwa,d Mn Lm 1'.ennrth C. MO Shonaard Naar H Mu Gain H—ard B_ MDF,ncr. r k.. a_ Mo M+rla to St_ D ME, 5hm^astara Nikel. Mil tL mT W&—P. Mn Garr berry L MDMandl FFA. R Mn 54r tT Met elk r- MI:) 5- Alan D- MO Can K Ek.b rN MD NF. Mx[m G MD ° n John i Ma tswtet Srrsco W. Mn Go" Pad F. MD Martin M.E-4, MD smkney le" i vm P-#1 T-6 MD seen lass F- MD Marun JIM R_ MO SCLn.dl VV— A ME' Bede W 6.rdL MD s,reY+i Dmwi r.. Mn Mar— Peer F. MD suns ❑.. MD Fllav ,A- M MD tweq.r i, Rx W v. MD kd A Mchael K. MD Swrreor, /a*r(1 n Mr, Brack Stem C- 11 GurrgxttM Tiny, i MD MCMI. Crag M. MD Feeny steren M. MD 6rA,tad Mark f MOLwlyette Todd M MD 6kCa41w1eT Wren v MD Tky IDhn L . Mn &andel C "on B_ MD Balk, lial,i, i. MD Mer it— P.." H MD Stomas Alan S. MD 6r.r uer 1+rr.`. D, MD Hanewnth E%. -H M, MO Mr.", lames G- MD iho� Jason I, For Burke MkKM F MD Hapria AndI x I. Mn Mr Potmk M - MO raonMy Evyme V MD m.on 8— P. MDi Lff rt Kern F , MO Newton Sam EI— I IF MO To _y Sean P M D C.a,ik_ 1, nexus H. Mo Hasa •gk Ka,a y- MD Nd -,g Gregory 1, MD Tn tkn M9KWI A. MD Cery s_ R.. MD KIn Wdd W- MO Famih E.Wmd R MA wiles Ma14n 5.. MO t.F�,mpAva Iamr. A. WD Herd wkson IWn M- MO Parker lohn r MD Van Bnga,k A." B MO QSang Hetry S_ MD H,y J, Wn.W L- M Party Ad.! ( Mn veirh Flan I(, MO Ch. Sigma, O Mn Hk rfl knrnfw C. MD Mon Afton L MD Wan lay M. MD i MrA 6 Du .I MD KIT Dale L MD Petrnon Ch rks A- MO Wed Wayne M Mn Clark Hnt.en 11- MD Kolar,{ LaervrP E . Mn Prltrtrin I. k. L-, A II- Mn Wenslem Lwyn P MO ,Lek W/Iwo L MO 1,-" M E MO 1'maa,a+ 1- F M9 Wer"- :Iay M. MD _I_- fG.hnt 5 MO r;uarg 6A K. MD PWA- Kron 1. Mn yAlllann Fry B MO I Inch KkIF1' A- FAA M. q FIM.k L Mn hire sMm sr nn. MD VAII nsrx. Rlckka Y. MO O,mm C—Pe M, MD k*,6 se , A MD fk filer T- M- MID WA_ Wdrwn 1, MD root 'Kerr. A. Mn L. kn,a, Todd E - Mn 1,1111111 %z- S MD We.}..n W b n A, MP C --p Cad J- MD lackaon Aven W- MD Reed Ste n l MD Nag R,9e'r V DO ls`,Wh+ F.iRtek P MD IA eya, W MgEL IY Mo R¢ -21X- k -,W, P. MD Yanynq(u sur K. [Y] Cs. Flurry Y. MD PPO rnlrAsOn M_ C- MO {hrmglm Mark C MD Wlaq Ew. MD nJr Tr ,F y F1 MP k1�i,rylr. I. 11. MV t4dKa M—,,n A.. AAO ta.naV-Michael, MD Dagertiekkn Pal S_ me Aa h TF.mys! MD no6bwn lames R- MO Zom ftri.ard A- Mer Dn+e,w. Paha L MO KXrn Harry A- MD Wri'rrrrin k*. W. MD LrKFatf 11..W 5 MD D,rrul.ctmv [e>Qa M- MO Ya 11, MlrhaN M MD Rohan MMI I. MD Do. Irinrrp A- FID rIWFNan HHs E_ MLS R�*,. Cato W. MD' IF PKEMERA IS YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY, YOU'D BETTER READ THIS. For Teats Prdkar" SuFgeor% ha been reiprxeytie fot many of rhe high gwkiy surgicai SevAces, nctuding eniergerwy nao,rl coverage. that pabents Iweiw at moss Puget Sound huspaaFl, AA ProlF e, we Om* PmIerns and do-rion should makes heahireasAf 6" OM together gut Prernera warts this ,eat"n%hip to end to tnern, the honour 1FIae Is more i(rlpor swit than your hen" we ,due yAalr trust In us.. We'w butt a great n0ibwdrP hDge&ie* Let's not kK IfTink take that stay knm us Tet tcuF employe you want to keep yAalr doctor Or IF yvae're w HR represenutw. swdch to an mF, w who Supp• m qtly lkmldrele, klx- Neger,ce 9WeShwid, First Chore. Aen%x tlnisedHealthcare, Cgrka. Great VAM and Pacific" LET PATIENTS CHOOSE THEIR DOCTORS, NOT INSURANCE COMPANIES. MyDocto rMyDecision.corm ® PROLIANc.=E SUNDAY. NOVEMBER 30. 2,008 1 PACIFIC *ORTNWIESt1 19 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00041 rff5r Y Z9 THE SEATTLE TIMES Stoneware Corn St Pail Sale E9,95reg $6000 This 3 qt pail A attractive enough to keep on the counter top, making it convenient to use everyday. €30al charcoal filters fit neady inside the lid and last up to two months. Iter lid also has it thick gmkrt seal to hirthef ensure that odors do not escape. Available in black or white. Replacement filters (2 sets of 2) Sale $5.95, reg. %7.95 COM FA 610 Bags Lane The compost pail with these biodegradable bags. Bio Bags are C M0 free certified for use in organic agrleulture and meet AETM 06400 requirements, the gold standard for compostable ptasttc. Bax of 50, $14.95 Aerogarden 3 Etij oy fresh herbs year round. No dirt. No weeds. No meas. just add water. droF in the pre -seeded, alt natural bio -grow pada: plug it in and watch it grow. 'Srrai Garden Technology' automatically turns lights nn and off and alerts you when to add coater and nutrients. Compact size takes up about as much room as a coffee maker and is perfect for those with f rn iced counter space. Available in black or white. Includes t,aurmet Herb seed kit. Sale $99.95, reg. $130.00 10 Aerogarden seed kits to choose from Including: Cherry Tomato, Careen Beans, Kli.\ed Romaine, Tuscan Herb, Meadow Flowers and more- S 14.95 each - Ritz Organic Textile Set Sade $24,95, rex. Sas-00 Made of 10 W. Skal International certified organic titin. Inaddition, the dyes used to color the codon are produced using inethods and materials that have a low impact oii the envi mnnren t. The Towels are super absofbeiit, and the pocket mins are lhirk for good heat protection, yet pliable enough for easy use, Packaged in 100% recycled tnawhals. Available in Wheat, Leaf or Bark. Set includes 2 towels, 2 dishcloths and one pocket mitt. Also available open stock. Herb Snips Perfect for snipping and mincing herbs. Non -slip, soft: touch handles provide a• Comfortable grip. Small hales between the narrow parts of the handles remove herb leaves from. their Iougji slema. 51.1..95 PI 5t Le th to ini ha ca im ha th, er, CIty Kft a one -of -a -kind store 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00042 ONE PATCH OF LAND AT A'TTM Continued from page 19 prose and stirring call to restore what's been lost. People now visit the shack as if on a pilgrimage. The place also 'became a central part of the Leopold family. Susan Freeman's father and aunts and uncles reveled in memories of their work the re. 'The fam- ily started the Aldo Leopold Foundation and helped get the shack nominated as a National Historic Landmark. Susan Freeman met her husband there in 19€30: Scott Freeman was a young biologist staying nearby while working on habitat restoration. She was a recent art -school graduate on a summer fellowship. They married a year later. The couple, who moved to Seattle in 1985, had talked for years of trying to find their own piece of land to repair. In 2003 they sent e-mails to local envi- ronmental groups asking if they had a piece of affordable land in need of 22 THE SEATTEE FUMES restoration. A few weeks later, they grit their first phone call from Bahls. Someone was selling land crossed by 1,000 feet of Tar - boo Creek; and he was trying to find a buyer with a conservationist bent. He'd found them. Today, the blackberries have been hacked back. The stream meanders down a new route dug by an excava- tor. The Freemans turned the logged trees into a 192 -square -foot cabin, the descendant of the original Leopold shack. They have pianted 4,064 trees on their land- cedar, alder, Douglas fir, vine maple, Sitka spruce and white pine, As Susan walks through a meadow near the creek, she gives each sapling a proprietary touch while saying matter• of-factly, "We come out here and we spend the whole time working." Bahls spends a lot of his time oversee - In dtis rirra 1890s scene svorkers were clear- ing Ion (I in the once- faresred valley: ing work crews planting trees. digging new stream channels or wielding mow- ers and pickaxes to keep weeds from choking out newly planted trees. One day; he drives up a dirt road to a spot stripped of vegetation, except for scattered mounds of blackberry vines. Three men, caked in dirt, two bare to the waist, gouge away at the remaining thicket. "This," declares Bahls, "is the worst job.' His foreman, Karl Peterson, who goes by Toad, has endured hacking blackberries in smothering heat and planting saplings in driving sleet. Last winter, he chapped through ice to plant young trees. Back on the Freeman land, one of Scott's main assignments is keeping the blackberries at bay. "Some people get it. That it's not gor- geous, and it's not a view, and we're not Continued on page 24 a 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00043 ,-"va Herb Keeper de $79.95 reg $3995 hover herbs? Don't waste errs! keep them lies" [for up three weeks] in the Prepara A Keeper, just place herbs u the stainless steel herb .%Wt theii into the c[Car herb Binet. Click the herb cabinet .0 the refillable water well ce The slim compact design \, •n fits easily intu most refrig- ,tor do m. Scotch Whiskey. A Liquid History Written by Charles MacLean, editor of Whiskey Magazine and Scotia rids, ieading writer on the subject, this book is the perfectblend of anecdotes and Serious research with terrific illustrations and photographs. A treasure trove for the whiskey connoisseur or just about any- one who enjoys a really good lead. Paperback. 288 pages - 524 -95 Wusthof 5 -Piece Scissor Set Sale $49.95 reg- Sap oo Made in Italy for W isthof. these scissors are assembled with a screw rather than A rive) unlike less expensive, more disposable scissors- This &crew allows you to adjust the tension of the scisgurs so they will cut more easily. Set includes one each tailor shear, paper shear, househnld shear. kitchen shear and flower shear. )ohnson's Whiskey Tot This mouth blown crystal, single malt gi ass is rn ad in Italy by gottega Del Vino. Designed by noted Scotch Whiskey authority. David lohnson, it is 3 i! " high and of'f'ers 2 hand cut measuring lines to ensure a perfect serving. The lower cine is cut at 1 ox to measure the traditional 'wee dram' of Scotch e n s Whiskey, while the upper line is cut at S ax, the traditional gill. f32.00 "or cooks since 1988 Granite Mortar and Pestles Scrdpicd from natural granite, these mortar and pesties are heavy, well balanced anti stand up to rigorous pounding and grinding. C,ranites non-poious quality allows for extracting the oils liern the herbs and spices without their oils being absorbed into thesione-Measurements ate for diameter and height. Slope M&P, 6 LS' x 4.. S69.95 lar M&P, 5" x 5`, 169.95 Coupe MhP, 4'ft' x 4 116", S3].95 SUNDAY, NOVE7MBER30,2908 i PACIFIC MoRTHWEST tS 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00044 Ninety-one-year-old Llan Yarrstarnds iil the old dairy burn on the property he sold to Peter 8ahts and the Northwest Watershed Institute — land hvi fa.nvty began working in 1891- Yuri- was a {7niversiry of Washi"ron lineman in the 1936s and still has a fanner°s strong grip. SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 1 PACIFIC NORTHWEST 23 ' 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00045 ONE PATCH OF LAND AT' A TIME, Continued from page 22 sitting out here living the good lifer, sipping marti- nis on the back porch," he. says. "Sometimes you think, 'i can't wait until this tree is big.' Which you can't. But on the other hand, just enjoying every year to year you feel "Connected," Susan chimes in- �'eah," Scott says. "It's such a wonderful thing." NOT EVERYONE is so enchanted with Bahls' Vision. The biggest source of contention is logs — ones that have been put up, and ones that some people want to cut down. Bahls' group, a shellfishing company and sever- al local residents recently sued to block a logging Project an a state-owned hillside. above Tarboo Bay. They want the state to wait until after the deci- sion about. protections for state land. A Jefferson County judge nrled in their favor, telling the state it hadn't done enough to crrnsider the risk of land- slides from logging. Then there are the hundreds of logs Bails has planted in the middle of the vallev- Weathered La. reJ1, LUKe naron and Brian lardella are hacking out blackberries. It's a hard job "the worst," says Peter- Bah1s. 'It's along -term battle, and the restoration of the forest will shade out the blackberries" eventually. 1 24 THE SEATTLE "MES Susan Freeman makes her way back to the cabin - Her grandfather, conservationist Aldo Leopold, affecriondtely called his rustic Wisconsin struc- ture. "the shack-" It was there that he wrote A Sand County Almanac." 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00046 silver. some more than 44 feet tall, they poke from pastures like abandoned totem poles. Bahls calls it "Woodhenge." lie had workers put them there as it place for fish -eating, birds to perch and bug -eating birds to peck. His thinking: if you're trying to restore a forest, the last important piece of habitat you'll ger is big dead trees. So he decided to speed things up. But it hasn't proven popular with some locals, says Ray McDonald, a heavy -equipment operator who lives nearby and sold 72 acres of his land to Rallis group. "You ought to see the calls I've gotten from peo- ple. 'What's going on?' Just complaining," McDon• aid says. "it really isn't attractive. And it doesn't do a damn lit of good." The debate abour the trees underscores some, thing deeper. Evcati•one involved has an aesrhetic sense of what the landscape- ought to look like, Take Jim Yeakel. who moved from Bainbridge Island to get away ft:nin the crowds. His land a alms property owned by B.'11113' insritute- hie 3.91-eed to put a ccnservation ease menr nn 20 acres of tats la ad .along it fork of TanN:o Creek. Bur he's roused ro elve Rall ls a consc:n urun easement on more kmd or let them plant niore trees, He doesn't want up INc in the middle of a forest. "Basically the hought this place be ause we Pike it the tv3v it is"' l eakel says. "rind so lung, as wn own it that s the Nvay it's going to stay'" Dan Yarn is snore accepting of the changes to a valley he first lived in as a newborn. 91 vears ago - His family started working the land in 189). With his massive hands and the strength that made him a Universiry of Washington lineman, Ise helped dig a new channel for pan of the creek 60 years ago, Now, he's watihing as Bahls undoes all that work, Bahls' institute bought Yarr's 200 acres, turning it into a centerpiece of the project. Besides trying to convert the pasture back into a forest, Bahls dreams of building an environmental education center and cabins where researchers can stay. Yarr drives down from his home near Post Had- lock occasionally to see the work. He speaks of it with the circumspection of someone who has seen :almost a centutw of change, "The land is still there," he tells critics. "It's not been covered with blacktop. if the country ever needs it to produce food, the land's there." VVIR )NME'N'1AL RL:STORATION projects do have a checkered history. Government workers planted reed canary grass along Tarboo Creek. Now it's despised as an inva- sive weed that chokes out native plants_ McDonald, the heavy -equipment operator, remembers jobs where he plucked fallen trees from streams. Biologists thought it would help salmon by clearing obstacles. Today, scientists say logs are critical to a healthy stream. McDonald is getting paid m put the logs back in. "Hopefully we're getting better at this restoration as time goes on, because there's a lot of weird stuff," Bah1S says of past work. Continued on next page 7 tWel! Kmwn nwge Consuttwit Ellett Yor* Asarmon"EwnfngMerg z1nr" Putatishad Aur$ur • ]sage & w 3cdrerbe demlopnwm •Public %peaking & pteseniaiinti • Ta* etiquYYte & xwiat griue s • Lite skills ce xh Films Speaker & Tminer CLY FN Io■ NE'rXriYTE 211ir-idl-:6-i6•clink (�*rllcn)nrk..mns www•,elkninrkinkaWX iauiiutexami CAij C'errlfrrare.,Awilable eaagd nw�c� ixwr a r.•v+X Xw.a s.Y. vy77 we.7 a�oXw,w � � •, 131-W-90297 MA4 [el l n ee f your dream bath or kitchen Do it yourself or professional installation s'�.+ 1"ti L. available COMPLETE SHOWROOM ■ DESIGN SERVICES • FREE ESTIMATES NLW Expanded Shv_rc, T 425-338-1139 • LICENSED 7801.19TH AVE. SE, SUITE A • BONDED North ofCmicu in Evereta &eNrid jiffy Labe • INSURED HoumTue-FrE10-5:30; Sat: 10-3 SUNDAY,NOEMBER70,1068 l IPX-CIFtC 11101170 IST 73 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00047 [W LrAND .0 A 'i`lW,' A red -legged frog does a Michael Phelps imitation as it swims awgv in rarboo Creek. Give Locally This Give to the Millionair Club Charity Serving the Working Home less Since 1921 _ _ _ www.millionairclub.org M 206,Z28 -JOBS 26 THE SEATTLE TIMES Continued from previous page Visit one of the places where he has reworked a creek, and what's most striking is how natural it looks. The stream flows beneath tangles of logs and settles into shaded pools where tiny coho swim. Lt's hard to realize that, for now, it's as artificial as the ditch cutting through hay fields. Bahls tells stories of coho spawning in streams they couldn't reach before. One neighbor reported seeing trumpeter swans feeding in a revived marsh for the first time in 44 years. Eagles perch in the maligned dead trees, watching for salmon. But for now, success here is measured more in anecdotes than hard data. The kind of change envisioned here can take decades, as trees grow and generations of fish return. When Bahls wants a reminder of his vision for the valley's future, he straps on his waders. The final half mile of Tarboo Creek, before it reaches the tideflars of Tarboo Bay, hasn't been logged for 86 years or more. The state bought 158 acres there from the Pope Resources timber com- pany in 1998, and has basically ignored it ever since. Once a week, For much of the year, Bahls wades up the stream, counting salmon and steelhead. On a recent day, he goes to see if coho or Chinook have arrived to spawn. On the bank, near the creek's month, the shiny skin of a coho lies crimpled in the dirt, the meat picked clean by a raccoon or otter. Continued on page 28 3 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00048 The Freernans dog, Camrny, dashes by a huge. skunk- cabbage leaf follow- ing therm, It's a classic wetland plant in a healthy environment - i i like a rockstar, Be treirtted Irke a I'IP wl�ei2 yot,r �iook _ . today at wuu.5'hopLilreARackstar.raetl Get ready to shake, rattle, and roll to Tukwila for holiday shopping. Because we'll spoil you like a celebrity --even if you can't afford an entourage. In fact, no place in the entire Northwest has more great stores, [have you seen the new HW?j, more mouth-watering restaurants, or more swank hotels—all in one location—than Tukwila and Westfield 5outhcenter, 5o book today and be treated like royalty while you shop for the perfect treats for others. Tukwila 877-TWWPLA www.ShopLikeARockt,tar.net Here s a taste at Tukwila s Rockstar treatment: VIP packages at three hip hotels: Courtyard by Marriott, Embassy Suites, and Homewood •uites >y Hilton with FREE upgrades and -ocktails! rJnbelievable, fly-me•to-the 'noon Horizon Air discounts from "akima, Walla Walla, Bellingham, Wenatchee and other cities! Use Code ECFL2008 to book - REE Swag iiag (1with `irst 1.no Rrckstar bookings)inoludes freebies `rom aephora, InSpa. Bare Escentuals, Body Shop, Gene Juarez, Perfumania, REI, Borders and much more! SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2008 1 PACIFIC NORTHWESt 27 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00049 Most Efficient Ever WHIRLPOOL GOLO�RESOIJRCE SAVER"' DISHWASHERS Deep cleans a full load of dishes I Combined with art using 113 less eco -friendly CEE Tier 61 r'* water and energy �r6�ilYiii Rating, these dishwashers are our most efficient ever G UZ80OXTV Y GU3:600XT VY Whirlpoo6 Gold' Whirlpo7! Gold"' ResourceSaver;", Dishwasher Resource Saver:" Dishwasher $899 $999 I Whirlpdol' 111 The power to get more done. 'R.psnnd nbr�wV-rndn.rk 0 W,11 d r, Sh ebri lM:'¢d. C-Pun A11 rV'� �arwr�a LYNNWOOD PUYALLUP Haat to MI,chaals and Marshalls NEW LOCATION! 9t•115 Arde(wood Mall Blvd rn Mm andon Hardware 425-873-7416 Stere. HOura: Mon -Fri 10-8; Sat. 11),611707 •fi CanypO Ra L Clinpo Closed Sunday 257-537 2 Shore Hours' Man -Sal. 7-8. REDPAOND Sun 9.6 Across from tarry's Markel 7223 170th Ave NF SOUTHCENTER 425.284-1540 Hear Target and 2oupa's Store. Hours: Mon -Fri 10 8, Sat 10-6. 363 Wander Rim Closed Sunday 266-638-3006 KENT Shore Hours. Mon, Fri 10-8, Sat 10 6 1015 Central Ave N Closed Sunday 253-654-3000 she Stare Hours: Mon -Fri 9-7 ■ Snit 9.6, Closes Sunday FEDERAL WAY NUYT1A G NEW LOCATIONI 33029 Padlic Hwy 5 store..O 253-861.5345 Store Hours: Mon 4P. 9-7; Sat 9-6 WW W.maytagse.aftIe.GoM e N -r. --dM v_T" A ar awrw como..00.. d. —b -d � K @2004 se.ye.,,...d 28 THE SEATTLE TIMES ONE PATCH OF LAPD ATA TIME Towering over tir{v Tarboo Creek, an old-growth Sitka spruce rises above the other trees as Peter Sahli estimates its height to be at least 150 feet. Continued from Page 26 Bahls clambers onto a fallen log and looks into a deep, brown pool where the creek. Slows - 'This is where the fish come' in early," he says. "They'll just sit here." He knows every bend, every logjam, every sandbar. The air is moist and cool. A canopy of cedars, spruce and Douglas firs turas the midday light to dusk. Orange maple leaves stand out like tiny lanterns. Pew blackberries remain entrenched here, and no reed canary grass — it doesn't thrivee in the shade.. Quiet except for the gurgle of the creek„ it Bels like a different world from the open pastures upstream- Rahls is thinking decades ahead when, if evcrvthing goes as planned., the, forests return to all of Tarbox Creek. warren Caraw'ull zsx a swrtle Times staff reporter. He run be reached ar wcomwal[t<immmeames. conn. Afrin Berner is a Tent¢a; staff phatagrapher. He can he redched at abernergswaierimes.com. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00050 THE GREEN ISSUE _ NOVEMBER 18,7fl12 . 40- 01 lift- ip n M'1 At all Unlikely bedfellows keep aabob safe by keeping their distance SIMPLE HOME ■ A fresh space from salvaged thing Z E RO ,gWAST�E- ■ FFrom old wooed, a neva ta�ibi 18 Log or ommenMso ff F Tit.mAeRme �m�n is � ��0 fia 1 _ jl�iE GREEN ISSUE Most days in Dabob Bay, harbor seals, like these resting on a shell- fish raft, outnumber people at least 100 to 1. TO PRESERVE DABOB BAY, PIS ND PRIVATE MCH JOIN E CRCA appeared to be up to something. by lain Judd >> photas by Tam Reese When a local oysterman saw the big blackfish swim into Hood Canal's Dabob flay a few years back, he wasn't T ntirely surprised. Transient orcas often follow schools of salmon around Puget Sound, cornering them in places ke Dabob, an unusually deep, uncommonly pristine pocket of water near Quilcene. Dabob Bay, viewed from the north, with the exposed tidelands of Tarboo Bay in the fore- ground, stretches into Hood Canal, its waters more than 600 feet deep in the center. Its quiet isolation is preferred by oyster growers and the Navy, which uses it as an underwater testing site. PAC:IFICI♦w This whale seemed to be on a mission. Setting out on its own, away from the pod. the whale sworn slowly up the shoreline of Dabob, then up the outer side, circumnavi- gating; the entire body of eater. Finally, out. in the darker, deep water near the bay's center, the whale swam with more urgency toward Broad Spit:; a, thumb of land that sticks out front the Bolton Peninsula. And there, chaos erupted.. The whale's pod mates, lurk- ing all this ttimee behind the spit's tall, sandy bluff, pounced. and, in a blitzkrieg of bared teeth, attacked a group of harbor seals, which the intrepid scout whale: had rounded up and delivered right to them. It`s the sorr of thing, says Local conservationist Peter Bahls, that one might expect to see on the BBC, or perhaps "Animal Planet" — not in the placid waters of a quaint, quiet salt- water inlet only a. short distance, as the gull flies, fnarn doxvntown Seattle. It was just another day in Dabob 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00052 It's a fragile balance. Biologists fear that even if Dabob Bay's trademark clean waters are Protected locally, alarming shifts in acid levels occurring in the Pacific Ocean stili could threaten or devastate local shellfish production. Bay, one of the lust, hest places in all of Puget Sound to witness, in a sinfle tide cycle, the entire Aquatic food chain — from microscopic organisms to eelarass to little fish to medium-sized fish to salmon to seals to whales — in motion. All in a place which, unlike most of the rest of the Sound, has changed little since Capt. George Vancouver entered local waters and started naming everything 220 years ago. OK, one large exception. There is the matter of those many-orders- of-magnirude-larger blackfish — lethal, silent Trident ballistic -mis- sile submarines, which also have made the bay their semi-secret home for decades. And one smaller one: A half- dozen commercial shellfish operations, where three genera- tions of growers have produced world-renowned oysters, some of them responsible for restocking the West Coast's oyster suppliers after their oysters stopped repro- ducing naturally six years ago. Those oyster farms, especially the hatchery run by Taylor Shellfish, rely on Da bob's pristine, forest - and tide -flat -filtered waters to turn spat into gold, "It`s sort of a Flagship conser- vation project for Puget Sound," says Bahls (pronounced "Bails"), a fish biologist by trade who now heads the Port Townsend - based Northwest Watersheds Institute, " I don't think there's many places like it left," 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit Today, the question in Dabob Bay is not how all the seemingly incongruous pieces of a decidedly strange -bedfellows consenva- tion plan Fit together, but how the place moving fonvard might remain anywhere close to as pris- tine with any one of them pulled from the mix, k ATURE, LEFT TO its own devices, has been known to regularly Turn lemons into meringue pie. But few places in ► 18 Amendments CSF - 00053 THE SEATTLE TIMES • NOVEMBER 18, 2012 One of the secrets to Dabob Bay's successful reservation might be its istinctly difficult access or shorebound residents. Pteep shorelines and pri- �ate property combine to make public beach access very scarce. .s.+ the Northwest boast the odd pile of ingredi- ents — man, mollusk, mammal and mili- tary, — found in the deep mixing bowl that is Dabob Bay, a waterway that sticks like a hitchhiker's thumb northward from Hood Canal, the nation's longest natural fjord. That has a little to do with luck, but much more to do with hard work by various public and private parties, with the ongoing assis- tance of the naturally secluded nature of the bay itself. Dabob, tucked mostly out of sight berween the Bolton and Toandos peninsulas along the northwest shore of Hood Canal, is sur- Z. - rounded by steep -walled, forested hills, some of them logged in the early 20th century, most now back to their evergreen state. The glaciers that long ago carved this deep notch could not have known that they were creat- ing a chasm so impressive that it would be tough, even For humans, to screw up. Hood Canal, which actually is the long, croaked western arm of Puget Sound, Once roasted a wealth of rich saltwater estuaries — places where crystal-clear freshwater streams danced from the leeward 011,qupic Mountains and met the saltchuck, creating rich; fertile tidelands that provided the springboard for the local marine Food chain. All of these remain, in varjng degrees of ill -repair. A wick glance at any map reveals that the major ones — at the mouths of the Skokom- ish, Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers — all have a common denominator: They're partly bisected by a road, Highway 101. Not so for Dabob, Uncommonly steep shorelines and very sleep eater (the center is more than 600 feet deep; picture the Space Needle submerged) made highway engineers shrug and say, "Go around." And that is exactly what most motorists do today, pass- ing by Dabob via Highways 104 and 101 and not even realizing it's there. The skirting of the Highway preserves Dabob's secluded status in another important way: Several handfuls of homes are scattered about in the watershed's uplands, but few PACIFIC■w 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00054 4 ave. public roads intrude into the area. Access is primarily on private, gravel lanes that dis- courage tourists. The primary public access to Dabob is by water, vias boat or kayak; the Quilcene Marina, a good S miles from the head of the bay, is the closest major public launching point. The result: Most days, Dabob is home to many more seals, porpoises and seabirds than people. Plenty of boat traffic some sightseers, commercial and recreational fish- ermen, oyster farmers and strong kayakers — does make its way into the bay. But the scarcity of year-round dwellers leaves the bay mostly to its own peaceful devices. THAT WOULD YOU see on a trek up $ i Dabob? Harbor seals, lots of 'em, with moms nabob's handful of year-round residents sometimes are treated to the site of bald eagles —as many as 100 at a time —feeding on shorelines. This one is preserved for tourist eyeballs on a store wall in Quilcene. The quiet, clear waters of Dabob and Quilcene bays have their own thriving com- merce — shellfish production; six companies culti- vate and produce oysters and other shellfish here. Oyster spat from Dabob helped re- stock many other hatcheries after a widespread oyster die -off in the past decade. owl: _ _ anti pups hauled out on beaches and shell- fish -farm floats. Occasional jumping salmon; recovering runs of Toho and churn returning to the main feeder stream, I'arboo Creek, attract the seals. Porpoises will Fin about. Loons bobble on the waves. The lucky visitor might see an endangered marbled murrelet; known nest- ing sites are found here. Perhaps more striking are the shorelines themselves. They're not much different from others in the Sound, except for one thing: They are uninterrupted, with nary a bulk- head, jetty wall or other man-made "fearure" marring the symmetry. The bay's most distinctive feature, however, is easy to miss from the water: a series of artful stand spits, a few Visible at high tide, an addi- tional half-dozen emerging at low. The spits, formed over centuries by sediment moved by the bay's unique hydrodyaiamics, break the inner bay into segments, with two larger ones separating; Tarboo Bay, at the north til) — much of the time, an unnavigable tidal mud flat — from Dabob Bay proper, which stretches, technically, a dozen miles to the south. The spit's sandy uplands host rare veg- etation, their backwaters provide rich salt marshes festooned with eelgrass and other host species vital to the hatching of marine life. Viewed from the air, the sand spits look like delicate artwork — sweeping arches with Renoir colors and Van Gogh curves. It's a stunning image, and the concentration of spits in Dabob's relatively confined quarters make it unique in Puget Sound, Bill Dewey of Taylor Shellfish, who has worked in the industry for 30 years, got his ► 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00055 THE SEATTLE TIMES • NOVEMBER is, 2012 ,I r start with a private grower up in the shallow waters of Tarhoo. His unbiased opinion: "It's about as close to heaven as you get. I hope it stays that way." THREE DECADES ago, those delicate sculptures in sand drew the attention of conservationists, and of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources, charged with preserving the state's most treasured natural features. The DNR declared about 200 acres of sand spits and immediate shoreline areas as Dabob Bay Natural Area, protecting it from development. Over the years, landowners along the bay and in its uplands realized that that designation alone would not protect the bay's true treasure, its clean water. Thou- sands of acres of the steep uplands were in private hands — logging company Pope Resources and others — thousands more already in DNR ownership, but slated for logging to benefit state school con- struction. Other private tracts were large enough to accommodate subdevelopment and further home construction — not at all a stretch of the imagination given the area's stunning; beauty and relative prox- imity to the Seattle metro area. After much grass roots lobbying and organizing, Commissioner of Public 1.1nds Peter Goldrnark in 2009 signed a measure to protect almost the entire watershed by drawing a line around the bay, nearly to the top of Its uplands, and designating .it as Dabob Bay Natural Area, About half the 4,000 acres inside that line was already public, all private land within the bound- aries remained so. Conservationists moved quickly, secur- ing private donations and snatching public money to convince pope and many private homeowners to either sell land for trust status or issue conservation easeinerrts ensuring the property will never be fur- ther developed. Wildlife photographer Keith Lazelle, a 20 -year Dabob resident, stepped fonvard. He recently sold rwo 6 -acre parcels of for- est land that sit on either side of his home, about 350 feet above Dabob, to the DNR's natural reserve, and signed a conservation easement with the Jefferson Land Trust for his home lot, He'd like to see the best feature of his land — the almost eerie quiet — remain that way. Some of the oyster farmers Wildlife, including numerous birds, has coexisted with humans in Dabob for centuries. Managers of the Dabob Natural Area warn that the balance could be interrupted by future residential development. Canada geese fly pasta vulture and hillside homes. Dabob Bay Natural. Area The Department of Natural Resources in 2009 expanded the boundaries of the Dabob Natural Area to include most of the local watershed. DooTrrr:li0o A ' oxo ,['reek tN I O MFL gay I'm Long Spit QUILaAE- Elroad T Spit Dabob r Bay OLYMPIC rCA,N'aO7 NATIONAL BOLTON PENINSULA FOREST PENINSULA I ) Hpud Canal �Seattir A ? i a / Budge auiLCENE k WASHINGTON � .■ Li F Y� S •N OLYMPIC C6 vl: NAMNAI-~ r. • PUULW fOREST OLYMPIC Int•. NARK NAL ■�t�� �VL'ri kOA E ` _01 • r' SECK 3:1 i � Yii11LU1'+ �Itt�: kion �UuKes, ESR. TcieAtfos, 00partmeret oYNaeU.•r+! Hey>aui:rs MARK NOWLIN THE SEATTLE TIMES across the bay occasionally run old trucks with "funky mufflers," but that's about the only unnatural sound you hear at l.azelle's place. "You can actually heat- people talking on the other side of the bay," more than a mile away, he says. All of those oyster farmers — some have been here for three generations — have been activee advocates for the conservation effort: With fragile water tolerances for shellfish production, they fret about even small changes to the upland forests that filter their water, The state has done its part, as well, transferring some 2,000 acres of School Trust timber land to conservation status, in exchange for either cash or replacement timber acreage that's less environmentally sensitive. And. a seemingly- unlikely partner, the U.S, Navy, has been proven to be a tremendous ally in Dabob's green quest. The Navy, whose West Coast mase for Ohio -class Trident submarines is a short distance to the east, at Bangor in Kitsap County, set aside outer Dabob's deep waters as a non -explosion missile test range long before conservation status came to the inner bay. Sub fleet com- manders have an interest that dovetails P, 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00057 THE SEATTLE. TIMES • NOVEMBER 18, 2012 f -- _. AL JI ,V roil ✓f , t f r � Oe ir, - I owl jf-� we s ` �• .sF1C � k / -- r� '': 7►• . ' I � LIQ', . • /_ r - r' r Subtle tidal �'rx ' patterns, which depos- it driftwood and some ' evidence of t •� human activ- M • I + ;•y. ` !' ity, operate within the + r bay as they _ ;4; have for mil- e lennia, largely Y: i' , because the contiguous % shorelines have not �lry been inter- rupted by bulkheads 1 f + or other > i man-made obstacles, biologists say. rem 18 A ment CSF - 00058 NOVEMBER 18, 2012 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission and BOCC From: Diane Johnson, 1521 Dabob Rd. Quilcene Re: Proposed Gun Range Title 18 amendments, ref: ZON18-00036 Date: November 7, 2018 Dear Commission Members: My name is Diane Johnson and l was born and lived in Dabob my first 20 years, and have been a resident and home owner on the Dabob Road for the last 10 years. Tonight I thought I might try to speak for our lowland lakes, as they represent a the "land" use that cannot speak for itself, because of their intrinsic value to the public, including to those who do not live here, but may, on coming here, enjoy their serenity and recreational values. Let's say my name is Sandy S., and I welcome many people every year for trout and bass fishing, kayaking, bird and animal watching, duck hunting, swimming, picnics and birthday parties, moon watching and making out—you know, peaceful, meditative activities, the kind where people come to think, immerse themselves in nature, find the calm, peaceful center, observe and learn, but also, to have fun and spend time with friends and family. I am peaceful by nature, and surrounded by forest, which is also pretty quiet. Because I am a lowland fishing lake with a boat ramp built by the Department of Natural Resources, only small boats and motors are allowed on me, and no water skiing or jet skis, anything that would make excessive noise or waves that would threaten other small boats or swimmers, or disturb the fish. Maybe not a lot of people use me at any one time, but it is nice to have those here who appreciate the peace and quiet I have to offer. Imagine my shock when somebody started shooting up my trees and dumping who knows what kind of trash all over my shore! The NOISE was overwhelming! They just wouldn't stop ---all day, almost every day. My friends stopped coming, and I thought I was going to die! 1 was so happy when the nice ranger from the DNR came and closed the gate, and made them go away! And now—I heard that the rules have changed, and they are going to allow people to build something called shooting ranges right next to me, and there's no limit to how many people might shoot, or how loud the guns might be, all day, even into the night. They can even bring helicopters here, and the military, who use machine guns! I already have a headache, and I know I will never see my friends again. I don't know if my fish and birds and animals will be hurt, either, if they let bad things get into my water..... Enough. Our lowland lakes, rivers, and shorelines have an already established use, a land use, for small scale recreation by residents and tourists, that is incompatible with the noise of commercial gun ranges and group military or law enforcement training. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is VERY CLEAR that "habitability, environmental quality, and natural beauty are to be protected from adverse impacts of development with respect to light, glare, and noise, and that impacts are to be mitigated to the extent of the impact to existing conditions (ENG10.0) Problems associated with noise -generating land uses are to be reduced, mitigated and where possible eliminated (ENP10.2). The Comp Plan also emphasizes "preserving the rural character of the county land and lifestyles and the opportunities they provide to those who struggle to live, thrive, and age with dignity there." It mandates 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00059 low impact rural development and protection of open spaces, shoreline, forests, wildlife habitats, and clean air and water. It emphasizes low impact development related to tourism, non -motorized bike lanes and paths, with honor and respect for the natural world. All of these are incompatible with outdoor commercial gun ranges and military training. As Sandy S., and as myself, I implore you to prohibit the siting of gun ranges, except indoor ranges, within the sound -shed of our lowland fishing lakes. They are of inestimable value to our rural way of life, and the life, liberty and happiness of our neighbors. P.S. People have the right to own guns, but not necessarily the right to shoot them. There's nothing in the 2"0 Amendment that says any level of government does not have the right to regulate the shooting part! in fact, there are many such regulations in both our county and our state. I also think it is unreasonable to say (Table 3-1) that indoor shooting ranges cannot be placed in a light industrial hark or zone—what better place could there be to not annoy your neighbors! A lot better than sticking them in a "no -shooting" residential zone! The parking alone would be a huge problem! Please add Light Industrial as an appropriate zone for indoor ranges, and remove them from residential and no -shooting zones. REFERENCES: 1. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan I Jefferson County, WA www.co-jefferson.wa.us/578/jefferson-County-Comprehensive-Plan Jefferson County is updating its Comprehensive Plan to create a plan for the 21 st Century that supports rural lifestyles, welcomes residents of all ages and incomes, embraces diversity, values quality services and facilities, and balances growth and economic development with respect for the natural world. The mountain, water, and valley views found in Jefferson County have significant value for County residents and visitors. County residents depend on these scenic resources for enriching their quality of life and maintaining economic vitality. Tourist activities and real estate property values reflect the high value placed on this aesthetic amenity. other views, such as corridors adequately buffered by trees and other vegetation, as well as tree cover throughout the County enhance the overall rural character of the community. There are currently no regulations for the protection of views and viewsheds. In rural Jefferson County, noise conditions have not generally been considered a problem. Resolving the impacts of growth in a changing rural area may require a level of noise regulation that will be determined in future public processes. 2. Growth Management Act / Washington State (RCW 36.70A.030) "This act is necessary ror the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or sarety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 12, 2045]." [ 2005 c 423 § 7.j H 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00060 J (RCW 36.70A.011, Rural Lands) The legislature finds that in defining its rural element under RCW 36.70A.070(5), a county should foster land use patterns and develop a local vision of rural character that will: Help preserve rural -based economies and traditional rural lifestyles; encourage the economic prosperity of rural residents; foster opportunities far small-scale, rural -based employment and self- employment; permit the operation of rural -based agricultural, commercial, recreational, and tourist businesses that are consistent with existing and planned land use patterns; be compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; foster the private stewardship of the land and preservation of open space; and enhance the rural sense of community and quality of life. RCW 36.70A.020 Goals 8, 9, 101 (8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries industries_ Encourage the conservation of productive forestlands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. (9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. (10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. 3 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00061 ORAL TESTIMONY, NOVEMBER 7"', 2018 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, REF: ION18-M35 Diane Johnson, 1521 Dabob Road, Quilcene SUMMARY: The ordinance under consideration by the Jefferson County Commissioners regarding the operating conditions of shooting ranges in Jefferson County is supposed to protect the safety and health of those who use those ranges and that of the surrounding community members. The County is essentially rural in nature; the sounds of the country are more likely to he of a natural origin, animals calling or crashing through the brush , or the wind, or rain, the sound of waves, an occasional tree branch snapping off, those for which our hearing apparatus was adapted. Its residents are only intermittently exposed to the kinds of industrial sounds/noises, such as helicopters, heavy machinery, chain saws, sirens, explosions, banging and clanging, freeway sounds, or even loud music that residents of more urban environments must endure, either in their jobs or in their surroundings, and certainly, to the sounds of shooting that mimic war. These types of sound have been declared "noise pollution" and a national hazard by Congress as early as 1972 due to their negative effects on human health. The sense of hearing is our early warning system, it operates 24/7, and its purpose is to stimulate our bodies to get ready to defend ourselves or move rapidly away in avoidance. If the perceived sound is annoying or upsetting or causes fear, or causes damage to the body, whether or not the individual is aware of those effects, it is defined as "noise." Noise can be of any magnitude or duration, therefore, and the degree of upset is determined by its meaning to the individual and the individual's perceived ability to control the noise. Noise creates a stress response in the body, which leads to changes in the neuroendocrine system, including the release of cortisol. If the noise is extremely loud, unremitting or repeated over a long period of time, or interferes with task performance or speech, a chronic state of preparedness/stress can occur, eventually even when the stimulus is not present. Such a state leads to the General Adaptive Syndrome, where the neuroendocrine system NEVER returns to a calm state. Damage from such system overloads can eventually lead to medical conditions such as gastric ulceration, immune system disorders, hypertension, atherosclerosis, sterility, obesity, and personality changes, such as excessive irritability and anger responses. So, NOISE, as defined as any unwanted and uncontrollable sound, CAN and DOES cause physiological chap es and u Itimate!y, dams a in the human body. The effects and their costs may not be, generally are not, immediately perceivable, but they undoubtedly account for a large percentage of the ever- increasing costs of medical care in this country. Researchers have also found that healing from the effects of noise can come through exposure to natural environments and sounds, and to total quiet. With respect to gun sounds/noise, one of my friends said it best: "Most normal people become upset, annoyed, or anxious at the sound of gunfire, and we never get used to it!" 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00062 I The compelling reasons for action are the facts that substantial groups of the population are vulnerable to adverse health effects from noise, that the quality of life is generally eroded by annoyance from noise, that sleep is disrupted, that productivity is reduced, and that the concentration required to learn is affected by noisy environments. A significant responsibility rests on the business or industry to actively reduce noise emission at the source. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCE. First, it is imperative that noise from a commercial Run range be addressed in the ordinance not as a "nuisance," but as an extreme kind of the modern, industrial/urban sound proven to cause emotional and physiological harm to humans, especially children, and to wildlife. For this reason, Washington State WAC 173-60-030 and 173-60-050 should be applied. Further, testink for the noise pattern should be done at maximum utilization and weapon caliber, and with helicopter noise, not with a single or few random pistol shots. Given the geography of the area, the sound -carrying capacity of the atmosphere, and the extreme quiet of most county soundscapes, the distance of one mile for considering residential effects is a joke—the sound of the average hunting rifle can be heard at one mile. For example, due to the increased intensity at the existing shooting range, the Sheriff says complaints are coming from much farther away, Z miles or more, in the city. The proposed new range has four communities within two miles, and one major business just over a mile away that would be destroyed by the noise. One mile is not adequate—three miles is a more realistic radius for consideration of the much more intense, persistent shooting of a shooting facility with multiple ranges and helicopter pads. These stipulations need to be made in the ordinance to bring them under control of the operating permit. The best solution from the point of view of the general public for whom the noise of a shooting facility would form a feature of their soundscape would be for all gun/shooting ranges to be indoors. I urge you to seriously consider that option for the future of gun ranges in Jefferson County. If outdoor shooting facilities are to be built, the regulations should require the proposing party demonstrate a clear plan to include sound -mitigating berms of adequate height to direct all or nearly all of the sound waves upward away from the range, rather than laterally, or other mitigations that would create the same kind of protections. An even better plan would be to place the facility in a deep ravine at a distance of no less than three miles from the nearest inhabitants. One local citizen told me he knows of such a place right now that would meet that criterion. Or perhaps the county could work with DNR to make an appropriate land swap to facilitate such a solution. Lastly, local shooting facilities should provide training in firearm operation, care, and safety, as well as personal self-defense to individuals, including groups of individuals, and hunter safety for children and adults, as well as providing a safe environment for the practice in and sport of shooting. However, given the greatly increased intensity of weaponry (calibers) and helicopters, and the increasing density of Jefferson County, I urge you to prohibit or ag nized military training at shooting facilities in Jefferson County, and that organized police, sheriff, or other law enforcement training be limited to local law enforcement, with a prohibition on explosions of any kind. Since these are brief in duration and only periodically required, their impact would be more tolerable to residents. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF -00063 ft To: Jefferson County Planning Commission and BOCC From: Diane Johnson, 1521 Dabob Rd. Ctuilcene Re: Proposed Gun Range Title 18 amendments, ref: ZON18-00036 Date: November 7, 2018 Dear Commission Members: My name is Diane Johnson and 1 was born and lived in Dabob my first 20 years, and have been a resident and home owner on the Dabob Road for the last 10 years. I am not opposed to the safe use of guns but am opposed to the Cedar Hills Recreational Facility. In this document, I specifically discuss the detrimental effects of sound, in the form of noise, on the health and well-being of human beings and how "neighborhood," the concept of "soundscape," and specific buffers are important in the siting of new gun ranges of any type to the health and safety of county residents and wildlife But first, I want to lay out a backdrop for my concern, and provide some science behind why I believe sound, and noise, in particular, need specific recognition in the ordinance. PREAMBLE: Revitalization in Jefferson County and throughout America in last 10-20 years has focused on the rural economy and conservation and revitalization of productive soils, and clean air and water. Locally, I am involved in the revitalization of Chimacum Grange, and am aware of an increasing cadre of young farmers who are committed to permaculture and other regenerative farming techniques that seek to work with the land and nature's cycles of growth and fertility, rather than relying on chemicals, fertilizer or poisons, for nurturing their crops. "Local food" and "food security," including the sustainability and diversity of local agriculture are BIG topics in Jefferson County involving many people, e.g., Local 20/20. In addition, former city dwellers, retirees, and veterans have moved to our county in numbers significantly greater proportion to our census than to other areas, even other rural areas of Washington, according to census data. Why? To escape the hubbub and the noise of cities and war, valuing both the calm of living in our area's abundant natural beauty and its peaceful, quiet environment. (There are actually therapies for mental illness and stress based on contact with both exposure to nature and to extended periods of quiet.) Intensification of local conservation efforts in the last 20 year has led to creation of County Critical Areas, Shoreline, and water availability(WRIA) Ordinances and Rules to protect those resources that will only be more critical as our population grows and problems of pollution and scarcity occur. Our State and County have seen increasing attempts to guarantee the continued availability of farmland and to protect our water resources, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars locally. I doubt that more has been expended anywhere locally than in the Tarboo watershed and Tarboo and Dabob Bays. Both our local Chimacum Grange H681 and the Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC) are committed to preserving as much of the rural character and values of Jefferson County as still remain. We believe that Forests, Farms, Families, and clean water for Fish define the rural Jefferson County Character, not the unrelenting sounds of military helicopters and gunfire that come from large commercial shooting facilities. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00064 RURAL CHARACTER: What does rural character mean? When we think about driving, biking, or walking around Jefferson County, what do we See? Primarily little valleys with fields, cattle or other grazing animals, acreage with flowers and vegetables, grains or grass, and scattered houses, all surrounded by trees. Trees and underbrush, including our state flower, the rhododendron [some might believe it's scotch broom,) line our roadways for hundreds of miles. There are myriad wonderful seascapes. Essentially, as far as the eye can see, there are fields, water, or trees. A few small villages, quickly passed through, dot the landscape as well. These are our local yiewscapes. Our soundscapes are what we can hear. In most areas of Jefferson County, it is generally quiet. Where I live, you can hear a coyote howling from at least a mile and a half away, traffic noise like loud trucks, motorcycles, and sirens, and dogs barking from a mile or more away, and voices, and even sometimes words, from a quarter mile away. There are occasionally low flying planes and helicopters that sound like they are directly overhead, treetop level. The sound of gunshots can be heard easily from as far away as two miles. At night, the sounds of cattle ruminating across the road, frogs croaking in the nearby pond and ditches, and chipmunks raiding the fruit on the porch can all be heard against the nearly absolute silence. The ecoscape is defined as the organizational shape or layout of an ecosystem. An ecoscape is a multidimensional landscape of a social -economic -natural complex ecosystem, combining geographical patterns, hydrological processes, biological vitality, anthropological dynamics and aesthetic contexts. Concepts used in understanding the ecoscape include: Restoration ecology, Applied ecology, Ecological design, Sustainable engineering, Ecoscaping, Environmental restoration, Precipitationshed, Conservation agriculture, Sustainable, Agroforestry, Erosion control, and Nonpoint source pollution, among others (U.S. Natural Resources Conservation). In Jefferson County, the most familiar ecoscape designations are our watersheds, including Tarboo, and regionally, Puget Sound. So, our ecoscape is the soils, water patterns, the diversity and health of animals and plants, native and otherwise, the people who live there and their values and health, the beauty, or lack thereof, of the area, the economy of the area, and all of the impacts from natural and human sources and activities. Tarboo Ridge Coalition addresses several of these ecoscape concerns in our requests for amendments and additions to the proposed regulations governing the siting of gun ranges in Jefferson County. RELEVANCE OF THE SOUNDSCAPE OF AN AREA TO THE SITING OF GUN RANGES: I propose that the qualities of the soundscape of an area in which a shooting facility, especially an outdoor facility might be proposed are very important to the health of the people who are exposed to them, I will discuss scientific research on hearing and sound generally, and the effects of "noise" on health. Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section is drawn from a National Institute of Health -funded research article by Westman and Walters, 1981, and can be found at https Zlwww.ncbi_nlm.nih.pov/2mcZarticles/PMC15688501 (underlining is mine, for emphasis). HEARING The fundamental purposes of hearing are to alert and to warn. As a result sound directly evokes emotions and actions. The auditory orienting response, startle reflex and defensive response translate sound stimuli into action and sometimes into stress-induced bodily changes through the "fight or flight" neural mechanisms. Because of its defensive purpose, hearing cannot be turned off, and sound registers in the brain even during sleep. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF -00065 The auditory apparatus is connected to the entire central nervous system and the neuroendocrine system as well. Sound plays a vital role in maintaining arousal of the brain and thereby influences the basic physiological functioning of the body. The arousal level of the central nervous system depends upon the intensity, complexity, variability, predictability and meaning of sound stimuli. The brain first responds to any sound with the orienting response, simply, where and what it is. The second basic auditory response is the startle reflex which is evoked by sounds of sudden, intense, or frightening significance. The typical reflex is completed in less than one second. The startle reflex components involving the lower centers in the brainstem are not subject to habituation, i.e., you don't get used to it. The defensive response, number three, does not require sounds of high intensity_. This response is produced by sounds of sufficient intensity, significance or duration to be l2erceived as threatening,mobilizing the "fight or flight" reaction. This response can become the stress that leads to the General Adaptation Syndrome with its alarm, resistance, and exhaustion stages if the sound stressor is of sufficient duration, quantity, and quality. NOISE: The human auditory system was designed to process the frequencies and intensities relevant to survival in the sound environments of nature. The evolutionary process has not allowed humans enough time to adapt hearing to sounds generated by loud modern noise sources. This means that the auditory apparatus is not prepared to cope with commonly encountered urban and industrial noise. Consequently, we find ourselves exposed to sound environments that overload the auditory system, An analogous situation would occur in the visual system if we were forced to look at the sun and thereby damage the retina. Noise was identified as a national hazard by Congress as far back as 1972, in the form of the Noise Control Act, and in 1978 in the Quiet Communities Act. Noise essentially is unwanted sound. As such, subjectively experienced noise is any sound that produces annoyance or communication or task performance interference. The same sound stimulus may be perceived subjectively as noise by some and not by others. For this reason it is useful to define noise objectively as sound that produces harmful bodily effects which may or may not be subjectively perceived. This point is important because noise can be subjectively or objectively stressful, or both, i.e., can cause harmful arousal and physiological effects outside one's awareness of those effects. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON THE BODY AND HEALTH: The damaging effects of noise usually are regarded as limited to the structures of the ear through impairing one's ability to hear sounds such as speech and music. The fact that noise has more pervasive physiological effects has not received as much attention. The auditory orienting response, startle reflex and defensive response translate sound stimuli into action and sometimes into stress-induced bodily changes through "fight or flight" neural mechanisms. When this mechanism is activated, the hypothalamic -pituitary -adrenal axis is mobilized with resulting increase in adrenal cortisol and epinephrine levels. The first level of damage comes from noise overload, which results from an excess of the number or rate of sensory or symbolic stimuli or both. Human experiments have shown the disorganizing and psychotogenic effects of sensory overload, in the form of heightened and sustained arousal, mood changes, and in the extreme, illusions, hallucinations, and body image distortions. Low frequency noises have effects similar to the more familiar piercing high frequency sounds. Over time, one might manage to adapt to this noise routine, but not 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00066 without increases in irritability and loss of effectiveness. If one becomes resigned to a lack of control over their noise environment, the resulting "learned helplessness" itself may become a stressor and contribute to additional symptoms of depression, Investigators found that an individual's ability to control the noise source, and even the belief that one could, reduced the adverse impact. An experimental study of humans performing mental arithmetic problems under noise exposure found that blood levels of cortisol were significantly higher in persons with no control over the noise source than in those with control. (This may explain why even a person with PTSD related to artillery fire in battle is not bothered by his own gun shots while hunting.) The second level of damage comes with the General Adaptation Syndrome, which is activated by intense and persistent stressors that produce a specific effect on the adrenal glands, thymus and stomach. Most prominent of the neuroendocrine reactions are the significantly higher plasma cortisol levels and increased activity of the sympathetic nervous system, including increased secretion of epinephrine by the adrenal medulla in persons with no control over the noise source than in those with control. The sustained effects of cortisol may appear in the form of gastric ulceration, inhibition of immune responses, hypertension, atherosclerosis, sterility and personality changes. In a separate study, Arhlin elaborated the concept of "annoyance" Annoyance can be experienced from the direct effects of noise, such as loss of hearing or sleep, or interference with task performance or speech, and/or from the indirect effects of noise, such as blood pressure elevation, headaches, fatigability, anxiety, depression and accident risk. In other words, the experience of annoyance serves to warn an individual of unpleasant or harmful environmental conditions, and thus serves a useful survival purpose as one of the variables in responding to a given sound. He says that annoyance is heightened when noise is perceived as unnecessary, when those responsible for the noise are perceived as unconcerned about the exposed population's welfare, when other aspects of the environment are disliked, when noise is believed to be harmful to health, and when noise is associated with fear. It can probably be safely inferred, in the light of all the forgoing information, that the more annoyed a person is, the greater the physiological reactions the person will experience. SUMMARY: The Ordinance adopted by the Jefferson County Commissioners regarding the operating conditions of shooting ranges in Jefferson County is supposed to protect the safety and health of those who use those ranges and that of the surrounding community members. The County is essentially rural in nature; the sounds of the country are more likely to be of a natural origin, animals calling or crashing through the brush , or the wind, or rain, the sound of waves, an occasional tree branch snapping off, those for which our hearing apparatus was adapted. its residents are only intermittently exposed to the kinds of industrial sounds/noises, such as helicopters, heavy machinery, chain saws, sirens, explosions, banging and clanging, freeway sounds, or even loud music that residents of more urban environments must endure, either in their jobs or in their surroundings, and certainly, to the sounds of shooting that mimic war. These types of sound have been declared "noise pollution" and a national hazard by Congress as early as 1972 due to their negative effects on human health. The sense of hearing is our early warning system, it operates 24/7, and its purpose is to stimulate our bodies to get ready to defend ourselves or move rapidly away in avoidance. If the perceived sound is annoying or upsetting or causes fear, or causes damage to the body, whether or not the individual is aware of those effects, it is defined as "noise." noise can be of any magnitude or duration, 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00067 therefore, and the degree of upset is determined by its meaning to the individual and the individual's perceived ability to control the noise. Noise creates a stress response in the body, which leads to changes in the neuroendocrine system, including the release of cortisol. If the noise is extremely loud, unremitting or repeated over a long period of time, or interferes with task performance or speech, a chronic state of preparedness/stress can occur, eventually even when the stimulus is not present. Such a state leads to the General Adaptive Syndrome, where the neuroendocrine system NEVER returns to a calm state. Damage from such system overloads can eventually lead to medical conditions such as gastric ulceration, immune system disorders, hypertension, atherosclerosis, sterility, obesity, and personality changes, such as excessive irritability and anger responses. So, NOISE, as defined as any unwanted and uncontrollable sound, CAN and DOES cause physiological changes and ultimately, damage, in the human body. The effects and their costs may not be, generally are not, immediately perceivable, but they undoubtedly account for a large percentage of the ever-increasing costs of medical care in this country. Researchers have also found that healing from the effects of noise can come through exposure to natural environments and sounds, and to total quiet. With respect to gun sounds/noise, one of my friends said it best: "Most normal people become upset, annoyed, or anxious at the sound of gunfire, and we never get used to it r,. The compelling reasons for action are the facts that substantial groups of the population are vulnerable to adverse health effects from noise, that the quality of life is generally eroded by annoyance from noise, that sleep is disrupted, that productivity is reduced, and that the concentration required to learn is affected by noisy environments. A significant responsibility rests on the business or industry to actively reduce noise emission at the source. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCE. First, it is imperative that noise from a commercial gun range be seen not only as a "nuisance," but as an extreme kind of the modern, industrial/urban sound proven to cause emotional and physiological harm to humans, especially children, and to wildlife. For this reason, Washington State WAC 173-60-030 and 173-60-050 should be applied. Further, jggt q& for the noise pattern should be done at maximum utilization and weapon caliber, and with helicopter noise, not with a single or few random pistol shots. Given the geography of the area, the sound -carrying capacity of the atmosphere, and the extreme quiet of most county soundscapes, the distance of one mile for considering residential effects is a joke—the sound of the average hunting rifle can be heard at one mile. For example, due to the increased intensity at the existing shooting range, the Sheriff says complaints are coming from much farther away, 2 miles or more, in the city. The proposed new range at Tarboo, for example, has four communities within two miles, and there is one major business just over a mile away that would be destroyed by the noise. One mile is not adequate—three miles is a more realistic radius for consideration of the effects of the far more intense, persistent shooting of any shooting facility with unlimited multiple ranges and shooters, helicopter pads, and or military or law enforcement groin training. These stipulations need to be made in the ordinance to bring the need for noise mitigation under control of the operating permit. The best solution from the point of view of the general public for whom the noise of a shooting facility would form a feature of their soundscape would be for all_gunZshooting ranges to be indoors. I urge you to seriously consider that option for the future of gun ranges in Jefferson County. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00068 If outdoor shooting facilities are to be built, the regulations should require the proposing party demonstrate a clear plan to include sound -mitigating berms of adequate height to direct all or nearly all of the sound waves upward away from the range, rather than laterally, or other mitigations that would create the same kind of protections. An even better plan would be to place the facility in a deep ravine at a distance of no less than three miles from the nearest inhabitants. One local citizen told me he knows of such a place right now that would meet that criterion. Or perhaps the county could work with DNR to make an appropriate land swap to facilitate such a solution. Lastly, local shooting facilities should provide training in firearm operation, care, and safety, as well as personal self-defense to individuals, including groups of individuals, and hunter safety for children and adults, as well as providing a safe environment for the practice in and sport of shooting. However, given the greatly increased intensity of weaponry (calibers) and helicopters, and the increasing density of Jefferson County, I urge you to prohibit or anized military training at shooting facilities in Jefferson County, and that any organized police, sheriff, or other law enforcement training be limited to local law enforcement with a prohibition on explosions of any kind. Since these are brief in duration, i.e., one or two days at a time, and only periodically required, their impact would be more tolerable to residents. SOME REFERENCES Borsky, PN. Review of Community Response to Noise. Proceedings, P International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. American Speech and Hearing Association, Washington, DC, 1980. Cameron, P., Robertson, D., and Zaks, J. Sound Pollution, Noise Pollution, and Health: Community parameters. J. Appl. Psych., 56: 67-74 (1972). (Condo, MC, Jacoby, SF, and 5outh, CS. Does Being Outdoors Reduce Stress? A review of real-time stress responses to outdoor environments. Health and Place. Vol 51, pp. 136-250, 2018. Lam, M, MD, MPH, Lam, J, ABAAHP, FMNM, and Lam, C, MD. Silence Therapy: The new wellness approach., 2017. yvww.drLani.com/sitence_-therapy-the-iiew-wellness-approach/ Langford, Kate (October 14, 2011). "New Study Finds 400,000 Farmers...* http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.orgZnewsroom/press-releases/new-study-finds-400000-farmers- southern-africa-using-/oE2%80%98fertilizer-trees%E2 /080%99 -dram Office of Noise Abatement, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460. Westman, JC and Walters, JR. Noise and Stress: A comprehensive approach- Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 41, pp291-309, 1981. https://www.ncbi.nlm,nih.gov/pmcr /articles/PMC15C8850/ 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00069 My name is Jim Smith and I live on Old Tarboo Road. We live just under two miles from the proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility location so I have the benefit of having over a year to consider what it would be like to live so close to a high impact gun facility. In the case of Cedar Hills. we also have the knowledge of how the previous location on Discovery Bay impacted the co Juni and there seems no reason to think the newly proposed location will i�t4 e ectively with the neighborhood. Lastly, we had an illegal gun range operating near Tarboo Lake years ago near the currently proposed site and know exactly what it will sound like if Cedar Hills should come to reality. The only difference is the current proposal asks for shooting and explosions seven days a week from 7:00 - 10-00 PM and the illegal shooting site , eventually stopped thanks to the activism of we neighbors, was mostly awful on just Sundays. I am a gun owner and a Vietnam veteran and I am here to say I think small, recreational gun ranges in our county are just fine if they are either indoor ranges or located somewhere that doesn't ruin the lives of neighbors within a 3 -- 5 mile radius. (Thanks to new weaponry the circle of impact needs to be expanded from just what most people seem to think within a mile of earshot .... no pull intended..) While there are many improvements needed to the current draft ordinance, I am Here today to ask the following: do -Inv cha-ges to fable Three of the current Title 18 ordinance. Kei=p any guru ranges in this county sinall and for ficople who are irul\ cluing recreational shooting. • recommence a 500 yard setback from any recreational lake or body of water just as the Kitsap County ordinance has stipulated. There is a reason icsr this. There are inholding pieces of property that exist away from designated recreational lakes where families swim, fisherman fish. wildlife drink and fish live. Duck hunters a fexv days a year is a far cry from a permanent gun range. The Kitsap County Ordinance stipulates this ... why can't oi.irs? For fear of a lawsuit? What kind of way is that to run a count,\:: Recreational lakes are designated that so people can recreate there and it is unrealistic that anyone can recreate with the constant, unrelenting noise of machine gulf fire not to nienlion the environmental issues that are critical to keeping the enormous pollution caused by guut ranges away trans lakes. • recommend there is no rniIitary tra, itg k}r citil:;r 11i,.I itisilj,ct ,\Uletic 1 i�,'itits (including aircraft landing). The federal government is in cl ar-e of training their oven people and the peace and tranquility of the citizens of Jefferson County doles not need to be sacrificed so For-profit businesses can make a buck. Currently the Jefferson County Sportsman Association is adequately taking care of the training needs of our local law enforcement. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00070 I believe it is possible to accommodate the needs of reasonable citizens living in our county who wish to recreationally shoot while also protecting the righty ofreasona ,le citizens in our county who wish to live without the unrelenting nolkoe o Inacluge gun fire or helicopters landing. Given that both Kitsap and Clallam counties seern to have ordinances that protect their citizens from for-profit large gun ranges, can you imagine what will happen if Jefferson Count} becomes the go -to county for large. for-profit gun ranges`' It will be devastating to the integrity ol'this county. Thank you for your work, Jim Smith 781 Old Tarhoo Road Quilcene. Wa 98101 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00071 Riley Parker ZON18-00036, Comments on changes to Title 18 for Commercia Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County Nov 6, 2018,10-41:42 AM plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Dear Planning Commissioners, First let me introduce myself. I am a resident of Quilcene here in Jefferson County, live on Tarboo Ridge, a board member of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition, and a District 3 Representative to the Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County. As you are aware the work of the Review Committee on Commercial Shooting Facilities was focused on Title 8 issues concerning Health and Safety. As we transition to Title 18 to establish appropriate land use rules for siting which "ensures compatibility with neighboring land uses" I would like to provide my perspective to you. I believe the issues surrounding land use is regional and not just an individual county issue. The creation of an ordinance with less restrictive requirements than its neighboring counties is a recipe for disaster. Having a recently created ordinance in Kitsap County, and Jefferson County using it as a model to create its own ordinance, was a wise decision. There is one specific land use requirement in the Kitsap Ordinance which I believe we should incorporate in our ordinance. Kitsap County chose to establish a 500 yard no shooting setback from 12 public lakes to preserve these aquatic recreational resources for the residents of the State of Washington and future generations. They realized that the noise from an outdoor shooting facility would be incompatible with the enjoyment of the lakes we all use for fishing, swimming and just enjoying the piece and quiet of nature. There are 10 lakes here is Jefferson County, identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which are annually stocked with fish and facilities are provided by either Jefferson County or the State of Washington. These lakes 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00072 are, Anderson Lake, Gibbs Lake, Horseshoe Labe, Leland Lake, Ludlow Lake, Sandy Shore Lake, Silent Lake, Tarboo Labe, Teal Lake and Yahoo Lake. Please consider Including a minimum of 500 yards as a setback from these lakes when you develop land use rules for siting of Commercial Shooting Facilities in Unincorporated Jefferson County. There is another requirement in the Kitsap Ordinance which I would also like to bring to your attention. Kitsap chose to place requirements on organized military training because of the intensity of noise from this type of use and the impacts on neighboring lands. May I suggest for your consideration incorporating the Kitsap Ordinance language on military training in the Jefferson County Commercial Shooting Ordinance, again for consistency on a regional basis and for compatibility with neighboring land uses. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these two suggestions. Riley Parker. Sent from my Pad 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00073 To: Jefferson County Planning Commission Form: George Yount 717 25"' Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Date: November 7 2008 Attended several meetings and hearings on the gun range moratorium issue. Commissioner Dean the lack of specificity or "guard rails" provided relating to scope of commercial ranges and their operations. Not giving this time or due diligence to understand and appreciate its impact on the environment and the reverberating noise that will be generated. The haste of adopting this gun safety ordinance and associated land use "harmonizing" is being driven by pending legal action by one individual who has placed his gun range vision out for everyone to see. The county and its citizens are caught in the cross hairs, being perceived as aiming a modified gun range ordinance at his personal project when real mission of the ordinance is to address all commercial and non-commercial ranges. Are we all being put in a no win position? We must stay at 30K feet and work through this general safety ordinance and harmonize it with the U D Codes. ■ Recommend you accept the modifications suggest by the county's legal staff. ■ Look carefully at commercial and industrial parks. In door ranges should be included. • If ranges must be in residential areas, only indoor gun ranges so gun discharge does not go beyond the property sight. • 1 don't know where this fits in land use but if gun noise is going to be inflicted on communities. Somewhere in the operating agreement or conditional use permit, there must be predictable days and times when an effected community can expect the sound of silence. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00074 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Joey Kirkpatrick <joeyandflora@earthlink.net> Thu 11/8/2018 11:10 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; To: The Jefferson County Planning Commission RE: Concerns regarding the permit of an outdoor gun range Dear Commission, Page 1 of 2 Since purchasing our 50 acre parcel in 2007 we have slowly and with great investment in time, money and love cleaned up the long ignored property, rebuilt infrastructure, including fences, and buildings, always obtaining the required permits to meet county standards. When we first moved here we always heard that to sustain oneself, one must bring their own job which we have done as we are working artists, at the same time doing our cleanup and renovations. Throughout we have supported our friends and neighbors in the area by trying to keep it local. We have purchased our supplies: cheese, milk, eggs beef, cider, wood, steel, windows, soil, bird seed, etc. all from neighbors also trying to work a job and build their homes. Along the way we have paid our share of taxes. Our fifty acres has a pond and is full of an amazing range of birds, deer, coyotes, otters(!), a cougar (caught on our motion detection camera), old apple and pear trees, an incredible range of trees -cedars, douglas fir, sitka spruce and a view of the snow capped Olympics. All of the above -people- their businesses, wildlife, landscape are at risk given the opportunity of a large gun range to take up residency. We personally are just 3 miles from the proposed site and the interruption of sound and fury would be well heard at this location. Heard not only by us but by all of those living around us and all the wildlife too. Since moving here we have had the occasion to ask the county to check on neighbors for un -permitted sewage output and building code violations and were told that there is no enforcement officer in place to handle site visits for suspected code violations. So to think that a business -the gun range- might be put in place that already is known for breaking violations and codes in their first location is outrageous given that there is not the needed officer in place to answer concerns. Not to mention that their sound output simply cannot be mitigated. Next on our to-do list is to build our dream house. However since the November 2 s hooting Ordinance passed we have put our house on hold. We are not willing to invest further in our property that is sure to lose value if a military style gun range is allowed to open in this area. Surely the loss to the county income from taxes and the local economy would be drastically impacted if others, like us, would make the same decision not to further invest in our community. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00075 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 There seems to be codes already in place regarding noise pollution etc as brought up at the November 7th meeting that would make a Gun Range absolutely unable to meet requirements that already exist. The quickest way out ! Is it really worth destroying the community of many for the will of one ? Sincerely, Flora Mace and Joey Kirkpatrick 4900 Center Road Chimacum WA 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00076 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 ZON18-0036 ZON18-0036 Page 1 of 1 X DELETE F REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ... Meg Snow <megsnow4@gmail.com> mark as unread Thu 11/8/2018 11:32 AM To: Planning Commission Desk; We are writing to voice our deep concern about the ordinance recently passed by the BOCC concerning commercial shooting facilities. We are opposed to ANY outdoor shooting facilities being allowed on public or private land. We lived in the Quilcene area for 35 years, 5 years in town and 30 years in a house we built off of Lakenes Road. One of the things we treasured most about our time in Quilcene was the peace and quiet that prevailed nearly all the time. That quiet would be denied to any people living near an outdoor shooting facility. People who have lived for years in the rural county would want to move away from these facilities but, at the same time, their property values would be diminished because of them. There would also be a devastating impact on birds and other wildlife which are precious assets to many who live in the country. Strictly controlled indoor shooting facilities would mitigate the noise issue. More importantly, it is unnecessary for Jefferson County to provide places for military and para -military training. We have military bases where this training is infinitely more appropriate. We hope that you will revisit this ordnance as well as the whole concept of military and para military training on private or public lands in Jefferson County. Thank you, Meg Snow Jim Donaldson 740 Quincy Street Port Townsend 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00077 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/9/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Teri Hein <terihein@comcast.net> Thu 11/8/2018 1:51 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; November 8, 2018 Jefferson County Planning Commission Public Comment Dear Planning Commission, Page 1 of 2 We live just under 2 miles from the proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility. I feel certain given my knowledge of the outrage that has been felt my myself and our neighbors at even the slightest consideration for this project that there is little I can tell you that hasn't already been written. I write to just emphasize and support the words written by the attorney for the Tarboo Ridge Coalition: Currently, gun ranges are only allowed as "small-scale recreation and tourist uses." JCC 18.20.350.8. "Small scale means of a size or intensity which has minimal impacts on the surrounding area and which makes minimal demands on the existing infrastructure. " JCC 18.10.190. "Small-scale recreation or tourist uses means those isolated uses which are leisure or recreational in nature; are reliant upon a rural setting or location; do not include any new residential development beyond that allowed in the underlying land use district." JCC 18.10.190. These definitions mean that gun ranges are currently limited to recreational users, meaning no police, no military, and no militia training. Moreover, gun ranges that are allowed must be small enough that there is minimal impact on the surrounding area. I am a member of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition and support these definitions and think they should stay. There is no need in Jefferson County for large gun ranges with unlimited numbers of shooters or high-intensity shooting such as SWAT or military training. Small, family - friendly gun ranges in appropriate locations are a great thing to have in Jefferson County. Overnight militia training compounds are not. I respectfully ask you to please recommend leaving the code as it is and thereby protecting the citizens and quality of life in this county. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00078 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Thank you for your work, Teri Hein 781 Old Tarboo Road Quilcene, Washington 98376 Page 2 of 2 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00079 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Gun ordinance - Planning Commission Desk Gun ordinance Karen Gale <karengale.aloft@gmail.com> Thu 11/8/2018 3:22 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Good day. Page 1 of 2 As a 25 year resident and landowner in Jefferson County, I've seen a lot of gun use and changes to the restrictions upon that use. As these ordinances will affect all of the county, into the future, I am very concerned by the ordinance now being considered for adoption. I am not against people owning guns and using them responsibly. I am for training users and law enforcement personnel. Location, location, location is the issue, and large scale militia training gun ranges are not a good fit with our rural and wild spaces in Jefferson County. I would urge restraint in sizing future facilities here. I do not support people who are not engaged in the training/practice being exposed the distressing noise that accompanies large caliber munitions and rapid fire weapons. This exposure is every bit as insidious and harmful as second-hand smoke, to heart rates, blood pressure, and stress. Please, through the ordinance, require and ensure that noise levels are kept to a minimum, leaving these facilities, by requiring that weapons be fired in a suppressed mode, or with silencers, or kept entirely indoors. Neighbors, livestock, and wildlife who live within sound range of these facilities do not deserve to be adversely impacted by these activities. Further, the range of hours during which any noise should be allowed to leave gun range facilities should be limited to 9am - 7pm. People and animals need time to relax and sleep, without the intrusion of such noise. Past experiences have resulted in exposure to gunfire raising my anxiety level tremendously. It literally threatens my health and wellbeing. I don't believe that anybody should be subjected to the sounds of gunfire without choice. For those living without such noise, the imposition of gunfire upon their lives would be unconscionable. The technical means to abate this noise is now available, and should be part of the cost of doing business for future gun range operators. Whether confining discharge of weapons to an inside environment, using baffling, suppression or silencers, please ensure that gun noise does not become an additional pollution to our county's environment. It makes more logical sense to locate this type of activity indoors in an urban industrial/warehouse area. This would give the most access to the highest number of users, and cost municipalities and counties less for sending their officers to be trained, than sending them to rural Jefferson County. Adequate airfields and highways access urban areas, rather than bringing helicopters into the forests of the Olympic Peninsula. Further, no stray bullets would threaten others, nor potentially pollute our watersheds. The Sportsmen's Club is a fine facility that has appropriately met the needs of our county responsibly for many years, and could for many more. I hope that their present activities would be "grandfathered" in, but that the new ordinance 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00080 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Gun ordinance - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 apply to new constructions of gun ranges, to mitigate the concerns of noise, emotional health, physical safety, watershed pollution, and inappropriately scaled weapons ranges in our county. Karen Gale 360.765.0134 home 360.775.5764 cell Coyle, WA 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00081 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Please consider Please consider Page 1 of 1 X DELETE F REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• rose Wilde <mysterybayrose@gmail.com> mark as unread Thu 11/8/2018 8:27 PM To: Planning Commission Desk; In reference to any decisions regarding shooting range - Please consider the rights of others living nearby and the impact on lives of people and wildlife in keeping it small scale recreational, as intended. Any facilities indoors for noise and pollution containment, with appropriate setbacks, without overnight accommodations, limiting caliber and munitions, disallowing aircraft or by water landings and all paramilitary training. Please restrict hours for the sanity of those of us living here. Please keep the intent of the current law intact. In appreciation of your consideration and commitment to the health and well being of the people of this county. Thank you, Rose Wilde Neighbor Sent from my iPhone 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00082 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/9/2018 ZON18 - 00036 ZON18 - 00036 Page 1 of 1 X DFiITE +- REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• Dennis Vidmar <dennyvidmar@gmail.com> mark as unread Fri 11/9/2018 8:00 AM AIIIIIIIIIS To: Planning Commission Desk; + Get more apps I wish to voice my opposition to the proposed gun range complex. The noise, light, and chemical (lead) pollution impacts are much too great for a beautiful natural environment such as Jefferson County. At a minimum, any such ranges should be indoors to mitigate the environmental impacts. Sincerely, Dennis Vidmar 104 Turnagain Lane Quilcene, WA 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00083 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/9/2018 Fwd: ZON 18-00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Shooting F... Page 1 of 1 Fwd: ZON 18-00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities X DELETE F REPLY *E REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• Tom Richardson <jtomrichardson@outlook.com> mark as unread Fri 11/9/2018 8:52 AM To: Planning Commission Desk; To help protect your privacy, some content in this message has been blocked. To re -enable the blocked features, click here. To always show content from this sender, click here. 5 2 attachments RE ATT00001. ht Shooting -A m ncx Tom Richardson itom richardson@outlook.com Cell: 206 954-9732 Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Richardson <itomrichardson@outlook.com> Date: November 8, 2018 at 8:15:28 PM PST To: "PlannCom@cojefferson.wa.us" <PlannCom@cojefferson.wa.us>, "ieffbocc@cojefferson.wa.us"< 0effbocc@cojefferson.wa.us>, Philip Hunsucker <PHunsucker@cojefferson.wa.us>, Mark McCauley <MMcCauley@cojefferson.wa.us>, Michelle Farfan < MFarfan@cojefferson.wa.us> Subject: ZON 18-00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relatina to Shootina Facilities 4 ► 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00084 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/9/2018 RE: ZON 18-00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities To: Members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Philip Hunsucker, Esq., Mark McCauley, Michelle Farfan From: Tom Richardson I live in Port Townsend and was the District #1 representative on the Commercial Shooting Facilities Review Committee authorized by the Moratorium Ordinance adopted by the BoCC on December 18, 2017 (hereinafter the "Review Committee). As a member of that committee, I was very familiar with the discussions and drafting that resulted in the new commercial shooting facilities ordinance (hereinafter, the "New Ordinance"), JCC 8.50.210-320. I submit these comments based on my knowledge of the Review Committee's intentions in drafting the New Ordinance and as a private citizen. Executive Summary of Recommendations: ■ Addition of a "Non -Commercial Shooting Facility" category to Title 18 is inconsistent with the New Ordinance and the Review Committee's discussions and intentions. Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities should not be part of Title 18. ■ Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities as provided for in the New Ordinance should simply replace the category "outdoor shooting range" in JCC 18.20.350(8) as a small-scale recreation and tourist use. ■ The JCC 18.20.350(8) standards for "Outdoor Shooting Ranges" should be made consistent with the New Ordinance, which includes extensive requirements for the design and operation of Commercial Shooting Facilities. Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities—Not Contemplated by the New Ordinance The definition of Commercial Shooting Facilities in the New Ordinance appears in JCC 8.50. 220(15) and in an identical definition is proposed for Title 18 in JCC 18.10.030. Such facilities may be "open to the public, open only to private membership, open to organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above that for the use of the commercial shooting facility requires a contract, charges a fee or other compensation, or requires membership." Essentially any organized shooting facility that requires a contract, charges a fee or other compensation, or requires a membership is by definition a Commercial Shooting Facility. Except for shooting facilities owned by federal or state government, there is only one other type of shooting range defined in subparagraph 15: "privately owned property used for lawful shooting practice solely by its owner or the owner's guests without payment of any compensation ...." This exception recognizes the right of private individuals to set up a target on their own property and shoot firearms, alone or with guests. The New Ordinance does not regulate private shooting on private land owned by the shooter or her guests. Under -Sheriff Art Frank noted in our discussions that the only regulation of private shooting ranges in someone's backyard is the reckless endangerment ordinance. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00085 In our Review Committee discussions I believe all members of the committee thought the Commercial Shooting Facility definition encompasses ALL forms of organized shooting facilities, whether requiring a contract, payment of a fee or compensation, or membership. The only non-government exception is for the private shooting range. I never imagined that there would be legal recognition for some sort of shooting range called a "Non -Commercial Shooting Facility," as the proposed amendments to Title 18 envisions. And I believe no one on the Review Committee thought otherwise. And as a matter of common sense, what would a non-commercial shooting facility be? If a YMCA camp had a shooting range, it would be a Commercial Shooting Facility because the YMCA is a membership organization. If a tourist camp offered shooting along with cabins and spaces for motor homes, it would be a Commercial Shooting Facility because the guests would pay fees. The Jefferson County Sportsmen's Club is a Commercial Shooting Facility because it has members and charges fees, and consequently, it is subject to the New Ordinance. If unknown to all of us on the Review Committee there already exists some shooting range in a remote corner of Jefferson County that has members, requires a contract or charges fees, it may have been subject to the standards of existing JCC 18.20.350(8)(e.g., standard (h) "All shooting areas must be completely fenced"); but now it would be considered a Commercial Shooting Facility subject to the New Ordinance (which does not require complete fencing). I submit that under the broad definition of a Commercial Shooting Facility there is no imaginable organized shooting facility that could be considered a "Non -Commercial Shooting Facility." The only non- government exception to the broad definition of the Commercial Shooting Facility is private shooting in your own backyard. Why does this matter? Having a land use category in Title 18 for something called a "Non - Commercial Shooting Facility" with a different set of standards [proposed JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) through (i)] invites efforts to evade the more comprehensive standards of the New Ordinance. For that matter, even if there were some animal that looks like a "Non -Commercial Shooting Facility" why would the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners want it to be governed by standards different and weaker than those laboriously drafted by the Review Committee, revised by the County Staff, and approved by the BoCC following extensive public hearings and written submissions? Including "Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" in revisions to Title 18 invites litigation because there would be inconsistent standards for organized shooting ranges. The proposed amendments to Title 18 related to "Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities" should be eliminated. Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities should not be a separate use in Table 3-1, and instead should replace Outdoor Shooting Ranges in Table 3-1 and should be subject to all applicable requirements in JCC 18.20.350(8) as a small-scale recreation and tourist use. The requirements of the New Ordinance for Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities relate to safety, not land use. The New Ordinance establishes an application process that requires applicants to specify safe facility design criteria and operational requirements. The New Ordinance does not address where it is appropriate to locate new Commercial Shooting Facilities, how far they should be from neighbors, or whether they can be alongside a public recreation lake. These are all land use issues. When Title 18 was enacted, the BoCC made the 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00086 policy decision to classify Outdoor Shooting Ranges as a small-scale recreation and tourist use. In doing so, it explicitly sought to ensure that the siting and character of a proposed shooting facility "[d]oes not disrupt the character of any surrounding permitted uses" and would not be "incompatible with or injurious to the rural character of the area." JCC 18.20.350(3)0)(ii) and (v). These and the other detailed requirements of JCC 18.20.350 should continue to guide the land use decision-making for an outdoor Commercial Shooting Facility application. The JCC 18.20.350(8) standards for "Outdoor Shooting Ranges" should be made consistent with the New Ordinance, which includes extensive requirements for the design and operation of Commercial Shooting Facilities. Most of the standards included in JCC 18.20.350(8)(a) through (i) actually are safety related requirements: standard (a) relates to projectile containment; (b) specifies that the NRA Range Manual/Source Book provides minimum guidelines for design, construction and operation of shooting ranges; (c) relates to boundary warnings for the perimeter of ranges; (d) relates to noise barriers; (e) specifies minimum lot size; (f) specifies how close structures may be to the lot lines; (g)specifies the distance a range must be from a dwelling; (h) specifies a fencing requirement; (i) requires consideration of safety and noise factors. All of these requirements except (e) lot size, are addressed in the New Ordinance. They should be eliminated from the proposed JCC 18.20.350(8) standards for Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities as potentially inconsistent. If other land use requirements for Commercial Shooting Facilities are proposed by the public, by County Staff and Counsel, by the Planning Commission members, or by the BoCC, they could be included as JCC 18.20.350(8) standards. For example, some have suggested that allowing helicopters to land at shooting facilities is inconsistent with their rural character because helicopters are noisy and distracting for shooters. A provision could be added to limit helicopter landings only for medical evacuation for injuries suffered at a shooting range. Similarly, proximity of a Commercial Shooting Facility to a public recreation lake could be addressed as a land use requirement. Respectively submitted, Tom Richardson Submitted by email, November 8, 2018 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00087 ZON18-00036 ZON18-00036 Page 1 of 1 X DFLUE F REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• Susan Hanover <susanhanover@wavecable.com> mark as unread Fri 11/9/2018 10:34 AM To: Planning Commission Desk; + Get more apps Dear Jefferson County Planning Commission, My husband and I attended the public hearing on November 7, 2018 concerning the proposed shooting range. We were struck by the heartfelt testimonies of the residents in the area, the folks who will be most greatly impacted by noise of the proposed gun range. Some of these folks were in tears. Who we didn't hear from were the wildlife and the precious land that will also be brutally affected. There is already a firing range in East Jefferson Country off of Jacob Miller Road. I can personally attest to the disturbance to the peace and quiet of the area from the Gun Club there. We considered buying a home at the northern end of Jacob Miller Road but the noise from the firing range was too invasive and something we could not live with. The sound of gunshot carries for miles and is counterproductive to a peaceful and healthy community of humans and wildlife. I was surprised to learn at the meeting that our county does not have a code ordinance officer to impose noise and other regulations. It seems that because we are in the country we can be taken advantage of, our rural lifestyle destroyed by an outsider that is looking to make a buck at the expense of our community. Please do not let ZON18-0036 go through. The firing range and helicopter pad would create a real hardship for the residents and destroy the quality of life for everyone in the area. Thank -you, Susan Hanover 181 Randolph Street Port Hadlock, WA 98339 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00088 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE DETECTION OF LEAD BULLET FRAGMENTS IN RANDOM VENISON PACKAGES DONATED TO THE COMMUNITY ACTION FOOD CENTERS OF NORTH DAKOTA, 2007 WILLIAM E. CORNATZER, EDWARD F. FOGARTY, AND ERIC W. CORNATZER University of North Dakota School of Medicine, Southwest Campus, Bismarck, ND 58501, USA. E-mail: doccornatzer(a�gwestoffice.net ABSTRACT.—We studied randomly selected ground venison packages donated to the Community Action Food Centers of North Dakota by the Hunters For The Hungry Association. These packages were studied by high resolution computerized tomography imaging and x-ray fluoroscopy for qualitative detection of metal fragments. Quantitative measurements of lead levels in both randomly selected and fluoroscopic im- age guided site-specific subsamples from packages were performed. This study documented a health risk from lead exposure to humans consuming venison. Received 30 July 2008, accepted 30 October 2008. CORNATZER, W. E., E. F. FOGARTY, AND E. W. CORNATZER. 2009. Qualitative and quantitative detection of lead bullet fragments in random venison packages donated to the Community Action Food Centers of North Dakota, 2007. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI 10.4080/ilsa.2009.0111 Key words: Computed tomography imaging, health risk, humans, lead, venison. STUDIES OF LEAD TOXICITY in the diet of California Condors (Gymnogyps californianus) have shown there are small particles of lead in the tissues of deer shot with high velocity rifle bullets (Hunt et al. 2006). Reports from Canada and Greenland have shown a statistically significant correlation between elevated serum lead levels in people and the con- sumption of wild game killed with lead bullets (Bjerregaard et al. 2004, Dewailly et al. 2001, Tsuji et al. 2008). Preliminary research presented at The Peregrine Fund's Board of Directors meeting in May of 2007 (Parish pers. comm.) showed small metal fragments in processed venison. Based on these data, we conjecture that there might be lead fragments from rifle bullets in venison consumed by the general population. METHODS AND MATERIALS One hundred, one -pound ground venison packages were randomly selected from the Community Ac- tion Food Pantry program in North Dakota. The venison had been donated by the Hunters for the Hungry Program in the fall of 2007. The sample of 100 was selected from a total of 15,250 donated one -pound packages. High definition CT scan and fluoroscopy were performed on the sample for qualitative detection of metal fragments. In con- junction with the North Dakota Health Department, fifteen of the 100 randomly selected packages were punch biopsied in a blind fashion yielding 4-g tis- sue biopsies; this gave 15 random sub -samples from within the randomly selected packages. These specimens were sent to the University of Iowa Hy- gienic Laboratory for flame absorption atomic spectrometry to detect and quantify the mass of lead in sub -samples. An additional five samples ob- 11 /16/18 Log for COMI1541ts to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00089 - CORNATZER ET AL. - tained from among the 100 CT screened packages using fluoroscopic image -guided retrieval of metal - containing venison were also submitted for analy- sis. These image -guided biopsies yielded a maxi- mum of four grams of combined ground venison and metal (Figure 1). Osirix° DICOM® workstation software running on Mac OS X° was used for visual analysis of CT im- age data for Hounsfield unit assessments of sus- pected lead fragments. Objects having Hounsfield unit measurements over 1500 were considered sus- picious for metal fragments. Color look -up tables from Osirix° were used for color encoding of CT data. RESULTS Qualitative analysis of the randomly selected ground venison samples showed 59 packages out of the 100 had one or more visible metal fragments on high definition computed tomography (Figure 2). Quantitative analysis with flame absorption atomic spectrometry of the fifteen random blind biopsies showed one sample with 120 ppm lead (1 ppm = 1 milligram/kilogram). All five fluoroscopic image - guided biopsies showed elevated lead concentra- tions varying from 4,200 to 55,000 ppm lead dry weight (Table 1). Figure 1. Fluoroscopic image -guided fragment sampling. The fluoroscopic image in upper left shows forceps approaching a metal fragment within a package of ground venison. The upper right image shows a retrieved metal fragment embedded within a small volume of ground venison contained in a glass test tube. Photograph shows forceps pointing to a metal fragment embedded in ground venison. Figure 2. High definition computed tomography (CT) image of ca. 20 one -pound venison packages. Bright spots are metal fragments embedded in the tissue. Table 1. Lead concentrations of five venison sam- ples retrieved by fluoroscopically guided biopsy. Sample Lead Concentration (ppm or mg/kg dry weight) 1 52000 2 34000 3 4200 4 55000 5 9700 11/16/18 Log for Com11551ts to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00090 - LEAD FRAGMENTS IN PACKAGED VENISON - DISCUSSION Our study has shown that 59% of 100 randomly se- lected packages of ground venison donated to the Community Action Food Pantry in North Dakota in the fall of 2007 were contaminated with lead frag- ments. Venison is a common dietary staple for many families throughout the United States. Lead has been shown to be a major health threat and in children there is no safe minimum threshold of lead exposure. Sources of dietary lead vary from country to country. In the United States, paint chips, dust, jewelry, toys, lead-based gasoline, and lead plumb- ing (Markowitz 2007) have been identified as sources of lead exposure in the past. Our study re- veals lead-based ammunition residues in venison as a source of lead exposure among the USA popula- tion that is largely unrecognized as a threat to hu- man health, other than among subsistence hunters of the circumpolar north including Alaska and Can- ada (Tsuji et al. 2008, Verbrugge et al. 2009, this volume). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the assistance of Terry Dwelle, M.D. and Sandy Washik of the North Dakota State Health Department, Steven Pickard, M.D., Field Officer of the CDC in the State of North Dakota, and Craig Lambrecht, M.D., Bismarck, North Dakota. LITERATURE CITED BJERREGAARD, P., P. JOHANSEN, G. MULVAD, H. PEDERSEN, AND J. C. HANSEN. 2004. Environ- ment lead sources in human diet in Greenland. Environmental Health Perspective 112 (15):1496-1498. DEWAILLY, E. P., S. AYOTT, S. BRUNEAU, G. LE - BEL, P. LEVALLOS, AND J. P. WEBER. 2001. Ex- posure of the Inuit population of Nunivik (Arc- tic Quebec) to lead and mercury. Archives of Environmental Health 56:350-357. HUNT, W. G., W. BURNHAM, C. N. PARISH, K. BURNHAM, B. MUTCH, AND J. L. OAKS. 2006. Bullet fragments in deer remains: implications for lead exposure in scavengers. Wildlife Soci- ety Bulletin 34:168-171. MARKOWITZ, M. 2007. Lead Poisoning. Pages 2913-2918 in R. M. Kliegman, E. Behrman, H. B. Jenson, and B. F. Stanton (Eds.). Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 18th ed. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Tsuji, L. J. S., B. C. WAINMAN, 1. D. MARTIN, C. SUTHERLAND, J. -P. WEBER, P. DUMAS, AND E. NIEBOER. 2008. The identification of lead am- munition as a source of lead exposure in First Nations: The use of lead isotope ratios. Science of the Total Environment 393:291-298. VERBRUGGE, L. A., S. G. WENZEL, J. E. BERNER, AND A. C. MATZ. 2009. Human exposure to lead from ammunition in the circumpolar north. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt, (Eds.). Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: Implications for wildlife and hu- mans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI 10.4080/ilsa.2009.0110 3 11/16/18 Log for Com11561ts to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00091 LEAD BULLET FRAGMENTS IN VENISON FROM RIFLE -KILLED DEER: POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN DIETARY EXPOSURE W. GRAINGER HUNT', RICHARD T. WATSONI, J. LINDSAY OAKSZ, CHRIS N. PARISH1, KURT K. BURNHAM', RUSSELL L. TUCKERS, .LAMES R. BELTHOFF4, AND GARRET HARTS The Peregrine Fund, 5668 W. Flying Hawk Lane, Boise, ID 83709, USA. E-mail: grainger�peregrinefund.org 2Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Pullman, WA 99164-7034, USA. 3Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA. 4Department of Biology, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725, USA. 5School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA. ABSTRACT.—Human consumers of wildlife killed with lead ammunition may be exposed to health risks associated with lead ingestion. This hypothesis is based on published studies showing elevated blood lead concentrations in subsistence hunter populations, retention of ammunition residues in the tissues of hunter - killed animals, and systemic, cognitive, and behavioral disorders associated with human lead body burdens once considered safe. Our objective was to determine the incidence and bioavailability of lead bullet frag- ments in hunter -killed venison, a widely -eaten food among hunters and their families. We radiographed 30 eviscerated carcasses of White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) shot by hunters with standard lead - core, copper jacketed bullets under normal hunting conditions. All carcasses showed metal fragments (geometric mean = 136 fragments, range = 15-409) and widespread fragment dispersion. We took each carcass to a separate meat processor and fluoroscopically scanned the resulting meat packages; fluoroscopy revealed metal fragments in the ground meat packages of 24 (80%) of the 30 deer; 32% of 234 ground meat packages contained at least one fragment. Fragments were identified as lead by ICP in 93% of 27 samples. Isotope ratios of lead in meat matched the ratios of bullets, and differed from background lead in bone. We fed fragment -containing venison to four pigs to test bioavailability; four controls received venison without fragments from the same deer. Mean blood lead concentrations in pigs peaked at 2.29 Ag/dL (maximum 3.8 Ag/dL) 2 days following ingestion of fragment -containing venison, significantly higher than the 0.63 Ag/dL averaged by controls. We conclude that people risk exposure to lead from bullet fragments when they eat venison from deer killed with standard lead-based rifle bullets and processed under normal procedures. At risk in the U.S. are some ten million hunters, their families, and low-income beneficiaries of venison dona- tions. Reproduced with permission from PLoS ONE 4(4): e5330.6 6 Reproduced in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution License with permission of the authors from: Hunt, W. G., R. T. Watson, J. L. Oaks, C. N. Parish, K. K. Burnham, R. L. Tucker, J. R. Belthoff, and G. Hart. 2009. Lead bullet fragments in venison from rifle -killed deer: potential for human dietary exposure. PLoS ONE 4(4): e5330. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005330. 11 /16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00092 -HUNTETAL.- HUNT, W. G., R. T. WATSON, J. L. OAKS, C. N. PARISH, K. K. BURNHAM, R. L. TUCKER, J. R. BELTHOFF, AND G. HART. 2009. Lead bullet fragments in venison from rifle -killed deer: potential for human dietary exposure. Reproduced in R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI 10.4080\ilsa.2009.0112 Key words: Bullet fragmentation, bush meat, game meat, lead, lead exposure, venison. LEAD HAS BEEN IMPACTING the health of human- kind since the Romans began mining it 2500 years ago, and despite early knowledge of its harmful ef- fects, exposure to lead from a wide variety of sources persists to this day (Warren 2000). Gov- ernment -based guidelines for acceptable degrees of exposure prior to the 1970s were based upon thresholds of overt toxicity and on apparent accep- tance that norms in lead concentrations in a society enveloped in lead -permeated exhaust fumes and lead paint must somehow reflect organic tolerance. Medical science has since concluded that virtually no level of lead exposure can be considered harm- less in consideration of its many sublethal, debili- tating, and often irreversible effects (Needleman 2004). Lead quantities formerly regarded as trivial are associated with permanent cognitive damage in children (Lanphear et al. 2005), including those prenatally exposed (Schnaas et al. 2006). Lead is associated with impaired motor function (Cecil et al. 2008), attentional dysfunction (Braun et al. 2006), and even criminal behavior (Needleman et al. 2002, Wright et al. 2008). Release of lead stores from bone exposes fetuses during pregnancy (Tellez-Rojo et al. 2004), and adults late in life (Schwartz and Stewart 2007, Shih et al. 2007). Lead is implicated in reduced somatic growth (Hauser et al. 2008), decreased brain volume (Cecil et al. 2008), spontaneous abortion (Borja-Aburto et al. 1999), nephropathy (Ekong et al. 2006), cancer, and cardiovascular disease (Menke et al. 2006, Lustberg and Silbergeld 2002). Ingested residues of lead ammunition are a recently identified pathway of lead exposure to human con- sumers of gun -killed game animals. An analysis of North Dakota residents showed that recent (< 1 mo) consumers of game meat had higher covariate- adjusted blood lead concentrations than those with a longer interval (> 6 mo) since last consumption (Iqbal 2008). Studies have linked elevated blood lead concentrations of subsistence hunters in north- ern Canada, Alaska, Greenland, and elsewhere to consumption of shotgun -killed birds (Hanning et al. 2003, Levesque et al. 2003, Johansen et al. 2004, 2006, Bjerregaard et al. 2004, Tsuji et al. 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; see Burger et al.1998, Mateo et al. 2007). The hypothesis that rifle bullet fragments are an additional source of human lead exposure is suggested by radiographic studies of deer killed with standard lead-based bullets, which show hun- dreds of small metal fragments widely dispersed around wound channels (Hunt et al. 2006, Do- browolska and Melosic 2008, Krone et al. 2009). The possibility of inadvertent lead contamination in prepared meat consumed by hunters and their fami- lies is noteworthy, considering the millions of peo- ple who hunt big game in the USA (USFWS and USCB 2006) and the thousands of deer annually donated to food pantries for the poor (Cornatzer et al. 2009, Avery and Watson 2009). In this report, we test two hypotheses: (1) that fragments of lead from rifle -bullets remain in commercially processed venison obtained under normal hunting conditions in the USA, and (2) humans absorb lead when they eat venison containing bullet fragments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ethics Statement. Nine licensed hunters provided the deer carcasses analyzed in this study, and ob- tained them during the established hunting season and in accordance with normal practices as permit- ted under the authority of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Cheyenne, Wyoming. The latter institution also granted permission to the authors to convey the processed meat from each carcass to the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory at Washington State University, Pullman, for analy- sis. The Washington State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved the lead bioavailability experiment involving eight swine. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00093 - LEAD BULLET FRAGMENTS IN VENISON - Deer Collection. Hunters used conventional cen- ter -fire hunting rifles to kill 30 White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) under normal hunting conditions in Sheridan County, Wyoming in No- vember 2007. All bullets were of 7 -mm Remington Magnum caliber and of identical mass (150 grains, 9720 mg); cartridges were of a single brand re- ported in local mass-market vendor interviews as the most widely sold to deer hunters. Bullets con- sisted of a lead core (68% of mass) and a copper jacket (32%); lead was exposed only at the 1.7 -mm - diameter tip of the bullet. Reported shot distances averaged 116 in (range = 25-172 m). All deer were eviscerated according to the hunters' normal prac- tice. Weights of 29 eviscerated deer averaged 33.8 kg (SD = 7.1). We recorded the positions of bullet entry and exit wounds; 26 deer (87%) were shot in the thorax, and some portion of the projectile exited the animal in 92% of shots. We removed the skin and head, and we excised from each animal a >4 cm section of tibia for isotope analyses and a >30 g sample of muscle (shank) along the tibia to deter- mine background lead levels in each deer. Carcass Radiography. We radiographed with conventional veterinary equipment the area of the wound channel (lateral view) of eviscerated deer and adjusted exposures to maximize contrast. We included along the margin of each radiograph a strip of clear plastic tape containing arrayed sam- ples of lead bullet fragments (obtained by shooting through light plastic jugs filled with water), compa- rably -sized samples of bone fragments, and locally - obtained sand and gravel; only the lead fragments were clearly visible in the radiographs at the ap- plied settings. We scanned radiographs into digital format and counted unambiguous metal fragments under 400% magnification. We did not attempt to distinguish between copper and lead in fragment counts. Commercial Processing. We transported each deer carcass to a different commercial meat proc- essing plant in 22 towns throughout Wyoming and requested normal processing into boneless steaks and ground meat in 2 -pound (0.91 kg) packages; we retrieved the processed, frozen, and packaged meat usually within 4 days. Radiography of Processed Meat. We used digital radiography (EDR6 Digital Radiography, Eklin Medical Systems, Santa Clara, California) and fluo- roscopy (MD3 Digital Fluoroscopy, Philips Medi- cal Systems, Best, Netherlands) to scan all the thawed ground meat packages (N = 234); we scanned an additional 49 loin steak packages from 16 carcasses in which radiography had revealed fragments near the spine. We unwrapped every package showing visible radiodense fragments in a subsample of 13 deer, flattened the meat to c. 1 -cm thickness on a light plastic plate, and rescanned. We marked the vicinity of each visible fragment with a stainless steel needle and then used a 2.8 -cm diameter plastic tube as a "cookie -cutter" to obtain samples of meat with radiodense fragments. Analysis of Metal Samples. Each of the fragment - containing meat samples was weighed and then di- vided into approximately 5-g subsamples, each of which was completely digested in a known volume of concentrated nitric acid. Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) analysis was then used to measure the concentrations of lead and copper in each subsam- ple. The lower detection limit for both metals was 2 gg/g. The analysis was performed commercially by the Analytical Sciences Laboratory, University of Idaho, Moscow, where quality management con- forms with applicable Federal Good Laboratory Practices (40 CFR Part 160); the Laboratory is ac- credited through the American Association of Vet- erinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, which stipulates ISO 17025 quality assurance measures. Lead Isotope Analysis. We analyzed bullet, bone, and meat samples for lead isotope compositions. Bullet fragments were cleaned in dilute (1M) HCl, leached with 2 ml of 7M HNO3, and then removed from the acid leachate. The leachate was then dried and treated with 2 drops of 14M HNO3. Bone and meat samples were digested in 14M HNO3, dried and treated with 2 drops of 14M HNO3. Lead was separated using standard HBr and HCl on an anion - exchange column (Bio Rad, AG 1X8). Isotope compositions were determined with a ThermoFin- nigan Neptune MC-ICPMS at the Washington State University GeoAnalytical Laboratory. Reproduci- bility of the lead standard (NBS-981), run before, during, and after the samples, was <0.012% (2 SE, 206 20 n = 4) for Ph /]Phzoa and <0.018% for Ph 8/Pb204 11 /16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00094 -HUNTETAL.- Lead concentrations in the procedural blanks were negligibly small. Bioavailability Experiment. We tested the bioavailability of ingested bullet fragments by feed- ing processed venison known by radiography to contain radiodense fragments to pigs. The latter were considered a good model for the absorption of lead from the human gastrointestinal tract (USEPA 2007). We used eight female Yorkshire/Landrace and Berkshire/Duroc cross -bred pigs, 70-82 days of age and weighing 28.2-32.7 kg (mean 30.3 kg) at the termination of the experiment. All were initially fed 1.36 kg of standard pelleted pig grower ration divided into two meals per day, then acclimated for 7 days to consuming cooked ground commercial beef patties mixed with the pellet ration. We gradu- ally increased the amount of ground meat from 113 g per meal to 500 g, as pellet amounts were correspondingly decreased. We withheld all food for 24 hours prior to the venison feeding trial. Ground venison and venison steaks from four deer were used in the feeding trial. Each of the eight pigs consumed 1.26-1.54 kg of meat over two feedings 24 hours apart on days 0 and 1 of the experiment; no pig consumed meat from more than one deer. Four pigs received venison containing fluoroscopi- cally visible metal fragments. The total amount of lead fed to each pig was unknown, but quantitative analysis of similar packages from other deer in the study showed 0.2-168 mg (median 4.2 mg) of lead. The four control pigs were simultaneously fed equivalent amounts of venison with no fluoroscopi- cally visible fragments from the same four deer. We assessed background levels of lead in each deer from shank meat, collected well away from any po- tential bullet contamination. All venison for the test and control pigs was either already ground, or finely chopped if steaks, and cooked in a micro- wave oven until brown. For feeding, we mixed the cooked venison in a bowl with small amounts of pig ration to improve palatability. We verified that all meat was eaten, and we monitored the pigs for signs of illness. We collected anticoagulated blood samples (2 ml whole blood in EDTA) from each pig at 1 hour prior to feeding venison on day 0, and on days 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9 after feeding venison, and stored the samples at 4°C until testing. Lead levels were de- termined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP -MS) with a lower detection limit of 0.5 gg/dL; we assigned all values below the de- tection limits as 0.5 gg/dL. We compared mean blood lead concentrations between control pigs and test pigs on days 0 through 9 using 2 -way ANOVA with repeated measures and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation; we performed linear group contrasts for each day. A single outlier datum among control pigs on day 4 (6.8 gg/dL) was an order of magnitude higher than a retest of the same sample (0.54 gg/dL); the latter was consistent with all other control samples. We omitted both results from statistical analysis, resulting in a sample of three rather than four control pigs on day 4. We used JMP (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA, Vers. 7.0.1) for all statistical analyses. RESULTS Bullet Fragments in Venison. Wound radiographs of all 30 eviscerated deer showed metal fragments (median = 136 fragments, range = 15-409) and of- fered a measure of fragment dispersion, albeit two- dimensional. Extreme distance between fragment clusters in standard radiographs averaged 24 cm (range ± SD = 5-43 f 9 cm), and maximum single fragment separation was 45 cm. Radiography re- vealed visible metal fragments in the ground meat of 24 (80%) of the 30 deer. At least one fragment was visible in radiographs of 74 (32%) of 234 packages of ground meat; 160 (68%) revealed no fragments, 46 (20%) had one, 16 (7%) had two, and 12 (5%) showed 3-8 fragments. An average of 32% of ground meat packages (N = 3-15 packages, mean 7.8) per deer showed metal fragments (range = 0-100% of packages). The ground meat derived from one deer showed more fragments (N = 42) than counted in the radiograph of the carcass (N = 31), and two ground meat packages (2 deer) each contained a single shotgun pellet which had not been detected on the carcass radiographs. No rela- tionship was apparent between the number of metal fragments counted in carcasses and those subse- quently counted in ground meat from the same in- dividual (correlation coefficient 0.06). In the aggre- gate, we observed 155 metal particles in the ground meat packages, 3.1% of the 5074 we counted in the carcasses. Of 16 deer carcasses with metal frag- 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00095 Q 15.684 15.682 15.680 15.678 R 15.676 a 15.674 15.672 CL 15.670 15.668 15.666 - LEAD BULLET FRAGMENTS IN VENISON - 15.6641 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18.90 18.95 19.00 19.05 19.10 19.15 19.20 19.25 Pb2o61Pb2O4 B 39.10 39.05 39.00 38.95 38.90 N 38.85 a 38.80 a 38.75 38.70 38.65 38.60 38.551 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18.90 18.95 19.00 19.05 19.10 19.15 19.20 19.25 Pb206tpb2O4 Figure 1. Plots of lead isotope ratios in ground meat samples containing radiodense fragments from four deer. Ratios from lead -in -meat samples clustered with those of unfired bullets but were distinct from bone lead ratios. Note that there are four meat data points (open triangles) in each graph, but two have almost identical positions and are superimposed. ments near the spine, four (25% of selected deer, 8% of 49 packages) showed fragments in processed loin steaks (1-9 fragments). Additional fragments may have occurred in 220 unscanned packages of steaks derived from all animals. ICP analysis of radiodense fragments excised from ground meat packages from 13 deer identified lead in 25 (93%) of 27 samples; aggregate lead fragment mass per package averaged 17.2 mg (range ± SD = 0.2-168 f 39.8 mg) or 0.03% of the lead compo- nent of bullet mass. Nine samples contained copper at levels above background values, including the two samples with no detectable lead. Lead concen- trations in unprocessed muscle tissue collected from the shank and well away from the bullet path of the same 13 deer were all below the detection limit of 2.0 gg/g and served as internal controls for measures of lead in ground meat. The ratio of lead isotopes 206/204 plotted against 207/204 ratios (Figure la) and 208/204 ratios (Figure lb) showed that meat samples with elevated lead levels from four deer, and lead from bullets from the same boxes (N = 3) supplying the bullets used to kill those deer, formed tight clusters distinct from ratios of background lead in tibial bone. Variation in the bone ratios apparent in Figure 1 likely represent long term, cumulative lead expo- sure encompassing varied sources of natural and anthropogenic lead. Bioavailability Experiment. All the pigs con- sumed all the venison provided to them within 2 hours. None of the experimental animals showed any signs of lead toxicosis or other illness for the duration of the experiment; none exhibited vomit- ing or diarrhea which might have affected gastroin- testinal physiology or retention times in the stom- ach or intestines. Blood lead concentrations in the four control pigs ranged from below the level of ICP -MS detection (0.5 gg/dL) to 1.2 gg/dL throughout the experiment (mean ± SD = 0.63 f 0.19 gg/dL; Figure 2). Blood lead concentrations in pigs fed metal fragment - containing venison ranged from below the level of detection to 1.4 gg/dL on day 0, immediately prior to feeding venison. The 2 -way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between treatment (feeding venison either with fragments or no fragments) and day (F6,35.32 = 3.413, P = 0.009; Figure 2). Mean blood lead concentrations in the pigs fed fragment - containing venison were significantly elevated above those of control pigs on days 1, 2 and 3 post- exposure (linear contrast: F1,39.79 = 10.39, P = 0.003, F1,39.79 = 17.76, P = 0.0001, and F1,39.79 = 14.71, P = 0.0004, respectively; Figure 2); the maximum ob- served value was 3.8 gg/dL. Blood lead concentra- tions did not differ (P >0.05) between the control pigs and exposed pigs on days 0, 4, 7 and 9 (Figure 2). 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00096 3.00 2.50 M IA -HUNT ETAL. - 1.00 d J M 0 0.50 ED M 0 1 2 3 4 7 9 Day Figure 2. Mean blood lead concentrations observed during swine feeding experiment. Mean (± SE) blood lead concentrations (Ng/d L) in four pigs fed venison containing radiographically dense fragments (Frag- ments) compared with four control pigs fed venison without visible fragments (No Fragments) on days 0 and 1. Asterisks indicate days when means differed significantly between test and control groups. DISCUSSION Our findings show that people risk exposure to lead when they eat venison from deer killed with stan- dard lead-based rifle bullets and processed under normal commercial procedures. Evidence includes a high proportion (80%) of deer showing at least one bullet fragment in one or more ground meat packages, a substantial frequency of contamination (32% of all ground meat packages), a majority (93%) of assayed fragments identified as lead, iso- topic homogeneity of bullet lead with that found in the meat, and increased blood lead concentrations in swine fed fragment -containing venison. Consid- ering that all the carcasses we brought to the proc- essors contained fragments (15-409 fragments counted in radiographs), the high rate of removal evident in the ground meat implies meticulous care on the part of the processors to avoid contamina- tion, but an apparent inability of 80% of them to do so entirely. We conclude that, in a majority of cases, one or more consumers of a hunter -killed, commercially -processed deer will consume bullet lead. We interpret the absorption of lead into the blood- stream of all four test pigs as clear evidence of the bioavailability of lead from ingested bullet frag- ments (Figure 2), and we infer that human con- sumption of venison processed under prevailing standards of commerce results in increased blood lead concentrations. The rate of bioavailability can- not be calculated from our experiment because the exact amounts of lead in the meat packages were unknown. Rather, we directed our test at the condi- tion experienced by human consumers of venison from rifle -killed deer of variable amounts of lead patchily distributed as fragments in ground meat or steak. Depuration of lead in blood does not imply its ex- cretion, but rather the sequestration of a substantial proportion in soft tissues and ultimately in bone from which it may eventually be mobilized, as dur- 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00097 - LEAD BULLET FRAGMENTS IN VENISON - ing pregnancy (Tellez-Rojo et al. 2004) or in old age (Schwartz and Stewart 2007). The observed elevations in blood lead concentrations, while not considered overtly toxic, would nevertheless con- tribute to cumulative lead burdens, and would be additive with further meals of contaminated veni- son. Observed blood lead concentrations of up to 3.8 gg/dL, and daily means of 2.3 and 2.2 gg/dL in the experimental animals, do approach what is con- sidered significant with respect to adverse effects in humans by contemporary assessments (Gilbert and Weiss 2006, Levin et al. 2008). Whereas the CDC advisory level for intervention in individual chil- dren is 10 9g/dL in blood (CDC 1991), studies now associate as little as 2 gg/dL with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality in adults (Menke et al. 2006) and impaired cognitive function in children (Jusko et al. 2008). Hauser et al. (2008) detected an impact threshold of 5 gg/dL on male maturation rates, and Lanphear et al. (2005) concluded that "...lead exposure in children who have maximal blood lead concentrations <7.5 gg/dL is associated with intellectual deficits." These latter values would appear attainable with the repeated consumption of venison possible among deer hunting families, es- pecially those incurring additional exposure from other sources. Factors that may influence dietary lead exposure from spent lead bullets include the frequency and amount of venison consumption, degree of bullet fragmentation, anatomical path of the bullet, the care with which meat surrounding the bullet wound is removed, and any acidic treatments of the meat that would dissolve lead, i.e., coating the hanging carcass with vinegar or the use of acidic marinades in cooking. Exposure to lead from spent bullets is easily preventable if health -minded hunters use lead-free copper bullets now widely available and generally regarded as fully comparable to lead- based bullets for use in hunting (Carter 2007). The potential for toxic exposure to copper from these bullets is presumably insignificant because little or no fragmentation occurs (Hunt et al. 2006), and there is no meat wastage from having to discard tis- sue suspected of contamination. Fragmenting lead bullets have been in use for hunt- ing since the early 1900s (Stroud and Hunt 2009). Although hunter numbers have diminished slightly in recent years, there were 10.7 million big game hunters in the United States in 2006, the majority of whom still use lead-based bullets (USFWS 2006, Watson and Avery 2009). Many state wildlife agencies annually issue multiple deer harvest per- mits to individuals, effectively offering venison as a year-round protein staple for some families; game meat is the principal source of protein for a consid- erable proportion of Alaska's population (Titus et al. 2009). Hunter -donated venison to food pantries and shelters for low income families in most states produced an estimated minimum of 9 million veni- son meals associated with the 2007/08 hunting sea- son (Avery and Watson 2009). With these con- cerns, we anticipate that health sciences will further examine the bioavailability of lead from bullets and shot, the epidemiology of exposure, and the possi- ble consequences among hunters, their families, and others who consume venison. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The data were collected as part of The Peregrine Fund's California Condor Restoration Project, which is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Bu- reau of Land Management, The Charles Engelhard Foundation, Liz Claiborne and Art Ortenberg Foundation, Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust, Grand Canyon Conservation Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Jane Smith Turner Foun- dation, and other important donors. We thank P. and L. Widener, R. Berry, P. Jenny, B. Mutch, A. Montoya, P. Juergens, B. Oakleaf, R. Green, T. Hunt, A. Siedenstrang, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the University of Idaho Analyti- cal Sciences Laboratory -Holm Research Center, and The Peregrine Fund Research Library for help with this project. S. McGeehan and T. Case per- formed laboratory analyses for heavy metals. D. Lewis, G. Turner, G. Van Orden, and J. Luft pro- vided care for the pigs and performed blood collec- tion. LITERATURE CITED AVERY, D., AND R. T. WATSON. 2009. Distribution of venison to humanitarian organizations in the U.S. and Canada. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of 11 /16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00098 -HUNTETAL.- Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI:10.4080/ilsa.2009. 0114. BJERREGAARD, P., P. JOHANSEN, G. MULVAD, H. S. PEDERSEN, AND J. C. HANSEN. 2004. Lead sources in human diet in Greenland. Environ- mental Health Perspectives 112:1496-1498. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7083. BORJA-ABURTO, V. H., 1. HER /-PICCIOTTO, M. R. LOPEZ, P. FARIAS, C. RIGS, AND J. BLANCO. 1999. Blood lead levels measured prospectively and risk of spontaneous abortion. American Journal of Epidemiology 150:590-597. BRAUN, J. M., R. S. KAHN, T. FROEHLICH, P. AUINGER, AND B. P. LANPHEAR. 2006. Expo- sure of environmental toxicants and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in U.S. children. Environmental Health Perspectives 114:1904- 1909. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9478. BURGER, J., R. A. KENNAMER, 1. L. BRISBIN, JR., AND M. GOCHFELD. 1998. A risk assessment for consumers of Mourning Doves. Risk Analysis 18:563-573. CARTER, A. 2007. Xtraordinary. Shooting Illus- trated Magazine, July 2007. National Rifle As- sociation Publication. Fairfax, Virginia, USA. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention USA). 1991. Preventing lead poisoning in young children. [Online.] Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/Publications/Prev leadpoisoning.pdf. Accessed 2008 November 3. CECIL, K. M., C. J. BRUBAKER, C. M. ADLER, K. N. DIETRICH, M. ALTAYE, J. C. EGELHOFF, S. WES- SEL, 1. ELANGOVAN, R. HORNUNG, K. JARVIS, AND B. P. LANPHEAR. 2008. Decreased brain volume in adults with childhood lead exposure. PLoS Med 5:741-750. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050112. CORNATZER, W. E., E. F. FOGARTY, AND E. W. CORNATZER. 2009. Qualitative and quantitative detection of lead bullet fragments in random venison packages donated to the Community Action Food Centers of North Dakota, 2007. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI 10.4080/ilsa.2009.0111. DOBROWOLSKA, A., AND M. MELOSIK. 2008. Bul- let -derived lead in tissues of the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) and Red Deer (Cervus elaphus). Euro- pean Journal of Wildlife Research 54:231-235. DOI: 10.1007/s 10344-007-0134-y. EKONG, E. B., B. G. JAAR, AND V. M. WEAVER. 2006. Lead -related nephrotoxicity: A review of the epidemiologic evidence. Kidney Interna- tional 70:2074-2084. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ki.5001809. GILBERT, S. G. AND B. WEISS. 2006. A rationale for lowering the blood lead action level from 10 to 2 gg/dL. NeuroToxicology 27:693-701. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuro.2006.06.008. HANNING, R. M., R. SANDHU, A. MACMILLAN, L. Moss, L. J. S. Tsuji, AND E. NIEBOER. 2003. Impact on blood Pb levels of maternal and early infant feeding practices of First Nation Cree in the Mushkegowuk Territory of northern On- tario, Canada. Journal of Environmental Moni- toring 5:241-245. DOI: 10.1039/b208220a. HAUSER, R., O. SERGEYEV, S. KORRICK, M. M. LEEM, B. REVICH, E. GiTIN, J. S. BURNS, AND P. L. WILLIAMS. 2008. Association of blood lead levels with onset of puberty in Russian boys. Environmental Health Perspectives 116:976-980. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10516. HUNT, W. G., W. BURNHAM, C. N. PARISH, K. K. BURNHAM, B. MUTCH, AND J. L. OAKS. 2006. Bullet fragments in deer remains: Implications for lead exposure in avian scavengers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:167-170. Also DOI: 10.4080/ilsa.2009.0123. 1QBAL, S. 2008. Epi -Aid Trip Report: Assessment of human health risk from consumption of wild game meat with possible lead contamination among the residents of the State of North Da- kota. National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: At- lanta, Georgia, USA. [Online.] Available at http://www.nneforg/NR/rdonlyres/ F07627AA-4D94-4CB C -B 8FD- 4F4F18401303/0/ND report.pdf. Accessed 2009 March 23. JOHANSEN, P., G. ASMUND, AND F. RIGET. 2004. High human exposure to lead through consump- tion of birds hunted with lead shot. Environ- mental Pollution 127:125-129. DOI: 10.1016/S0269-7491(03)00255-0. JOHANSEN, P., H. S. PEDERSEN, G. ASMUND, AND F. RIGET. 2006. Lead shot from hunting as a 8 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00099 - LEAD BULLET FRAGMENTS IN VENISON - source of lead in human blood. Environmental Pollution 142:93-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.09.015. JUSKO, T. A., C. R. HENDERSON, B. P. LANPHEAR, D. A. COREY-SLECHTA, AND P. J. PARSONS. 2008. Blood lead concentrations <10 gg/dL and child intelligence at 6 years of age. Environ- mental Health Perspectives 116:243-248. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10424. KRONE, O., N. KENNTNER, A. TRINOGGA, M. NADJAFZADEH, F. SCHOLZ, J. SULAWA, K. TOTSCHEK, P. SCHUCK-WERSIG, AND R. ZIESCHANK. 2009. Lead poisoning in White- tailed Sea Eagles: Causes and approaches to so- lutions in Germany. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI: 10.4080/ilsa.2009.0207. LANPHEAR, B. P., R. HORNUNG, J. KHOURY, K. YOLTON, P. BAGHURST, D. C. BELLINGER, R. L. CANFIELD, K. N. DIETRICH, R. BORN- SCHEIN, T. GREENE, S. J. ROTHENBERG, H. L. NEEDLEMAN, L. SCHNAAS, G. WASSERMAN, J. GRAZIANO, AND R. ROBERTS. 2005. Low- level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: An international pooled analysis. Environmental Health Perspec- tives 113:894-899. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7688. LEVESQUE, B., J. F. DUCHESNE, C. GARIEPY, M. RHAINDS, P. DUMAS, A. M. SCHEUHAMMER, J. F. PROULX, S. DERY, G. MUCKLE, F. DAL- LAAIRE, AND E. DEWAILLY. 2003. Monitoring of umbilical cord blood lead levels and sources as- sessment among the Inuit. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 60:693-695. LEVIN, R., M. J. BROWN, M. E. KASHTOCK, D. E. JACOBS, E. A. WHELAN, J. RODMAN, M. R. SCHOCK, A. PADILLA, AND T. SINKS. 2008. U.S. lead exposures in U.S. children, 2008: Implica- tions for prevention. Environmental Health Per- spectives 116:1285-1293. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.11241. LUSTBERG, M., AND E. SILBERGELD. 2002. Blood lead levels and mortality. Archives of Internal Medicine 162:2443-2449. MATEO, R., M. RODRIGUEZ-DE LA CRUZ, D. VIDAL, M. REGLERO, AND P. CAMARERO. 2007. Trans- fer of lead from shot pellets to game meat dur- ing cooking. Science of the Total Environment 372:480-485. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.10.022. MENKE, A., P. MUNTNER, V. BATUMANN, E. SIL- BERGELD, AND E. GUALLAR. 2006. Blood lead below 0.48 gmol/L (10µg/dL) and mortality among US adults. Circulation 114:1388. DOI: 10.1161 /circulationaha.106.628321. NEEDLEMAN, H. L. 2004. Lead poisoning. Annual Review of Medicine 55:209-222. NEEDLEMAN, H. L., C. MCFARLAND, R. B. NESS, S. E. FIENBERG, AND M. J. TOBIN. 2002. Bone lead levels in adjudicated delinquents: A case control study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24:711-717. SCHNAAS, L., S. J. ROTHENBERG, M. F. FLORES, S. MARTINEZ, C. HERNANDEZ, E. OSORIO, S. R. VELASCO, AND E. PERRONL 2006. Reduced in- tellectual development in children with prenatal lead exposure. Environmental Health Perspec- tives 114:791-797. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.8552. SCHWARTZ, B. S., AND W. F. STEWART. 2007. Lead and cognitive function in adults: A questions and answers approach to a review of the evi- dence for cause, treatment, and prevention. In- ternational Review of Psychiatry 19: 671-692. DOI: 10.1080/09540260701797936. SHIN, R. A., H. HU, M. G. WEISSKOPH, AND B. S. SCHWARTZ. 2007. Cumulative lead dose and cognitive function in adults: a review of studies that measured both blood lead and bone lead. Environmental Health Perspectives 115:483- 492. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9786. STROUD, R. K., AND W. G. HUNT. 2009. Gunshot wounds: A source of lead in the environment. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI 10.4080/ilsa.2009.0109. TELLEZ-ROJO, M. M., M. HERNANDEZ-AVILA, H. LAMADRID-FIGUERUA, D. SMITH, L. HER- NANDEZ-CARDENA, A. MERCADO, A. ARO, J. SCHWARTZ, AND H. HU. 2004. Impact of bone lead and bone resorption on plasma and whole blood lead levels during pregnancy. American Journal of Epidemiology 160:668-678. DOI: 10.1093 /aj e/kwh271. TITUS, K., T. L. HAYNES, AND T. F. PARAGL 2009. The importance of moose, caribou, deer and 9 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00100 -HUNTETAL.- small game in the diet of Alaskans. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammuni- tion: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI: 10.4080/ils a.2009.0312. Tsuji, L. J. S., B. C. WAINMAN, 1. D. MARTIN, C. SUTHERLAND, J -P. WEBER, P. DUMAS, AND E. NIEBOER. 2008a. The identification of lead ammunition as a source of lead exposure in First Nations: The use of lead isotope ratios. Science of the Total Environment 393:291-298. DOI: 10.1016/j . scitotenv.2008.01.022. TSUJI, L. J. S., B. C., WAINMAN, 1. D. MARTIN, C. SUTHERLAND, J -P. WEBER, P. DUMAS, AND E. NIEBOER. 2008b. Lead shot contribution to blood lead of First Nations people: The use of lead isotopes to identify the source of exposure. Science of the Total Environment 405:180-185. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.048. TSUJI, L. J. S., B. C. WAINMAN, 1. D. MARTIN, J -P. WEBER, C. SUTHERLAND, E. N. LIBERDA, AND E. NIEBOER. 2008c. Elevated blood -lead levels in First Nation People of northern Ontario Can- ada: Policy implications. Bulletin of Environ- mental Contamination and Toxicology 80:14- 18. DOI: 10.1007/s00128-007-9281-9. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Estimation of relative bioavail- ability of lead in soil and soil -like materials us- ing in vivo and in vitro methods. Office of Solid Waste Emergency Response 9285.7-77. [On- line.] Available at http://www.epa.gov/super fund/health/contaminants/bioavailability/lead_ tsd_main.pdf. Accessed 2008 November 3. USFWS AND USCB [United States Fish and Wild- life Service and United States Census Bureau]. 2006. 2006 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife -associated recreation. [Online.] Available at http://Iibrary.fws.gov/nat_survey 2006 final.pdf. Accessed 2008 Nov 3. WARREN, C. 2000. Brush with Death: A Social His- tory of Lead Poisoning. Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. WATSON, R. T., AND D. AVERY. 2009. Hunters and anglers at risk of lead exposure in the United States. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USA. DOI: 10.4080/ilsa.2009.0117. WRIGHT, J. P., K. N. DIETRICH, M. D. RIs, R. W. HORNUNG, S. D. WESSEL, B. P. LANPHEAR, M. Ho, AND M. N. RAE. 2008. Association of prenatal and childhood blood lead concentra- tions with criminal arrests in early adulthood. PLoS Medicine 5:732-740. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050101. 10 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00101 Tarboo Ridge Gun Proposal Hearing - Comments Sub... - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 4 Tarboo Ridge Gun Proposal Hearing - Comments Submitted by Connie Gallant Jarvis <alte2@mac.com> Fri 11/9/2018 3:46 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; #Long -Range Planning <LRP@co.jefferson.wa.us>; ccjeffbocc <jeffbocc@cojefferson.wa.us>; DCD Front Staff <dcd@cojefferson.wa.us>; 5 18 attachments Condor-carcass.jpeg; ATT00001.htm; GoldenEagle-carcassjpeg; ATT00002.htm; Pfund_burger-xrays_sm2jpeg; ATT00003.htm; Venison-bullet-fragmentsjpg; ATT00004.htm; Hunt 2009—Lead Bullet Fragments.pdf; ATT00005.htm; 0111 Cornatzer.pdf; ATT00006.htm; Noise Exposure and Public Health.pdf; ATT00007.htm; 15409309-1510215058093jpeg; ATT00008.htm; pdf- icon.png; ATT00009.htm; Dear Jefferson County Planning committees - I am submitting my written comments voicing my vehement opposition to this unsound proposal for a military training compound on Tarboo Ridge since I could not attend the meeting last evening at the Chimacum Auditorium. First, I want to express my disappointment in the Jefferson County Commissioners 2 -1 decision to approve an ordinance addressing commercial shooting ranges in the unincorporated county. I thank Kate Dean for voting to stand with the public... she still has my trust. Thankfully, though the ordinance is approved, the year long moratorium on new shooting facilities commissioners implemented Dec. 17 is still in place! Joe D'Amico wants to build his multi -range shooting compound at Tarboo Lake. He has chosen to ignore the County ordinance and submitted a permit application on October 3, 2018—fully 75 days in advance of the moratorium's scheduled expiration. This proposal is very unsettling. Mr. D'Amico, the developer in Jefferson County, intends to situate his multiple "gun ranges" just feet from the sensitive shorelines of Tarboo Lake which is at the headwaters of the Tarboo Watershed Restoration Project and Tarboo Wildlife Preserve. Tarboo Lake is a rare and pristine gem in this area which does not even allow motorized boats on it and where families swim, fish, canoe and bring their dogs to enjoy quiet time. Why is this proposed "gun range" (military compound) potentially being allowed to be so threateningly close to this sensitive area and potentially others? 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00102 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Tarboo Ridge Gun Proposal Hearing - Comments Sub... - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 4 It is my understanding that this developer wants to blow up cars, blast cannons, train military and law enforcement with helicopters, fire off countless rounds from dawn to dusk and into the night. This is a very outlandish scenario. When a concerned citizen in our community asked him why he does not just build an indoor firing range, his answer was "because I can't blow up cars indoors". I find this to be very disturbing, aggressive and on the verge of a major threat to our community. Allowing this sort of land use on forest lands in Jefferson County is inconsistent with the stated use of our forest lands which are intended to be conserved as forest land. This proposed "gun range" is incompatible with our rural lifestyle and our designation of forest lands. I am appalled that there is any question as to whether this proposal would go through. We cannot begin allowing this sort of mongering to take place in our community and threaten all inhabitants. It is also my understanding that the Planning Commission is considering amendments to title 18 of the Unified Development Code which deals with allowable land uses. And with regards to setbacks to lakes and waterways, Kitsap County had the foresight to include at least a 500 yard setback for their gun ranges from lakes, but this developer in Jefferson County intends to site his multiple gun ranges just feet from the shorelines of Tarboo Lake which is at the headwaters of the Tarboo Watershed Restoration Project and Tarboo Wildlife Preserve. Tarboo Lake is a rare and pristine gem in this area which does not even allow motorized boats where families swim, fish, canoe and bring their dogs to enjoy quiet time. We cannot allow military use, we cannot allow use of helicopters, and there must be restrictions to caliber of weapons allowed (the developer likes to fire off cannons to annoy his neighbors who complain about him), etc. This is, again, outrageous that this sort of behavior is allowed in our county. In addition, some of the definitions are very loose such as "small scale", "commercial" and I understand the list of allowed uses is not clearly defined and I wonder why not? No environmental review or SEPA review are currently a requirement of this development. Is this true? Why is that? I would like to know. Allowing this land use on forest lands in Jefferson County is inconsistent with the stated use of our forest lands which are intended to be conserved as forest land. This proposed "gun range" is incompatible with our rural lifestyle and our designation of forest lands. Below are some suggestions for specifics... • All new ranges should be indoors. Indoor ranges alleviate many environmental and noise problems, and are being promoted all over the United States as a way to accommodate the needs of both recreational shooters and nearby residents. • Citizen rights to live in peace vs an individual's right to insert a non -compatible business. • No military training in Jefferson County. Our local law enforcement officers' training needs are currently being met by the Jefferson County Sportsman's Club. The Federal 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00103 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Tarboo Ridge Gun Proposal Hearing - Comments Sub... - Planning Commission Desk Page 3 of 4 Government trains our military, and the military is not allowed to act as a domestic police force. • No outdoor night shooting. • No landing aircraft allowed. • No overnight accommodations. • Required environmental testing for copper. Simply considering the materials that abound in a military training facility is enough to disqualify any proposals from taking root. The quantity of lead, copper, and sulfur discharged at such facilities would place the soil, water, humans, fish and wildlife in grave danger. We MUST protect our shorelines, lakes, streams, and overall environment, not to mention our health and peace of mind from this waste and noise pollution it would generate and this would be all erased with a military compound. I did not move to this beautiful area to be subjected to this sort of invasive and dangerous proposal. Here are numerous reasons the military training compound on Tarboo Ridge is not a good idea and is very wrongly placed in our community... please continue reading to the end of my letter. As you know gunpowder consists of a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate (saltpeter). The sulfur and charcoal act as fuels while the saltpeter is an oxidizer. Because of its incendiary properties and the amount of heat and gas volume that it generates, gunpowder has been widely used as a propellant in firearms, artillery, rockets, and fireworks and as a blasting powder in quarrying, mining, and road building. According to the Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey, an individual range can go through between 1.5 to 20 tons of lead shot and bullets annually. Outdoor ranges as a whole may use more than 80,000 tons in that same period. The people and creatures who exist around lead are at the greatest risk for health issues. Increased exposure to the toxic metal can cause paralysis, neurological damage, and death. "In some circumstances, a waterfowl species could ingest one lead shot and die, or perhaps even less," Dr. Barnett Rattner, a scientist for the US Geological Survey, has stated. Indoor ranges in particular pose threats to humans: A blood test for one former Kentucky gun range manager, as reported by the Seattle Times, detected lead levels 56 times higher than the average adult's, putting him in danger of organ failure. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00104 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Tarboo Ridge Gun Proposal Hearing - Comments Sub... - Planning Commission Desk Page 4 of 4 In many cases, ranges only confront the problem of toxic debris when so much has accumulated that it attracts the attention of local government or outside activists. (Ranges that shoot directly into or near bodies of water are at a higher likelihood of environmental litigation or government action, for example, due to laws protecting wetlands from hazardous waste.) Faced with the prohibitive costs of a massive cleanup, some ranges are forced to close, leaving taxpayers with the bill. For locations abundant with wildlife, leaving lead undisturbed isn't always an option. In Stratford, Connecticut, the Remington Gun Club operated for almost seventy years on a peninsula jutting into the Long Island until the mid-1980s, when a group of fisherman asked what all that shot was doing to local shellfish. One study found that the club had deposited 5 million pounds of lead and 11 million pounds of toxic target fragments on its grounds and nearby waters. Half the ducks in the area had acute lead poisoning, caused by ingesting the shot while diving for food. Mussels, clams, and oysters were found to contain 10 times the normal level of lead. As a result, the town banned shellfish harvesting on the site. Numerous scientific studies have reached a consensus: Lead poisoning is the biggest threat facing the successful recovery of the California condor. Semi-annual test results show that the majority of free -flying condors at Pinnacles National Park have blood lead levels that exceed 10 ug/dL, which is the same threshold used by the Center for Disease Control as an initial warning sign that a human child is at risk. Some condors have been measured with blood lead levels as high as 570 ug/dL, a value that would potentially kill a human. By the time condors at Pinnacles reach breeding age of 7 years old, almost all of them have received emergency, life-saving chelation treatment at least once. Numerous condors in the flock have now required multiple chelation cycles. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00105 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Noise Exposure and Public Health Willy Passchier-Vermeerl and Wim F. Passchier2 1TN0 Prevention and Health, Leiden, The Netherlands; 20epartment of Health Risk Analysis and Toxicology, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands Exposure to noise constitutes a health risk. There is sufficient scientific evidence that noise exposure can induce hearing impairment, hypertension and ischemic heart disease, annoyance, sleep disturbance, and decreased school performance. For other effects such as changes in the immune system and birth defects, the evidence is limited. Most public health impacts of noise were already identified in the 1960s and noise abatement is less of a scientific but primarily a policy problem. A subject for further research is the elucidation of the mechanisms underlying noise - induced cardiovascular disorders and the relationship of noise with annoyance and nonacoustical factors modifying health outcomes. A high priority study subject is the effects of noise on children, including cognitive effects and their reversibility. Noise exposure is on the increase, especially in the general living environment, both in industrialized nations and in developing world regions. This implies that in the twenty-first century noise exposure will still be a major public health problem. Key words: annoyance, cardiovascular effects, children's health, environmental health, environmental noise, hearing impairment, noise exposure, noise metrics, occupational noise, performance. — Environ Health Perspect 108{suppl 1):123-131 (2000). http://ehpnetl.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2000/suppl-1/123-131 passchier-vermeer/abstract.html Noise Exposure and Heatth Assessment of the human health risk associated with the presence of a xenobiotic substance in the environment usually follows the relatively simple scheme depicted in Figure 1. The substance occurs in environ- mental media at certain concentrations, depending on, among other factors, lifestyle, residence time, and dietary habits, that people may be exposed to this xenobiotic. Any sub- sequent harm depends on the level of expo- sure. The modifying impact of exogenous determinants and personal characteristics on the level of exposure and sensitivity with respect to the toxic action usually are not taken into account or are only considered in a standardized way, at least for risk assessment and standard-setting purposes. The data available, often derived from animal experi- ments and surveys of population behavior, do not allow a more refined analysis. In the case of the assessment of the health effects of noise exposure, the scheme in Figure 1 is too simple. With the exception of damage to the hearing organ, the exposed organism's reaction to the perception of sound is strongly dependent on the context of the exposure. The effects of noise exposure cannot be understood only by taking mecha- nisms of toxic action into account. For example, the sounds in a discotheque are music to the dancers but noise to the neigh- bors. In the first case, the exposure would not be annoying but is expected to con- tribute to hearing loss; for the neighbors, hearing loss would be improbable, but annoyance would certainly occur. A concep- tual model to address the health effects of noise exposure is presented in Figure 2. The model considers effects on health and quality of life as the outcome of a pro- cessing of exogenous determinants or envi- ronmental factors—in this case, noise exposure. Exposure, processing, and effect take place within economic and social envi- ronments and all are modified by societal fac- tors. Furthermore, lifestyle and concurrent exposure to other factors play a role. An example of the former was given above. An example of the latter is the finding that the perceived presence of the risk of an aircraft crash has been found to augment annoyance (and vice versa) (1). This processing of sounds is influenced by the genetic and acquired characteristics of the organism. For example, some people have a specific sensitiv- ity to noise and will be more susceptible to one or all of its effects than other people. Examples of societal factors that determine the adverse effects associated with noise exposure are insulation of houses, noise level - related depreciation of house prices, and individual and societal appreciation of the activities generating the noise. These insights, as depicted in the model in Figure 2, are not new. On the contrary, it is striking that in the 1960s most of the effects of sound on health and quality of life were already known or at least hypothesized, includ- ing the variety of modifying factors referred to above (2). In the 1970s the research results were sufficiently reviewed to allow science - based recommendations to be made for policy measures to protect public health (3-5). In the last three decades new data have confirmed the earlier insights and, as reviewed here in our present paper, have made more precise assess- ments of exposure–response relationships and observation thresholds possible. Many of the newer data stem from epidemiologic studies. If politicians had taken a more protective stance in the 1970s—which would have been legitimate on the basis of the then -available datathisreview probably would have been superfluous, as new data would not have been published, but also harm would have been avoided. In this review we emphasize development of insights into the effects of noise exposure on health and quality of life. In accordance with the relevant literature, we use the term noise to represent sounds generated by sources in the environment (indoors, out- doors, at work, etc.); noise is often appreci- ated negatively. Because several reviews on this subject have been published recently— some by international groups of scientists (6)—we refer to original research papers only when necessary for our argument. Furthermore, given our background in envi- ronmental health sciences, we also discuss policy instruments for health protection. Characterization of Noise Exposure Sound Pressure Level and Sound Level Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of alternating compression and expansion of air that propagate in all directions from a source. These alternating compressions and expansions can be described as small changes in pressure around atmospheric pressure. The frequency of the alternations determines the pitch of a sound: a high- pitched tone (e.g., 4,000 Hz) has a squeak- ing sound; a low-pitched tone (e.g., 200 Hz), a humming sound. The environmental noise sources discussed in this review usu- ally generate sounds within a broad fre- quency range. Sound pressures, relative to the atmospheric pressure, range from < 20 micropascal to > 200 pascal, a range of 1-10 million. Therefore, in acoustics, the logarithm of sound pressure relative to a ref- erence sound pressure is used as a basis for a sound (and noise) exposure measure: the physical quantity sound pressure level expressed in decibel (dB). Address correspondence to W. Passchier-Vermeer, TNO Prevention and Health, PO Box 2215, 2301 CE, Leiden, The Netherlands. Telephone: 31 71 518 1786. Fax: 31 71 518 1920. E-mail: w.passchier@pg.tno.nl Received 4 August 1999; accepted 30 November 1999. Environmental Health Perspectives • Vol l081s1,U$G4-& Logaf0f2G®mments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF12300106 PASSCHIER-VERMEER AND PASSCHIER Cause -effect sequence Environmental Exposure Harm agent Figure 1. Simple cause—effect chain for the assessment of the health effects of an environmental agent, such as a xenobiotic substance. The human hearing organ is not equally sensitive to sounds of different frequencies. Therefore, a spectral sensitivity factor is used that rates sound pressure levels at different fre- quencies in a way comparable to that of the human hearing organ; this is called A -weight- ing. The biophysical quantity A -weighted sound pressure level (L) is expressed as dB(A) and is referred to as sound level. Examples of sound levels in some common situations are falling leaves (very quiet), 10-20 dB(A); vac- uum cleaner, 55-65 dB(A); location close to a main road or highway, 70-80 dB(A); pop music concerts, 100-110 dB(A). Equivalent Sound Level and Day—NN%fit Level Sound level is the basic metric from which other biophysical metrics to specify long-term exposure to noise are derived. Usually a noise metric is assessed on an annual basis. In envi- ronmental and occupational situations, sound levels fluctuate with time. From these fluctuat- ing sound levels, the equivalent sound level (LA,q'� over a period of time, T, is determined from [see (7)1: LA,9,T =10log 1 J 10 10 dr TT Common exposure periods Tare 24 hr (full day) and 8 hr (work day). For some environmental health assessment purposes, the day—night level (Ld„) is used. This metric is the equivalent sound level over 24 hr with the sound levels during the night (11 PM -7 AM) increased by 10 dB(A). Also a day -evening -night level (Lk,) is used, which is constructed similarly, such that the sound lev- els during the evening (7 PM -11 PM) are increased by 5 dB(A) and those during the night (11 PM -7 AM) by 10 dB(A). These adjustment factors of 10 or 5 dB(A) take into account that night-time and evening -time noise are more annoying than day -time noise with the same equivalent sound level. Because of road, railway, and aircraft traf- fic noise, most of the urban population in industrialized countries are exposed to out- door Ld„ levels of > 50 dB(A). Rural popula- tions usually are exposed to outdoor traffic Ldn values of < 50 dB(A). Rough estimates of the percentage of people in Europe living in locations with Ld„ values > 60 dB(A) vary from 2 to 8%, depending on the country in which Sound exposure Other determinants of: Physical environment Social environment Life style Processing by the organism Appraisal as noise vegetative reactions Genetic and acquired Disturbed activities Annoyance Somatic and psycho -somatic heahh effects Dynamic demographic, social, cultural, economic, and technological environment Figure 2. Conceptual model of the interaction of sound with the organism and the occurrence of effects on health and quality of life. they live. For the Netherlands population this percentage is 4%. It is further estimated that 0.6% of the Netherlands population is exposed to traffic noise with Ldn values of > 70 dB(A) (8,9). Both in research and in policy, LA or Ldp„ is applied in a specific way: the metrics are used as location -specific quantities to be measured in front of the facade of residential buildings. Sound Exposure Level A single noise event is characterized by its sound exposure level. The sound exposure level (SEL) of a noise event, such as the over- flight of an airplane or the passage of a truck, is the equivalent sound level during the event normalized to a period of 1 sec (10). En this Settinp Iiewwe scuss the health effects of occupational and environmental noise expo- sure. Even though noise sources at work are quite divergent, the exposure setting is well defined; i.e., exposure during the execution of occupational tasks. In the living environment not only the sources but also the exposure set- tings are quite diverse. As mentioned above, a common environmental noise source is traffic. In addition, in industrialized regions indus- trial noise may affect environmental quality. Another type of noise is neighbor noise, a fac- tor frequently mentioned in surveys on resi- dential satisfaction. Increasingly, people are exposed to noise during recreational activities such as pop music concerts, motor races, and arcade activities; often these types of exposures are undergone consciously or at least taken for granted. In this review emphasis is on chronic environmental noise exposures, particularly those due to traffic and industrial noises. If other sources of noise or exposure settings are meant, this will be mentioned explicitly. Assessment of Health Effects The Committee on Noise and Health, an international committee of the Health Council of the Netherlands, in 1994 assessed the health effects of environmental and occu- pational noise exposure (6). It rated the evi- dence in terms of categories used by the International Agency on the Research of Cancer (11) as "sufficient," "limited," "inade- quate," or "lacking". The report also presents observation thresholds for those adverse health effects for which sufficient evidence was considered available. The observation threshold for an effect was defined in the report as the lowest noise exposure value at which on average the effect was observed in well-designed epidemiologic studies (12). This definition implies that in the course of time the observation threshold of an effect may have to be lowered if supported by new information from epidemiologic studies. In this review, the 1994 Health Council report (6) is considered a starting point. More recent reviews (13-19) and papers pre- sented at the November 1998 meeting in Sydney, Australia, of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Noise (20) were used to extend the 1994 evaluation. In general, the more recent reviews and papers (13-20) concur well with the conclusions of the Health Council if we take a rating of "inconclusive" (15,16) to be equivalent to the Health Council's "limited." With respect to some effects such as ischemic heart disease, hypertension, and congenital defects, there appear to be differences of opinion. This will be further discussed below ("Noise -Induced Stress -Related Health Effects"). In Table 1 information is presented about the adverse effects related to environmental and occupational noise exposure that have been examined in epidemiologic studies. The table is adapted from Table 1 of the 1994 Health Council report (6). Changes concern the noise metric in which the observation thresholds for hypertension and ischemic heart disease were originally given (21). Also the observation threshold for being awakened 124 11/16/18 Log for Corrymienteto JQP&rfmtTPt.•*8 Amsandmentq QSF2,40107 by a single noise event was lowered by 5 dB(A). Finally, we have added that the observation threshold for sleep pattern changes is < 60 dB(A) (expressed in outdoors LAeq,nigh)- Several health end points are not specific to noise exposure. In fact, in accordance with the conceptual model of Figure 2, factors that apparently modify the effects of noise expo- sure may also affect health in ways similar to those for noise exposure. Situations exist in which it is difficult to identify primary and modifying factors. The following sections highlight the main aspects of the data presented in Table 1. Noise -Induced Hearing Impairment Hearing impairment is an increase in the hearing threshold level. In the International Standard ISO 1999 (22), a hearing handicap is defined as the disadvantage imposed by hearing impairment sufficiently severe to affect one's personal efficiency in the activities of daily living, usually expressed in terms of understanding conventional speech in low levels of background noise. Hearing impair- ment is also associated with aging as well as as certain diseases, exposure to some industrial chemicals, ototoxic drugs, head injuries, acci- dents, or factors that are of hereditary origin. ISO 1999 (6) gives a method to estimate noise -induced hearing impairment in popu- lations exposed to continuous, intermittent, or impulse noises during working hours. Noise exposure is characterized by the equiv- alent sound level over an 8 -hr work day (LAeq,8h). Relations are given (for exposure times up to 40 years) between LAeq,A and noise -induced hearing impairment at fre- quencies between 500 and 6,000 Hz. These relations show that noise -induced hearing impairment occurs predominantly in the higher frequency range of 3,000-6,000 Hz, with largest effects observed at 4,000 Hz. With increasing LAeq 8h and increasing expo- sure time, noise -induced hearing impair- ment can also occur at lower frequencies, more specifically at 2,000 Hz. Even with prolonged occupational noise exposure, however, according to ISO 1999 noise - induced hearing impairment does not occur at LAeq,8h levels of 75 dB(A) and lower. This value is equal to the value specified in 1980 by the World Health Organization (23). Since the method specified in ISO 1999 is the only universally adopted method to esti- mate occupational noise -induced hearing impairment, attempts have been made to assess whether this method also applies to hearing impairment due to environmental noise, including leisure -time noise. The results of various studies strongly suggest that the ISO 1999 procedure can also be accepted for environmental and leisure -time noise exposures of adults and older children NOISE EXPOSURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH Table 1. Long-term effects related to exposure to noise and classification of the evidence for a causal relationship between noise and effect. The last three columns contain information on the observation threshold of an effect for which the causal relationship with noise exposure (second column) is judged to be sufficient.a Annoyance Sufficient Occ office LAeq,8h Observation threshold Indoors Classification Exposure Occ ind LAeq,8h Indoors/ Effect of evidenceb situation Metric Value (dB(A) outdoors' Hearing impairment Sufficient Occ LAeq,8h 75 Indoors Env LAegP4h 70 Indoors Psychosocial well-being Occ unb LAeq,8h <B5 Indoors Hypertension Sufficient Occ ind LAeq,8h <B5 Indoors Env Ldn 70 Outdoors Ischemic heart disease Sufficient Env Ldn 70 Outdoors Biochemical effects Limited Occ Sleep LAep,night <60 Outdoors Awakening Env Sleep SEL 55 Immune effects Limited Occ Sleep SEL 35 Indoors Subjective sleep quality Env Sleep LAep,night 40 Birth weight Limited Occ Sleep SEL 40 Indoors Hormone levels Env air Sleep Congenital effects Lacking Occ Sleep Mood next day Env Sleep LAep,night < 60 Psychiatric disorders Limited Env air Sleep Annoyance Sufficient Occ office LAeq,8h <55 Indoors Occ ind LAeq,8h <B5 Indoors Env Ldn 42d Outdoors Absentee rate Limited Occ ind Occ office Psychosocial well-being Limited Env Performance Limited Occ env Sufficient School LAeq,schoo! 70 Outdoors Sleep disturbance, changes in Sleep pattern Sufficient Sleep LAep,night <60 Outdoors Awakening Sufficient Sleep SEL 55 Indoors Sleep stages Sufficient Sleep SEL 35 Indoors Subjective sleep quality Sufficient Sleep LAep,night 40 Outdoors Heart rate Sufficient Sleep SEL 40 Indoors Hormone levels Limited Sleep Immune system Inadequate Sleep Mood next day Sufficient Sleep LAep,night < 60 Outdoors Performance next day Limited Sleep Abbreviations: env, living environment; ind, industrial; occ, occupational situation; school, exposure of children at school; unb, unborn: exposure of pregnant mother. 'The table is adapted from Table 1 of the 1994 Health Council report (6 ). °Classification of evidence of causal relationship between noise and health.'Value relates to indoor or outdoor noise assessment. °rhe observation threshold for percentage of highly annoyed persons is about 12 dB(A) lower for environmental impulse noise. provided the exposures are not too extreme and the exposures are expressed in LAeq,24h (because exposure during the full 24 -hr day is important in this case) instead of LAeq,8h (6,23-31). This implies that exposure to environmental and leisure -time noise with LAeq,24h values < 70 dB(A) does not cause hearing impairment in the large majority of people (> 95%), even in the case of life -time exposure (32). It should be considered, how- ever, that there are no large-scale epidemio- logic studies that investigated noise -induced hearing impairment in the general population that support this proposition. Also, data from animal experiments indicate that young chil- dren may be more vulnerable to noise - induced hearing impairments than adults (31). For impulsive (shooting) noises with LAeq.24h >80 dB(A) studies on temporary threshold shifts (26) suggest the possibility of an increased risk for impulse noise -induced hearing impairment in adults. At high instantaneous sound levels, mechanical damage to the outer and the inner ear may occur. Occupational limits for such types of exposures have been set equal to the observation threshold for this effect at a peak sound pressure level of 140 dB (33). For adults, it is reasonable to assume that a similar threshold applies with respect to exposure to environmental and leisure -time noise. In the case of children, however, taking into account their habits of playing with noisy toys, peak sound pressure levels > 120 dB may cause mechanical damage to the hearing organ (31). Noise exposure may also result in tinnitus (ringing in the ears). This effect has been observed among teenagers attending pop music concerts and discotheques (34). Noise - induced tinnitus may be temporary, lasting up to 24 hr after exposure, or it may have a more permanent character, such as after prolonged occupational noise exposure. Approximately 25% of workers with both noise -induced Environmental Health Perspectives • Vol 1081 14tLogl4arftmments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF12C0108 PASSCHIER-VERMEER AND PASSCHIER hearing impairment and tinnitus consider tinnitus the more disturbing effect (35). The main social consequence of hearing impairment is the inability to understand speech in daily living conditions—a severe social handicap. Even small values of hearing impairment (10 dB averaged over 2,000 and 4,000 Hz and over both ears) may have an effect on the understanding of speech. When the hearing impairment exceeds 30 dB (again averaged over 2,000 and 4,000 Hz and both ears), a social hearing handicap is noticeable. Psychosocial Effects Psychosocial effects due to exposure to environmental noise that have been studied in epidemiologic investigations include annoy- ance, psychosocial well-being, and psychiatric hospitalization. The main psychosocial effect from exposure to occupational noise observed in epidemiologic investigations is annoyance. Noise annoyance is a feeling of resent- ment, displeasure, discomfort, dissatisfaction, or offense when noise interferes with some- one's thoughts, feelings, or actual activities. It is not yet possible to predict noise annoyance on an individual basis because of the large variety of (partly unknown) endogeneous and exogeneous characteristics that affect annoy- ance (Figure 2). However, relationships between noise annoyance and noise exposure have been elucidated on a population level together with several effect -modifying factors. Annoyance in populations is evaluated using questionnaires. Exposure—effect relationships have been derived for exposure to the three main types of traffic noise: road, railway, and aircraft. The most recent and comprehensive relationships are shown in Figure 3 (36). These relationships pertain to populations chronically exposed to noise at specified levels for periods of more than a year. The effect is given as the percentage of the population highly annoyed by a specific environmental noise. "Highly annoyed" persons are those a x 80- _0 Air 0 60 + Road C + Rail > 40 t d zo „ o ca 40 `m 50 60 70 CL Edn in dB(A) Figure 3. Relationships between the percentage of highly annoyed persons and Ld„ for air, road, and railway traffic noise. Each curve has been derived by a multilevel analysis of all studies for which original data were avail- able. The vertical bars at 60 and 70 dB(A) represent 95% confidence intervals [bar at 60 ON for road has been displaced by 0.5 dB(A) for clarity]. who respond to a question about the degree of annoyance in the worst 25% range of answer categories (37). The noise exposure is expressed in Ld,,, assessed in front of dwellings. The relationships depicted in Figure 3 demonstrate that annoyance induced by the different modes of trans- port—air, road, and rail—differs at higher exposure levels. Taking into account the sta- tistical variations within and between the various studies, Miedema and Vos showed that aircraft noise is statistically significantly more annoying and railway noise is less annoying than road traffic noise (36). Environmental noise exposure is only one of the factors that contributes to noise annoyance, albeit a significant one. The degree of annoyance experienced by an indi- vidual as well as that on a population level in practice can differ considerably from the exposure—response relationships presented in Figure 3 because of the influence of so- called nonacoustical factors. Important nonacoustical effect -modifying factors are anxiety, fear of the noise source, and a feel- ing that the noise could be avoided. These effect -modifying factors have been identi- fied in multivariate analyses of population data (19,38-41). However, general quanti- tative multifactorial exposure—response relationships have not yet been published. Much attention has been paid in laboratory experiments to the effects of uncontrollable noise exposure on such things as task perfor- mance and annoyance. No relationships have been assessed between general noise annoy- ance experienced during working hours and noise exposure. Epidemiologic studies show that annoyance in offices is considerable at equivalent sound levels > 55 dB(A). A few studies show that 35-40% of office workers are highly annoyed at noise levels from 55 to 60 dB(A). If the noise source is more or less constant, such as the noise produced by ven- tilation systems (e.g., fans in computers), the observation threshold for annoyance in offices is lower than a LAe9,8h value of 55 dB(A). In industrial situations, similar percentages of highly annoyed workers occur at equivalent sound levels > 85 dB(A). Also at the workplace, nonacoustical factors have a large effect on the actual noise annoyance on an individual and on a popula- tion level. These factors include the meaning and information contents of the noise (tele- phone conversations and discussions between colleagues score high), predictability, avoid - ability, controllability, task demands, and attitudes toward the noise source. Noise -related annoyance is widespread in present-day society. Even though annoyance as such is not directly invalidating, there are indications that for sensitive individuals or in cases of concurrent exposure to other environmental agents or socially distressing situations, more serious health effects can occur [see Figure 2 and a recent report of another International Health Council committee (42)]. Noise -Induced Stress -Related Health Effects Reactions to a stressor can be psychologic (feelings of fear, depression, sorrow), behav- ioral (social isolation, aggression, excessive use of alcohol, tobacco, food, drugs), and somatic (cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, respiratory illnesses) in nature. A large number of labora- tory experiments [reviewed by Passchier- Vermeer (24)] have shown noise -induced temporal changes in the cardiovascular system. These findings led to several investigations into possible long-term effects associated with noise exposure, e.g., stress-related cardiovascu- lar disorders. In addition, some research has been conducted on the effects of noise expo- sure on the hormone and immune systems. Effects from occupational or environmental noise on reproduction and development were also studied. High -frequency hearing impair- ment in babies of mothers exposed to high levels of occupational noise during pregnancy is also considered to be a consequence of a mother's stress induced by exposure to noise during pregnancy (43). Research into the chronic effects of long- term exposure to noise is complicated because cardiovascular and biochemical changes are nonspecific and a number of other factors may also cause these changes; these factors must be controlled for in research projects. In cross-sectional studies it is difficult to obtain appropriate information about past noise exposure, and longitudinal studies are time-consuming and financially draining. Furthermore there are large indi- vidual differences in susceptibility. Also, peo- ple intervene in their own situations, e.g., by changing jobs [thus contributing to the "healthy worker effect" (44)] or by moving from noisier surroundings to quieter places. This may result in "noise proof' populations exposed to the higher noise levels (45). Not withstanding these complications, conclu- sions on the relationship between noise expo- sure and cardiovascular disease appear possible from meta-analyses of the available epidemiologic data (6). Cardiovascular effects in adults. Epidemiologic environmental noise studies on changes in blood pressure and increased risk for ischemic heart disease in adults are limited mainly to the effects of road traffic noise, with the exception of a Dutch study on the effects of aircraft noise (46,47). In general these studies demonstrate no obvious effects from noise exposure on mean diastolic and mean systolic blood pressure, but some effects 126 11/16/18 Log for Co11E"1entVtbHSGpr r40rtiTeK, a8IP�r� mtrlltsPO&FnOg0109 were observed in terms of an increase in the percentage of people with hypertension (including those who use medication for hypertension). The observation threshold for hypertension is estimated to correspond to an Ld» value of 70 dB(A) for environmental noise exposure. The Health Council of the Netherlands in 1994 (6) suggested the same observation threshold for ischemic heart dis- ease (Table 1). The relative risks (compared to populations with low environmental noise exposure) for both hypertension and ischemic heart disease for exposure levels above the observation thresholds are estimated to be about 1.5 (48). In 1997 a Chinese study (49) was conducted among a large sample of more than 20,000 residents in rural communities. The results show that self-reported exposure to noise (unfortunately, exposure was not assessed objectively) is an important determi- nant of systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Of special interest is the outcome of the recent, unique longitudinal study (50) on the effect of road traffic noise exposure on the incidence of ischemic heart disease. In this Caerphilly and Speedwell study, two cohorts of about 2,500 middle-aged men in the United Kingdom were recruited for a study of the predictive power of already -known and new risk factors for ischemic heart disease. Noise measurements were performed in each of the streets where subjects lived. Even in the highest noise exposure class, Ld» did not exceed 70 dB(A). Statistical analysis on the relationships between incidence of ischemic heart disease (classified in a standardized way) and environmental noise exposure was con- trolled for potentially confounding factors. The average annual incidence rate of ischemic heart disease appeared to be 1.4% during the second phase of the study (6 year follow-up; mean age of the men, 57 years). If orientation of the living room and the bedroom, window opening habits, and years of residence over 15 years were taken into account, the relative risk for incidence of ischemic heart disease of the highest exposed group relative to the group exposed to levels between 50 and 55 dB(A) was 1.6, which statistically is not sig- nificantly different from 1 at the 5% level (p < 0.10). This study fits in with the earlier evaluation that above levels of 70 dB(A) there is sufficient evidence for a noise exposure - related effect, and provides no support for lowering the observation level of 70 dB(A) for ischemic heart disease. Through analysis of twelve studies on the risk of hypertension among occupational noise -exposed workers, the observation threshold for industrial noise exposure was determined to be at most equal to an LA.A value of 85 dB(A) (24). No data are available for noise exposure in offices. If annoyance and stress-related health effects are associated, and taking into account that the observation threshold for annoyance in offices is much lower than that for industrial situations, we hypothesize that the observation threshold for noise -induced risk for hypertension in office workers is about 30 dB(A) lower than that for hypertension in blue-collar workers. The data in more recent publications on car- diovascular effects from exposure to noise are not in disagreement with the previous find- ings (51-53). However, one must be careful interpreting the results of these studies, as either noise measurements or proper control groups are lacking or the size of populations studied is small. Only few epidemiologic studies considered biochemical and immunologic effects (5455). More recently, overnight resting lev- els of epinephrine and norepinephrine levels were assessed in a study of middle-aged women living in Berlin (56). Significantly elevated levels of norepinephrine were found in women whose bedrooms faced busy streets (> 20,000 vehicles a day) and epinephrine levels were also higher in women reporting high disturbances of communication and sleep under closed window conditions. Some smaller studies in industrial settings showed the effects of wearing personal hearing protec- tion on urinary excretion of catecholamines (epinephrine and norepinephrine) and corti- sol (57,58). On the days hearing protectors were worn, urinary catecholamine levels were statistically significantly lower than on days protectors were not worn. Cardiovascular effects in children. Two early studies (59,60) showed an increase in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in chil- dren exposed to very high road traffic noise levels or aircraft noise levels. The increases were assumed to be of a transient nature. Recently, Slovakian researchers studied 1,542 children 3-7 years of age in kindergartens (61). The authors observed significantly higher systolic and diastolic blood pressures among children in noisy environments [> 60 dB(A)] compared to those among children in quieter environments. Although the study is carefully designed, the possibility that social class has confounded the results cannot be excluded [see also Lercher et al. (62)]. In the Munich airport study (63,64), schoolchildren were examined during the years Munich air- port moved from one location to another. One study location was close to the old air- port and another was close to the new airport. The cross-sectional part of the study showed a marginally significant higher systolic blood pressure in children highly exposed at school. Children were matched on socioeconomic characteristics. In the study, neuroendocrine indices of chronic stress (urinary cortisol levels and levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine) NOISE EXPOSURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH were also examined. Overnight resting levels of epinephrine and norepinephrine levels were significantly higher in children exposed to air- craft noise at the old Munich airport com- pared to control groups. There were no differences in cortisol levels. After the airport was moved, overnight resting levels of epi- nephrine and norepinephrine rose signifi- cantly among children living under the flight paths of the new airport. Again, no effects were observed on urinary cortisol levels. We propose that this subject be studied further. Effects on the unborn child. Data from older studies suggest that it is possible that when pregnant women are exposed to high levels of aircraft noise [Ld„ > 62 dB(A)], small reductions in birthweight occur. In a more recent study of 200 Taiwanese women, noise exposure was measured by personal noise dosimeters on three occasions during preg- nancy (65)• Noise exposure was not related to birthweight after adjustment for social class, smoking and alcohol use, maternal weight gain in pregnancy, gender of the child, and duration of pregnancy. Older and more recent investigations do not show statistically significant effects of occupational or environ- mental exposure of pregnant women to noise in the course of pregnancy and congenital defects of babies, with the exception of high - frequency hearing damage mentioned at the beginning of this section. Absences due to accident and sickness. Epidemiologic studies suggest that the absen- tee rate of industrial workers increases when they are exposed to equivalent sound levels during working hours of over 75 dB(A) [CORDIS study, (66)] or over 90 dB(A) (67). The CORDIS study also showed that the number of accidents increases with rises in equivalent sound levels during working hours. Mortality from injury was studied in more than 20,000 steelworkers (68). On the basis of job and workplace information, industrial hygienists estimated noise exposure as high [LAeq.8h > 95 dB(A)], medium [LAeq,8h 90-95 dB(A)], low [LAey,8h 85-90 dB(A)], and minor. Hearing damage and noise expo- sure in the high and medium noise classes appeared to be factors that contributed statis- tically significantly to mortality. The study did not identify the mechanisms behind these findings. Moreover the impact of using personal hearing protectors is unclear. Wearing of hearing protection by workers with substantial noise -induced hearing impairment reduces the possibility of hearing moving sound sources, warning signals, or colleagues shouting and hampers localization of moving sound sources because of reduced capacities to determine the direction of a sound source. Therefore, we hesitate to con- sider stress as the underlying mechanism for the increase in mortality. Environmental Health Perspectives • vol loWWrJ,8,LogAfahQwnments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF t2K110 PASSCHIER-VERMEER AND PASSCHIER Sleep Disturbance Sleep is a recovery process essential for humans to function properly. In addition, people like to sleep and usually consider a good night's sleep to be an important aspect of an individual's quality of life. Deleterious health effects are expected from chronic noise - induced interference with sleep, as it impairs the functions of sleep such as brain restoration and provision of a period of respite for the cardiovascular system (69,70). In addition to the physiologic aspects of a noise -induced reduction of sleep quality, night-time noise exposure of sufficient intensity (Table 1) is also related to subjectively experienced sleep quality (71). Reduced sleep quality also inter- feres with daytime functioning and can have adverse effects on mood next day and possibly on vigilance and cognitive performance. Sleep quality can be quantified by subjec- tive and objective methods. The most com- monly applied subjective methods are self -reporting using sleep logs or diaries and, to a lesser extent, behavioral observations. The most commonly used objective methods are electroencephalograph (EEG) recordings and actimetry. In field studies on noise - induced sleep disturbance subjects usually wear watchlike actimeters for movement detection at their wrist. Sleep quality may be adversely affected by • changes in the cardiovascular system; • changes in sleep pattern such as increased sleep latency time and reduced sleep time because of premature awakening; • changes in sleep stages from deeper to less -deep sleep; • increases in motility during the sleep period; • increases in number of awakenings during the sleep period; • changes in subjectively experienced sleep quality; and • changes in the hormonal and immune systems. Present knowledge about the relationships between awakening and exposure to single noise events indicates that habituation or adaptation occurs. This insight is not new. Cohen stated in 1968 [in Ward and Fricke (2)] that Aspects of adaptation to noise with regard to sleep disturbance also need to be evalu- ated. Common experience has found that the city dweller, frequently encountering significant levels of outdoor and indoor noise, becomes accustomed to such expo- sures and can sleep in their presence. The same individual vacationing in the quiet atmosphere of the country finds it difficult to sleep because of the background of cricket noise. The degree of familiarity or meaningfulness of the noise has a consider- able effect on its disturbing quality. From the epidemiologic studies there appears to be sufficient evidence for a causal relationship between exposure to night-time noise and changes in sleep pattern, sleep stages, awakenings, subjective sleep quality, heart rate, and mood the next day (6). Observation thresholds for these effects are given in Table 1. Evidence for other effects is limited (hormone levels and performance the next day) or inadequate (immune system). Exposure—response functions have been derived from field studies for only some of these effects, among others or reduction of subjective sleep quality and increase in num- ber of awakenings during sleep period time. The relationship between the risk of awaken- ing and exposure to night-time environmen- tal noise is established only for single noise events, with exposure specified by the indoor SEL values of the events. An international group of experts who were convened in 1997 by the Health Council of the Netherlands assessed the observation threshold for awakening due to single noise events at the lower indoor SEL value of 55 dB(A) (Table 1) instead of 60 dB(A) (8). This change reflected improved knowledge of the transfer functions of SEL values measured outdoors compared to those measured indoors in some of the underlying studies. Using the relationship between indoor SEL value and the risk of awakening due to single noise events, the expected maxi- mal number of awakenings per year in an adult habituated to night-time noise expo- sure was estimated as a function of the equiv- alent sound level during the night. The latter quantity was calculated from the number of single noise events during the night and their indoor SEL values (8). The result, which represents a worst-case situation, is depicted in Figure 4. Apart from the direct effects of night-time noise on sleep, various authors point to the importance of the impact of sleep disturbance on quality of life, including such factors as somatic health and annoyance. Such observa- tions had already been made in the 1950s. Cohen, referring to a paper of Borsky from 1958, states Field studies have shown that much greater annoyance results when sleep and rest are disturbed than when only talking or listen- ing activities are interrupted. This finding plus the health significance attributed to rest and sleep suggest that criteria for annoyance be based on noise -induced disturbances to sleep. [in Ward and Fricke (2)] Babisch et al. reported larger overnight changes in epinephrine levels in subjects reporting high disturbance of sleep than in those without severe complaints (56). Another study showed that psychosocial well-being of subjects exposed to high levels of road traffic noise was not related to day- time noise exposure but to night-time equiva- lent sound level in the bedroom and to subjectively experienced sleep quality (71). Although in the 1990s several field studies were started (72) or completed (73-76), there still is an urgent need for a tested model on sleep disturbance, environmental noise exposure, and secondary effects, in which causal and modifying factors and their mutual relations are assessed. Effects on Perfonnance There is overwhelming evidence from laboratory experiments that the presence of uncontrollable noise can significantly impair cognitive performance. Noise can induce learned helplessness, increase arousal, alter the choice of task strategy, and decrease attention to the task. Noise may also affect social performance, mask speech and other sound signals, impair communication, and distract attention from relevant social clues. Adverse acute effects already have been assessed at low levels. Performance of a task involving motor and monotonous activities is sometimes not only is not decreased, but on the contrary, is enhanced. Two older epidemiologic studies have shown that schoolchildren when exposed to high levels of traffic noise show impairments in performing cognitive tasks (59,60). The observation threshold derived from these data is 70 dB(A) (expressed in LAeq,schoolhour)• More recently this subject has received renewed attention (64,77-78). In the Munich airport study mentioned previously, reading compre- hension and long-term memory were impaired in children attending schools located around the old Munich airport and reading comprehension improved after the closing of the airport. However, reading com- prehension deteriorated in children subjected to aircraft noise exposure near the new Munich airport. Recently, in the United Kingdom a field study with tests repeated annually was conducted to assess whether the association between aircraft noise exposure and reading comprehension was mediated 30 35 LAe4,23-07h in dB(A) Figure 4. The maximum number of awakenings per year as a function of the outdoors night-time equivalent sound level (8). 128 11/16/18 Log for Cor ttcHdA Fl Gsf re,,Tit.vtaArlepdfoernteAG&Fo©c00111 through sustained attention and whether it was confounded by social deprivation and language spoken at home. The 340 children who participated were about 9 to 10 years of age. They attended a school classified either as a high -noise school [LA ,1Gh > 66 dB(A)] or as a low -noise school [LAeq,16h < 57 dB(A)]. There appeared to be a high correla- tion between the noise at school and the air- craft noise exposure at home. Results show that the average reading comprehension of children attending the high -noise schools was poorer at both measuring times compared with that of children from the low -noise schools. Sustained attention, measured only at follow-up, was poorer in children at the high -noise schools than in children at the low -noise schools. Sustained attention did not play a significant role in explaining the relation between reading comprehension and aircraft noise exposure. However, if adjust- ments are made for age, main language spo- ken at home, and social deprivation, the differences in reading comprehension failed to be significant. These results are not in dis- agreement with the 1994 evaluation (6) lead- ing to an observation threshold of 70 dB(A) (expressed in LAeq,schoolhoun), but setting the threshold at a lower level does not appear to be warranted. Given the possible long-term consequences of cognitive effects in children, we feel that further research into mechanisms and contributing factors is urgently needed. Noise Metrics and Noise Limits for Health Protection Several biophysical quantities to represent noise exposure were introduced in the sec- tion "Characterization of Noise Exposure." Exposure quantities are not only of scientific interest, i.e., for recording data and commu- nicating research results; policymakers and risk managers need exposure quantities to judge the necessity of taking protection or mitigation measures and to evaluate the effectiveness of such measures. Criteria for noise exposure metrics to be used in health and environmental policy (8) are that they should be a) relatively simple to determine or measure; 6) transparent with respect to exposure—response relationships; c) corre- lated with health effects on a population level; d) applicable to all outdoors noise sources; e) universal; and P communicative. In practice it appears almost impossible to derive a single metric and at the same time fulfill all these criteria because noise sources, noise characteristics, and exposure situations differ extensively. One application of noise metrics is to set exposure limits. Because such limits are intended for health protection it is essential that the science policy decisions made to derive the metrics be known to the policymaker. Noise -Induced Hearing Impairment Sound exposure measures were already being proposed in the 1960s and 1970s that would apply to a variety of settings and, if an expo- sure—response relationship were known, would be a good predictor of effects to be expected for any case at the population level. A good example is the equivalent sound level over an 8 -hr work period (LAeq,8h), which correlates well on a population level with noise -induced hearing impairment. Confidence in the expo- sure—response relationships is such that they have been standardized by ISO (22). This is reflected in policy debates; such debates focus on the measures to be taken if certain exposure levels are exceeded, and not on the validity of the exposure—response relationships. A value of LA'8h of 85 dB(A) (some- times lower) has been almost universally adopted as a limit for unprotected occupa- tional noise exposure, with additional requirements for personal hearing protection above this value (79). However, among workers exposed to an LAe9,8 hr value of 85 dB(A), some noise -induced hearing impair- ment will occur. Given such exposure over a lifetime in a job, a hearing impairment at 4,000 Hz of about 5-10 dB is estimated for most workers, although for those persons highly sensitive to noise, noise -induced impairment is considerably greater. This implies that a lifetime of exposure to 85 dB(A) of occupational noise will slightly increase the risk for a hearing handicap in a small proportion of exposed persons. We concur with the suggestion to use the equivalent noise level over a period of 24 hr, to set targets for the exposure during the full 24 -hr day for protecting the hearing of the general population (80). Setting such targets appears to be warranted, given the increasing number of noisy activities and exposure dura- tion, such as loud music in cars, the use of portable music cassette and CD players, and the playing of loud computer games at home and in arcades. Annoyance and Stress -Related Disorders Metrics such as LAeg,24 n Ld, and Ld, came into use several decades ago (3,4) to regulate general annoyance. Recently, an international group of experts convened by the Health Council of the Netherlands again studied specification of a biophysical metric to express noise -induced general annoyance for public health purposes (8). The Health Council committee agreed on adjustment factors to be applied to the metrics to account for differ- ences in annoyance related to the tonal and impulse characteristics of noise. The commit- tee extensively debated the choice between Ld, and Ld,,. Analysis of available data indi- cated that for road traffic noise, general annoyance is estimated from LdQ1 with smaller NOISE EXPOSURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH confidence intervals than those from the other metrics. However, a decision based on statisti- cal grounds could not be made (81). Because from a policy viewpoint, using LdP1 would result in somewhat more plausible protection and mitigation measures, the committee finally expressed its preference for this metric. In Europe Ld„ may become the future noise metric to represent general noise -related annoyance (82). When using the adjusted Ld„ levels, the exposure—response relationships are statisti- cally significantly different for different modes of transport. One might envisage performing a further adjustment that would result in a single relationship for all types of transporta- tion noise and possibly industrial noise; in fact recommendations for such a further integra- tion were made in the Health Council report (8). We strongly support such a development that would require standardization of the noise exposure—general annoyance relation- ship; basic data for reaching that goal are presently available (36). The final step to rep- resenting general annoyance with a universal noise metric would be a procedure to combine concurrent noise exposures from different sources. This step requires further research, as limited data have been published on exposure to two or more sources at the same time. However, in most practical situations exposure from one source will dominate. A question arises about whether noise abatement policies based on the adjusted LdP1 are also effective in reducing the prevalence of other noise -induced health effects such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and cognitive performance in schoolchildren. Although this appears to be plausible, further study is needed. A cautionary remark is in order here. As previously indicated, many other factors in addition to noise exposure influence noise - related health effects on a population level. The exposure—response relationships between, for example, the percentage of highly annoyed persons and LdL1 should be used for policy guidance rather than to obtain accurate predictions of effects expected in specific situations. However, the quantitative relationships presented here are the best sci- ence has to offer today and appear to be rather robust. Sleep Disturbance There appears to be consensus that for protection against sleep disturbance a separate night-time noise exposure metric is required, even though limiting exposure using Ld, or a similar 24 -hr metric would also provide some limitation of night-time noise exposure. The Health Council committee report (8) men- tioned previously proposed the night-time equivalent sound level (see Figure 4). A Environmental Health Perspectives • vol I 0114,W44nFp&WhQxp6nments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF 1;Q0 112 PASSCHIER-VERMEER AND PASSCHIER science policy question arises about whether the worst-case approach in converting SEL to LAeq,23-07h is acceptable in policy situations. In specific situations, for example, popula- tions in the vicinity of large airports, eco- nomic consequences of the noise abatement measures may be severe, although from a health protection viewpoint using the equiva- lent sound level could be defended. The Way Ahead In addition to natural sounds, speech, and music, noise is widespread and becoming more so in our present day society. Major factors are the increase in motorized traffic, apparent preferences for noisy leisure and recreational activities among large groups in industrialized societies, and increasing urbanization, particularly in the Third World, resulting in megacities where high noise levels 24 hr a day have become com- monplace. Although at the beginning of the 1960s the major effects of noise exposure were already known, at the beginning of the 21st century noise exposure still is a major public health problem. Given our view that knowledge about effective noise abatement measures for public health protection has been available for decades, solving the prob- lem appears now to be primarily in the hands of policymakers. In addition to regu- latory measures, activities in the realm of health education with respect to the impact of noise exposure in everyday life appear to be warranted. Concerns are increasing that noise -induced hearing loss is not only an occupational risk but may become an environmental risk as well. Science still has important contributions to make. We mentioned in the previous sec- tion the study of policy -relevant metrics, for which more insight in the exposure -response relationships for different types of noise and exposure settings is required. The modifying influence of nonacoustical factors is of utmost importance, as these influences may to a large degree determine the effectiveness and efficiency of noise abatement measures directed at reducing effects other than noise - induced hearing impairment. This is obvious in the case of environmental exposures, but it may also be relevant for the workplace, for example, the possible differences between observation thresholds for cardiovascular disorders in white and blue collar workers mentioned previously. We believe that two subjects should be priorities in research: the study of cardiovascu- lar effects and the underlying mechanisms and the study of the effects of noise on children. Attention to effects on children is particularly urgent, as such effects in terms of years of life with a reduced quality of life or a handicap are greater for children than for adults. REFERENCES AND MOTES I. Reijneveld SA. The impact of the Amsterdam aircraft disaster on reported annoyance by aircraft noise and on psychiatric dis- orders. Int J Epidemiol 23:333-340 (1994). 2. Ward W0, Fricke JE. Proceedings of the Conference Noise as a Public Health Hazard (Washington). Washington:American Speech and Hearing Association, 1969. 3. U.S. EPA. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. 4. U.S. FAA. Aviation Noise Effects. Rpt AOA -154319. Washington, DC:U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, 1985. 5. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on Noise Annoyance and Noise Abatement. Geluidhinder (Noise Annoyance). The Hague:Health Council of the Netherlands, 1971. 6. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on Noise and Health. Noise and Health [Geluid an gezondheid]. nr 1994/15E. The Hague:Health Council of the Netherlands, 1994. 7. In the equivalent sound level over a period T the highest sound levels occurring during this period are counted more heavily than those in the 'normal' average sound level over period T. This is demonstrated by the following example. Suppose that during half of period Tthe sound level is 80 dB(A) and during the other half it is 40 dB(A). Then the equivalent sound level over period T is 77 dB(A), whereas the arithmetic average sound level is 60 dB(A). B. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on an Uniform Noise Metric. Assessing Noise Exposure for Public Health Purposes [Omgevingslawaai beoordelen). nr 1997/23E. The Hague:Health Council of the Netherlands, 1997. 9. Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenningen 1997 [Public Health Status and Forecasts 19971. Bilthoven:Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid an Milieu, 1997. 10. If during a period T(in s) n noise events occur with the same SEL value, the following formula applies: LA,.T= SEL + 10 Ign -1O1g T 11. Preamble to the IARC Monographs. http://193.51. monoeval/preamble.html, 12-6-1997. Consulted: 3-4-1998. 12. An observation threshold concerns an average population of adults or adult workers or an average population otherwise specified, such as babies of women exposed to noise during pregnancy. 13. The Non -Auditory Effects of Noise. Rpt 910. Leicester, UK: Institute for Environment and Health, 1997. 14. Berglund B. Aircraft noise and health. Workshop 1: Noise and Pollution. In: The Second Airport Regions Conference, 28-29 November 1996, Vantaa, Finland, 1996. 15. Morrell S, Taylor R. Lyle 0. A review of health effects of aircraft noise. Aust NZ J Public Health 21:221-236 (1997). 16. Porter N, Flindell IH, Berry BF. Health Effect -based Noise Assessment Methods: A Review and Feasibility Study. NPLRpt CMAM 16. Teddington, Middlesex, UK:National Physical Laboratory, 1998. 17. Shaw E. Noise environments and the effect of community noise exposure. Noise Contr Eng J 44:109-119 (1996). 18. Thompson SJ. Non -auditory health effects of noise: an updated review. In: Proceedings of Inter -Noise 96, August 1996, Liverpool, UK (Hill FA, Lawrence R, ods). St. Albans, UK:institute of Acoustics, 1996;2177-2182. 19. Job RFS. The influence of subjective reactions to noise on health effects of noise. Environ Intern 22:93-104 (1996). 20. Carter NL, Job RFS, ads. Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vols 1, 2. Sydney, Australia:University of Sydney, 1998. 21. The conversions are between the day -time equivalent sound level and La,,. For most situations with higher environmental noise exposures, daytime and nighttime exposures are highly correlated. For road traffic noise, the average difference between daytime and nighttime equivalent sound levels is approximately 8 dB(A). This implies that the difference la„- LA,24 h is about 2 dB(A), and the difference between the day- time equivalent sound level and La„ about -1 dB(A). In Table 1, also taking into account the accuracy with which the observa- tion thresholds for hypertension and ischemic heart disease could be established, for those noise -induced effects Lan is taken to be equal to the daytime equivalent sound level. 22. International Organization for Standardization. Acoustics - Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of Noise -Induced Hearing Impairment. International Standard ISO 1999. GenevaJnternational Organization for Standardization, 1990. 23. WHO. Noise. Environmental Health Criteria Document No. 12. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980. 24. Passchier-Vermeer W. Noise and Health [Geluid an gezond- heid[. Review. nr A93/O2E. The Hague:Health Council of the Netherlands, 1993. 25. Passchier-Vermeer W, Vos H. Steenbekkers JHM. Popmusic through Headphones and Hearing Loss. Rpt 98.036. Leiden:TNO Prevention and Health, 1998. 26. Smoorenburg GF. Effects of impulse noise on man. In: Proceedings of Noise as a Public Health Problem (Vols 1, 2), (Carter NL, Job RFS, ods). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney, 1998;1-10. 27. Struwe F, Jansen G, Schwarze S, Schwenzer C, Nitzsche M. Untersuchung von Horgewohnheiten and moglichen Gehorrisiken durch Schalleinwirkungen in der Freizeit unter besonderer Berucksichtigung des Walkman-Hbrens [Study on listening behavior and hearing risks from sound exposure during leisure time with an emphasis on listing to walkmans[. In: Gehorgefardung lurch ]auto Musik and Freizeitlarm (Babisch W, Bambach G, ]sing H, Kruppa B, Plath P, Rebentisch E, Struwe F, ods). Berlin:lnstitut fur Wasser-, Boden- and Lufthygiene des Umweltbundesamtes, 1996;44-154. 28. Babisch W, Ising H. Zum Einfluss von Musik in Oiskotheken auf die Horfahigkeit [The effect of music in discotheques on hearing ability[. Soz Praventivmed 34:239-242 (1989). 29. Pfander F, Bongartz H, Brinkmann H, Kietz H. Danger of auditory impairment from impulse noise: a comparative study of the CHABA damage -risk criteria and those of the Federal Republic of Germany. J Acoust Soc Am 67:628-633 (1980). 30. ]sing H, Hanel J, Pilgramm M, Babisch W, Lindthammer A. Gehorschadensrisiko lurch Musikhoren mit Kopfhorern [Risk of hearing loss caused by listening to music with head phones). Hans Nasen Ohren 42:764-768 11994). 31. Passchier-Vermeer W. Noise from toys and the hearing of chil- dren. Report 91.032. Leiden:NIPG TNO Prevention and Health, 1991. 32. An LA, ,Bh value of X dB(A) corresponds to a LAeQ,14h value of X - 5 dB(A). Therefore the exposure -response relationships of ISO 1999 that are expressed in LAe,Rh should be shifted with 5 dB(A) to be applicable to environmental exposures expressed in LA124h 33. European Council. Council Directive 86/188/EEC of 12 May 1986 on the Protection of Workers from the Risks Related to Exposure to Noise at Work. OM JEC 137:24-36 (1986). 34. Axelsson A, Prasher DK. Tinnitus: a warning signal to teenagers attending discotheques? Noise Health 2:1-2 (1999). 35. Passchier-Vermeer W. Het equivalente geluidniveau an gehoorschade door lawaai op de arbeidsplaats bij groepen werknemers [The equivalent sound level and occupational noise -induced hearing damage among groups of workers. In Dutch]. Rpt 88.072. Leiden:Nederlands Instituut voor Preventieve Gezondheidszorg TNO, 1989. 36. Miedema HM, Vos H. Exposure -response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 104:3432-3445 (1998). 37. In the various surveys on which the exposure -response rela- tionships of Figure 3 are based, various measuring scales were used to assess the responses to annoyance questions. The pro- cedures for converting the different measuring scales to a com- mon one is discussed in Miedema and Vos 136). 38. Guski R. Personal and social variables as co -determinants of noise annoyance. Noise Health 3:45-56 (1999). 39. Job RFS. Noise sensitivity as a factor influencing human reac- tion to noise. Noise Health 3:57-68 (1999). 40. Miedema HME, Vas H. Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 105:3336-3344 (1999). 41. Stallen PJM. A theoretical framework for environmental noise annoyance. Noise Health 3:69-79 (1999). 42. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on the Public Health Impact of Large Airports. Public Health Impact of Large Airports. nr 1999/14E. The Hague:Health Council of the Netherlands, 1999. 43. The American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued a state- ment warning against the risks of high -frequency hearing loss in unborn babies (83). 44. Oijk FJ van, Ettema JH, Zielhuis RL. Non -auditory effects of noise in industry. VII: Evaluation, conclusions and recommenda- tions. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 59:133-145 (1987). 45. Hinder, slaapverstoring, gezondheids- an belevingsaspecten in de regio Schiphol, resultaten van eon vragenlijstonderzoek [Annoyance, sleep disturbance, health aspects and the percep- tion of the living environment around Schiphol airport, results of a questionnaire survey]. RIVM: 441520010; TNO: 98.039. Bilthoven:Leiden:Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid an Milieu (RIVM) and Nederlandse Organisatie voor toegepast-natuur- wetenschappelijk onderzoek (TNO), 1998. 130 11/16/18 Log for CommaRtatlo-1QIfor lit -48U -AM 1@p nts SEoadJ0113 46. Knipschild P. V: Medical effects of aircraft noise: community cardiovascular survey. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 40:185-190 (1977). 47. Knipschild PG. Medische gevolgen van viiegtuiglawaai [Medical effects of aircraft noise]. PhD Thesis. Amsterdam:University of Amsterdam, 1976. 48. Although the relative risk for hypertension and ischemic heart disease at exposures above the observation threshold are both equal to 1.5, this does not imply that the noise -induced increases in persons with such disease are equal. For example, in the Netherlands about 10% of the adult population is hyper- tensive or is using medication for hypertension. There are no data on the prevalence of ischemic heart disease in the Netherlands, but data on the admission to hospitals (including death) due to ischemic heart disease give 0.5%. This implies that the noise -induced increase in hypertensives is 20 times as large as the noise -induced increase in admission to hospitals due to ischemic heart disease. 49. Xu X, Niu T, Christiani DC, Weiss ST, Zhou Y, Chen C, Yang J. Fang 2, Jiang Z, Liang W. Zhang F. Environmental and occupa- tional determinants of blood pressure in rural communities in China. Ann Epidemiol7:95-106(1997). 50. Babisch W, Ising H, Gallacher JEJ, Sweetnam PM, Elwood PC. The Caerphilly and Speedwell studies, 10 year followup. In: Proceedings of Noise as a Public Health Problem (Vols 1, 2), (Carter NL, Job RFS, eds). Sydney, Australia:University of Sydney, 1998;230-235. 51. ]sing H, Babisch W, Kruppa B, Lindthammer A, Wiens D. Subjective work noise: a major risk factor in myocardial infarc- tion. Soz Praventivmed 42:216-222 (1997). 52. Melamed S, Froom P, Kristal-Boneh E, Gofer D, Ribak J. Industrial noise exposure, noise annoyance, and serum lipid lev- els in blue-collar workers -the CORDIS Study Arch Environ Health 52:292-298 (1997). [Published erratum appears in Arch Environ Health 52(5):389 (1997)]. 53. Tomei F, Papaleo B, Baccolo TP, Tomao E, Alfi P, Fantini S. Esposizione cronica a rumore a apparato cardiovascolare in piloti di aeromobili [Chronic noise exposure and the cardiovas- cular system in aircraft pilots]. Med Lav 87:394-410 (1996). 54. Babisch W, Ising H, Elwood PC, Sharp DS, Bainton D. Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk: the Caerphilly and Speedwell studies, second phase. Risk estimation, prevalence, and incidence of ischemic heart disease. Arch Environ Health 48:406-413 (1993). 55. Babisch W, Gallacher JE, Elwood PC, Ising H. Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk. The Caerphilly study, first phase. Outdoor noise levels and risk factors. Arch Environ Health 43:407-414(1988). 56. Babisch W, Fromme H, Beyer A, Ising H. Elevated cate- cholamine levels in urine in traffic noise exposed subjects. In: Proceedings of Inter -Noise 96, August 1996 Liverpool, UK. St. Albans, UK:Institute of Acoustics, 1996;2153-2158. 57. Melamed S, Bruhis S. The effects of chronic industrial noise exposure on urinary cortisol, fatigue and irritability: a controlled field experiment. J Occup Environ Med 38:252-256 (1996). 58. Sudo A, Nguyen AL, Jonai H, Matsuda S, Villanueva MB, Sotoyama M, Nguyen TC, Le VT, Hoang MH, Nguyen DT, et al. Effects of earplugs on catecholamine and cortisol excretion in noise -exposed textile workers. Ind Health 34:279-286 (1996). 59. Cohen S, Evans GW, Krantz DS, Stokols D. Physiological, moti- vational and cognitive effects of aricraft noise on children: mov- ing from the laboratory to the field. Am Psychol 35:231-243 11980). 60. Karsdorf G, Klappach H. Einflusse des Verkehrslarms auf Gesundheit and Leistung bei Oberschulern einer Grossstadt [Effects of traffic noise on health and achievement of high school students of a large city]. 2 Gesamte Hyg 14:52-54 (1968). 61. Regecova V, Kellerova E. Effects of urban noise pollution on blood pressure and heart rate in preschool children. J Hypertens 13:405-412 (1995). 62. Lercher P, Stansfeld SA, Thompson SJ. Non -auditory health effects of noise: review of the 1993-1998 period. In: Proceedings of Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vols 1, 2. (Carter NL, Jab RFS, eds). Sydney, Australia: University of Sidney, 1998;213-220. 63. Evans GW, Bullinger M, Hygge S. Chronic noise exposure and physiological response: a prospective study of children living under environmental stress. Psychol Sci 9:75-77 (1998). 64. Hygge S, Evans G, Bullinger M. The Munich airport noise study: cognitive effects on children from before to after the change over of airports. In: Proceedings of Inter -Noise 96, August 1996, Liverpool, UK. St. Albans, UK:Institute of Acoustics, 1996. 65. Wu TN, Chen LJ, Lai JS, Ko GN, Shen CY, Chang PY. Prospective study of noise exposure during pregnancy on birth weight. Am J Epidemiol 143:792-796 (1996). 66. Melamed S, Luz J, Green MS. Noise exposure, noise annoyance and their relation to psychological distress, accident and sick- ness absence among blue-collar workers -the Cordis Study. Isr J Med Sci 28:629-635 (1992). 67. Schwarze S. Langjarige Larmbelastung and Gesundheit. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt for Arbeitsschutz. Rapport nr FB 636. Dortmund:Bundesanstalt fur Arbeitsschutz,1991. 68. Barreto SM, Swerdlow AJ, Smith PG, Higgins CO. A nested case -control study of fatal work related injuries among Brazilian steel workers. Occup Environ Med 54:599-604 (1997). 69. Horne J. Why We Sleep: The Functions of Sleep in Humans and Other Mammals. New York:Oxford University Press, 1990. 70. Carter NL. Cardiovascular response to environmental noise dur- ing sleep. In: Proceedings of Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vols 1, 2 (Carter NL, Job RFS, eds). Sydney, Australia:University of Sydney,1998;439 144 71. 0hrstr6m E. Psycho -social effects of traffic noise. J Sound Vib 151:513-517(1991). NOISE EXPOSURE AND PUBLIC HEALTH 72. Passchier-Vermeer W, Vos H, Gils K van, Miedema HIVE, Middlekoop HMA, de Roo F, Verhoeff E. Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance. Pilot study. Rpt 98.040. Leiden:TNO Prevention and Health, 1998. 73. Fidell S, Howe R, Tabachnick B, Pearsons K, Silvati L, Sneddon M, Fletcher E. Field Studies of Habituation to Change in Night - Time Aircraft Noise and of Sleep Motility Measurement Nethods. Rpt 8195. Canogan Park (A), CA:BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, 1998. 74. Griefahn B, Mehnert P, Moehler U. Schuemer-Kohrs A, Schuemer R. Design of a field study on the effects of railway noise and road traffic noise. In: Proceedings of Inter -Noise 96, August 1996, Liverpool, UK. St. Albans, UK:Institute of Acoustics, 1996;2183-2188. 75. Fidel[ S, Howe R, Tabachnick B, Pearsons K, Sneddon M. Noise - Induced Sleep Disturbance in Residences near Two Civil Airports. NASA Contractor Rpt 198252. Hampton, VA:NASA Langley Research Center, 1995. 76. Fidel[ S, Pearsons K, Tabachnick B, Howe R, Silvati L, Barber DS. Field study of noise -induced sleep disturbance. J Acoust Soc Am 98:1025-1033 (1995). 77. Evans GW, Hygge S, Bullinger M. Chronic noise and psychologi- cal stress. Psychol Sci 6:333-338 (1995). 78. Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Job RFS, Berglund B. Chronic air- craft noise exposure and child cognitive performance and stress. In: Proceedings of Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vols 1, 2 (Carter NL, Job RFS, eds). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney, 1998;329-335. 79. Franks JH. Preventing noise -induced hearing loss: a perspective view from the next millennium. In: Proceedings of Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vols 1, 2 (Carter NL, Job RFS, eds). Sydney, Australia:University of Sydney, 1998;11-16. 80. It would be worthwhile to study whether metrics related to annoyance, such as Ld,, might also be instrumental in prevent- ing hearing impairment among the general population. The problem here is that a metric like Lden is location specific (usu- ally specified in front of the facade of a building), whereas met- rics to prevent hearing impairment are person specific and should give the noise exposure at the ear. 81. On average the differences between Lden and Ld„ are only mar- ginal. By analyzing over 60,000 situations with road, railway, or aircraft noise, the average difference between Lde, and Ld„ appeared to be less than 0.5 dB(A). In specific situations, how- ever, the difference may be substantially larger. 82. EU Working Group on noise indicators. Position paper on EU noise indicators [draft]. Brussels: European Commission, OG XI, 1999. 83. American Academy of Pediatrics: Committee on Environmental Health. Noise: a hazard for the fetus and newborn. Pediatrics 100:724-727 (1997). Environmental Health Perspectives • Vol I O4,14�X At4ocgijQc Lam ments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF n00114 Tarboo training facility Tarboo training facility X DPH TE F REPLY Anne Ricker <quilcenegallery@yahoo.com> Sat 11/10/2018 9:22 AM To: Planning Commission Desk; Dear Committee Members, Page 1 of 1 4*- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• mark as unread It is a shame that this proposal has become dangerously contentious. Even your safety has been compromised by the confrontational, threatening attitude of those who believe this shooting range to be a good idea. We all understand that law enforcement and military citizens must be well trained, but there are plenty of less vulnerable locations. Mr. D'Amico wants to make a profit but this location is inappropriate for the training facility he proposes. Please do not allow yourselves to be bullied into acquiescing to his plan. It would ruin the lake, the environment, and Jefferson County's quiet lifestyle. Be brave, be safe. Sympathetically, Anne Ricker 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00115 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 zon18-00036 zon18-00036 Page 1 of 1 X DF.ATE F REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• gail young <ngailyoung@gmail.com> mark as unread Sat 11/10/2018 12:34 PM To: Planning Commission Desk; I bought my retirement home in a serene, wooded area. Then one day, inside my home, I hear what sounds like a war being waged in the near by woods. It frightened me enough I called 911 not being able to imagine what could be happening as these were high powered automatic guns being fired. That's when I found out about the shooting range a few miles away. Please, I ask you not to just consider me but all the folks like me that live where we have lost our peaceful homes to this battleground sound any time the range has shooters. Thank you for your consideration. Gail Young 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00116 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Letter to Planning Commissioners Letter to Planning Commissioners X DELETE • justine@ssnwhq.com Sat 11/10/2018 12:54 PM Page 1 of 1 REPLY 4K— REPLY ALL FORWARD ••• mark as unread To: Planning Commission Desk; Cc: Philip Hunsucker; 'Joe D'Amico' <joe@ssnwhq.com>; 'Greg Overstreet' <greg@ssnwhq.com>; 5 1 attachment 2018 1109 -.docx Please see attached Respectfully, Justine Wagner Executive Assistant Security Services Northwest 4 ► 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00117 https://owa.co.j efferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 FORT DISCOVERY CORP. 250 Center Park Way Sequim, WA 98382 1-877-876-4750 November 9, 2018 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: Proposed Amendments to UDC_ Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities Dear Planning Commission: I write these comments for the record on behalf of my client, Fort Discovery Corp On November 7, 2018 you heard testimony on the proposed amendments to the Uniform Development Code to harmonize the UDC with the new Commercial Shooting Facilities Operating Permit Ordinance, No. 12-1102-18. The comment period closes on November 16, 2018. My client expects the Planning Commission to make a fair and objective recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Commission's recommendation has correctly been described by County staff as a technical amendment to harmonize the operating permit ordinance, and my client thinks that is what will happen. If, however, the Planning Commission is tempted to pass zoning restrictions on my client's proposed facility — and there is currently no evidence of that — then my client would like to prevent any surprises and describe to you the legal consequences of zoning his facility out of existence. Down zoning a specific parcel of property often violates due process. As the Washington State Supreme Court held: Due process requires governments to treat citizens in a fundamentally fair manner. Consequently, citizens must be protected from the fluctuations of legislative policy so that they can plan their conduct with reasonable certainty as to the legal consequences. Property development rights constitute "a valuable property right." Thus new land use ordinances must satisfy due process standards by meeting a 2 -part test: (1) the new regulation must aim at achieving a legitimate public purpose; and (2) the means used to achieve that purpose must be reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. Valley View Indus. Park v. City ofRedmond, 107 Wn.2d 621, 636 (1987) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). My client will file suit to remedy any down zoning of his property. Respectfully, g, &e� �.� Greg Overstreet, General Counsel Fort Discovery Corp. greg@ssnwhq.com 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 0011 Zon-18-00036 comment Zon-18-00036 comment Page 1 of 1 X DFiITE +- REPLY *E- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• • Carol Lindcroft <carollindcroft@gmail.com> mark as unread Sun 11/11/2018 9:22 AM Aba To: Planning Commission Desk; Please consider the present and future impact of noise at all hours on the quality of life for humans and animals in the Dabob Bay area. It will harm or destroy the peace and provide long-term traumatic stress for all who hear gunfire day after day. Carol Lindcroft Port Townsend, WA. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00119 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 RE: Letter to Planning Commissioners RE: Letter to Planning Commissioners X DFLUE • Joe D'Amico <joe@ssnwhq.com> Sun 11/11/201812:58 PM to Page 1 of 1 F REPLY 4*- REPLY ALL 4 FORWARD ••• To: justine@ssnwhq.com; Planning Commission Desk; Cc: Philip Hunsucker; 'Greg Overstreet' <greg@ssnwhq.com>; Copy, Joe Respectfully, Joe D'Amico, President Security Services NW Inc. SSNW on Facebook [www.ssnwhq.com]www.ssnwhq.com HQ 1-800-859-3463 (24 Dispatch) "When seconds count, count on Shepherd Shield." Download the App! https://www.shepherdshieldapp.com/ From: justine@ssnwhq.com [mailto:justine@ssnwhq.com] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 12:55 PM To: plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Cc: PHunsucker@co.jefferson.wa.us; 'Joe D'Amico' <joe@ssnwhq.com>; 'Greg Overstreet' <greg@ssnwhq.com> Subject: Letter to Planning Commissioners Please see attached Respectfully, Justine Wagner Executive Assistant Security Services Northwest mark as unread 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00120 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Ginny Kraft <gkraft29@gmai1.com> Sun 11/11/2018 1:02 PM TaPlanning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; November 11, 2018 Jefferson County Planning Commission Re: Title 18 of the Unified Development Code as pertains to forest land use Dear Commissioners: Page 1 of 2 Ed and Ginny Kraft 232 S. Palmer Drive Port Townsend, WA 98368 We are devastated that the passage of the recent Ordinance by the Jefferson County BoCC does not protect our environment, quality of life, mental health of Jefferson County residents and sustainable protection of our lakes, rivers, streams, forests and meadows. We are very disappointed that there is no requirement for any environmental or SEPA review for development of commercial gun ranges. Citizens of Jefferson County have expended large amounts of time and resources for the protection and restoration of our forests and waterways. We are very concerned about pollution of streams, lakes and bays by lead residue from ammunition. Lead deposited from firearms has been demonstrated to seep into the ground water and to migrate into streams, rivers and lakes, obviously causing harm to wildlife and salmon. We therefore urge a requirement of a minimum 500 -yard setback from any stream, lake, river or bay for discharging weapons or placement of targets for any commercial firing range. As we understand the new ordinance just passed, operators and customers of any commercial gun club wanting to discharge automatic weapons, blow up cars, detonate any explosive devices will now be able to operate unhindered by any restrictions. We would urge passage of land use restrictions to prohibit such activities on commercial gun ranges. As we understand the new ordinance just passed, operators of any commercial gun club will now be able to operate helicopters and landing craft at their facility. This will adversely impact the safety of our airways and the peaceful enjoyment of our homes, as well as our lakes, rivers and bays. It will also adversely impact the mental health of Jefferson County residents already suffering from PTSS who will suffer the effects of weapons being discharged into the evening hours. To be perfectly clear, we are not against guns if they are used responsibly and do not adversely impact people, wildlife and the environment, as explicitly expressed above. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00121 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 Finally, we believe there is no place in Jefferson County for the discharge of automatic weapons at commercial gun facilities. We appreciate your acting responsibly to protect the citizens of Jefferson County, as well as our lakes, rivers, streams, forests and meadows. Respectfully submitted, Dr. and Mrs. Edwin Henry Kraft Cape George 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00122 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 Fwd: Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Fwd: Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 X DELUE • Janet and/or Willi <aloha@olympus.net> Mon 11/12/2018 10:20 PM To: Planning Commission Desk; (J1 2 attachments ATT00001J . liaf cjoc m wrong spelling on first try... Begin forwarded message: From: Janet and/or Willi <aloha@olympus.net> Subject: Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Date: November 12, 2018 at 10:13:36 PM PST To: "PlannCom@cojefferson.wa.us" <PlannCom@cojefferson.wa.us> Cc: "ieffbocc@cojefferson.wa.us" <ieffbocc@cojefferson.wa.us>, Philip Hunsucker <PHunsucker@cojefferson.wa.us>, Mark McCauley <MMcCauley@cojefferson.wa.us>, Michelle Farfan < MFarfan@cojefferson.wa.us> Please consider my comments, attached. Janet Welch Page 1 of 1 mark as unread 4 � 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00123 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/13/2018 RE: Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities To: Members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Philip Hunsucker, Mark McCauley, Michelle Farfan From: Janet Welch, representative from District 2 on the Shooting Facility Ordinance Committee have three areas on which I would like to comment regarding the proposed revisions to Title 18. Non -Commercial Shootina Facilities support the revisions of Title 18 that create consistency with the new sections of Title 8. However, I do not support the strategy of creating another class of regulated shooting facilities called, in the draft, "non-commercial". These uses would exist in addition to non-regulated private facilities. In our work on the committee drafting the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance, we were assured that private shooting facilities are largely exempt from regulatory or enforcement involvement except when those activities result in 'reckless endangerment". This proposal would create a new category which is neither an activity where a property owner is allowed to shoot on his/her own property (e.g. private) nor a 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00124 "Commercial Shooting Facility". Doing so would confuse the regulatory environment because the distinctions are extremely vague but the regulatory implications are significant. The desire to avoid the requirements of Title 8 would drive any applicant to try to frame their proposal as a "Non -Commercial Shooting Facility. This is a disservice to the applicants, who deserve a predictable regulatory environment, to county staff who need clear guidance, and to the public who is supposed to be the beneficiary of regulations. Please drop the idea of creating this loophole. This could be done by changing the JCC 18.20.350(8) heading (currently "Outdoor Shooting Ranges") simply to "Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities" as defined in Title 8. Furthermore, to avoid inconsistency with Title 8, which greatly expands and clarifies the standards for such facilities, most of the standards under 350(8) can --and should --be deleted. Putting Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities into the overall heading of Commercial uses, as currently proposed, runs contrary to the assumption that commercial uses (in commercial zones) don't need to be scrutinized for impact. Because commercial uses are not generally allowed in zones other than commercial, scrutiny isn't warranted. However, under this heading rural residential and other rural uses would have no protection from impacts generated by this kind of conditionally permitted commercial use. This simple name change that I propose, and elimination of the subheadings of 350(8) would accomplish the need to dovetail the two sections of the code in the very limited time that the Planning Commission has to do its work. In the long run, however, I believe the county must address the permitting problems inherent with the Small Scale and Tourist Related Use category. There is 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00125 simply too much ambiguity in the definitions and objectives of the category. Those ambiguities will continue to expose the county to problems such as we are currently trying to resolve concerning shooting facilities. Indoor Facilities On another subject, I have a significant problem with the zoning proposal for Indoor commercial Shooting Facilities. The proposed changes to Table 3-1 would allow Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities in all rural residential and neighborhood commercial zones! The GMA is quite clear that commercial activities must not be permitted in non commercial zones. Opening rural residential zones to this kind of commercial use is a terrible idea that would leave the county highly vulnerable to losing a hearings board appeal. Likewise, there would be problems with allowing those uses in the smaller commercial zones (convenience, crossroads, and neighborhood crossroads). Those zones are defined in ways that limit the scale and type of commercial uses that are permitted there. Commercial shooting facilities would not be in compliance with those standards. Therefore, by the process of elimination, the only zones where Indoor Commercial Shooting Facilities can be allowed and be GMA compliant would be UGA and Light Industrial/Commercial, and possibly Rural Village Center. Clearer Definitions 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00126 Finally, even if the poorly conceived idea of creating a land use called Non- commercial Shooting Facility is eliminated (which I fervently hope), I remain concerned that there is still a gray area when distinguishing between a Commercial Shooting Facility and an unregulated private facility. The ordinance language needs to provide unambiguous distinctions between private and commercial shooting facilities, which / believe it does not yet do. The most significant gap I foresee is where shooting is associated with a home business or cottage industry. It isn't possible to expand the definition of the "exceptions to..." clause of the Commercial Shooting Facilities , proposed JCC 18.10.030(b) without creating an inconsistency with Title 8. Therefore, the remedy must happen elsewhere. I propose revisions to both home business and cottage industry chapters. Article 18.20.200(2), which limits the scope of what can be considered a home business, should be amended to say (2) Permitted home businesses do not include the following: d) Uses which are associated with shootina activities and/or tactical defense practice. The revision to the cottage industry section must be slightly different because the prohibition section 18.20.170(3) is subject to exemptions. This can be resolved by revising instead the standards for cottage industries. I suggest for your consideration the following wording (underlined): 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00127 18.20.170(4) Standards for Cottage Industries Where shooting is associated with a cottage industry, or where the other uses of the property either facilitate shooting practice or are related to shooting activities and/or tactical defense practice, such property shall be considered a commercial shooting facility. hope that the commission will give these suggestions due consideration in your deliberations. Sincerely Janet Welch Nordland, WA 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00128 Commercial Shooting Ranges - Planning Commission Desk Commercial Shooting Ranges Alby Baker <smog@olypen.com> Tue 11/13/2018 8:48 PM Tojeffbocc <jeffbocc@cojefferson.wa.us>; Page 1 of 2 cc:DCD Front Staff <dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; #Long - Range Planning <LRP@cojefferson.wa.us>; PDN, Nov 4, 2018 -- "The Jefferson County commissioners in a 2-1 decision have approved an ordinance addressing commercial shooting ranges in the unincorporated county". Jeffco BOC (also DCD, Planning Commission, and related) -- Unbelievable what we've been reading and hearing. What insanity and inanity is this? Our local electeds and bureaucrats apparently deaf now, as well as blind, if not considerably compromised and manipulable. Your position is more than careless and untenable, it is dangerous at multiple levels -- letting the mad dogs of war loose onto the peninsula's backyards and neighboring regions -- as if there's not way too much of that already. Military, industrial, commercial, "legal", and political "interests" have all been shoving hard to prepare and inure the public to the 24/7 presence of the war machine in our lives -- everywhere/anywhere/anytime. - everywhere/anywhere/anytime. I'm sure you are quite aware of this. And still you caved. Now your intent is to green -light, in effect escalate the war. The reason proffered is that you're shy of "fake news" and lawsuits, amenable to Hunsucker's manipulative fear - mongering and elbowing. The dishonesty and misdirects are palpable. Are you not the ones getting faked -out? So, given the moratorium, what changed? Now cow -towing to an affront like D'Amico? And to whatever larger forces arrayed behind such as he? What's the whole story? Plainly such a position is very much in -synch with the bloated ban kster-d riven, weapons- industry/military madness and overreach sweeping away what's left of an entire world. Now 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00129 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/14/2018 Commercial Shooting Ranges - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 you are directly responsible, and yes, culpable -- for the consequences of the ever - escalating insanity and militarism, right here.... in our own neighborhoods and environs. To be honest it comes across as pathetic, especially taken in aggregate. Question is -- do you even give a damn about the real issues? If there's anything left of ethical/moral substance and courage left within you, as well compassion for this sad/ailing planet -- then do the right thing. Send the strongest statement of forbiddance to D'Amico&co, andthe military machine -- that this madness will not come to fruition in Jeffco -- period. Shame. C'mon. Look yourselves in the mirror. Past time to grow up, wake up, and show up. A big fat NO on this one. Alby Baker Port Townsend 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00130 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/14/2018 ZON18-00036 (a bit more than "two cents" from a... - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 4 ZON18-00036 (a bit more than "two cents" from a long-time rural Jefferson County resident) Nicole Fox <foxnickel@gmail.com> Wed 11/14/2018 11:54 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Members of the Planning Commission, Thank you for listening. In a nutshell: 1) Residents and tourists have been and continue to be attracted to rural East Jefferson County for its tranquil feeling of "being in the country" for well over a century — our established "rural character" has a real value that CAN accommodate the infrequent loud noises of forestry practices, agriculture and hunting... but it is destroyed by frequent loud noises. 2) Allowing for siting of a Commercial Shooting Facility near public access lakes and rural communities harms the rights of property owners to the enjoyment and use of their property... if "good fences make good neighbors" then what can make our ordinances and codes be the kind of "good fences" that promote "good neighbors" would be by insisting such developments be "small scale", have restricted daylight use, and be compatible with other recreational uses vs. poor/no fences by remaining silent on the fact that a new Commercial Shooting Facility appears to be unchecked in its potential scale and incompatibility with neighboring land uses. 3) We already have an outdoor shooting facility at the JCSA that fulfills local civilian and police needs 4) If there isn't time between now and the Moratorium's deadline to create the proper definitions and craft the language that will protect our rural communities and character, as well as support our comprehensive planning goals, then please press for an extension of the Moratorium... measure twice, cut once The nuanced details: My husband jokes that I can be "Captain Obvious" in the way I speak, but in this case I think it is worth reminding everyone of some obvious points, so please bear with me... Obvious Point #1: People, like myself, have not been moving to places in unincorporated Jefferson County, like Eaglemount, over the course of decade after decade because we find the peace oppressive and live in hope for more frequent noises to enter our lives. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00131 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/14/2018 ZON18-00036 (a bit more than "two cents" from a... - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 4 Juxtapose that with Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities... these are places where, at the discretion of the business owner, extremely loud, repetitive and individually -attention - grabbing noises would be allowed to travel for several miles beyond the property lines of the business and into the properties and lives of the surrounding communities. I can tell you first-hand that you cannot judge how effectively sound will carry by simply looking at an aerial photo. The idea that any place surrounded by trees is a good place to make loud noises or that only caring about whether someone lives within 1 miles of any place surrounded by trees when siting a place to make loud noises is misleading at best. Trees, especially those being currently clear-cut by Pope Resources, are by no means a dependable or effective sound barrier to gun fire noise. In fact, loud sound carries much further in certain types of terrain and topography — for example, it carries especially well over water and echoes loudly from higher terrain down across valleys. Both types of terrain and topography are common features in rural East Jefferson County. Loud sounds from commercial shooting facilities would be allowed, at the discretion of the business owner, to travel into neighboring backyards at nearly anytime during the daylight hours for as long during the daytime as the business owner sees fit. At the discretion of the business owner, these sounds would be allowed to occur every day and any day of the week, every week and any week of the year, for as many years as the business see fit. When the County talks about the importance of "preserving rural character" in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, does it intend to leave it at the discretion of the business owner to dictate the quality of that rural character? Reading through the proposed amendments, I am not seeing where the County is actively planning on "preserving rural character." I am seeing a Code that has redefined "small scale recreational and tourist" uses to "non-commercial" shooting ranges. What about "commercial' shooting ranges? Unless I have missed something, the Code appears silent on the scale and siting expectations of "commercial" shooting ranges, which, according to the newly created ordinance on commercial shooting facilities, are, among other things, "open to... organizational training for members of the armed forces" and allowing for night-time shooting for training purposes for members of the armed forces and not outright banning the use of exploding targets. Land use permit applications are, however, governed by Title 18 of the JCC. What is this "rural character" that is so worth preserving? Living in out in the county for over a decade I can tell you that this "rural character" is embodied in the serene beauty of Lake Leland, the site of a county park and campground as well as in the veneer of seclusion at Tarboo Lake, which the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife describes on their website as, and I quote, "...a secluded lake with good Rainbow Trout fishing in spring and early summer. Surrounded by forest it provides a nice setting for spring fishing." 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00132 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/14/2018 ZON18-00036 (a bit more than "two cents" from a... - Planning Commission Desk Page 3 of 4 Can we agree that this "nice setting" is a key element of the "rural character" that absolutely deserves protection in the Code in the form of clearly defined limitations on the scale and siting of new commercial shooting facilities? According to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, we have parks, preserves and recreational sites which the county has "intended to provide for public recreational opportunities consistent with the rural character of the county and preserve significant natural amenities of special or unique character." Obvious Point #2: 1 would argue that the absence of frequent and loud noises during the daytime are a big part of what makes up our County's "rural character". Forestry harvesting can be loud, but it is not frequent - the trees are cut and then for decades it is the sound of them growing back again. Agricultural harvesting can be loud, but it is not frequent - there is a lot of time where the fields are silently growing. The noises from hunting are short-lived and seasonal. The "rural character" of Jefferson County makes loud noises the exception, not the rule. Think of it in terms of scale to our ears and to our community: In the decades of forestry use history in our area, we have not seen a move to increase the logging noise from spot harvesting every 40 years to having a year-round massive sawmill operation running each and every day. In the decades of agricultural use, we have not seen a move to increase agricultural noises from their seasonal and small scale realities to a massive corporate industry. Why should it be that we'll want to increase our shooting noises from random and seasonal to a massive scale in the form of a commercial shooting range that is open to attract military group training and create gun noise every day of the year with no apparent reasonable restrictions on daylight hours of use or siting locations? With an ordinance on commercial shooting facilities that refuses to acknowledge pre-existing public access lakes and recreational areas as incompatible (or at least deserving a buffer zone) with the siting of a new commercial shooting facility, how can this code amendment proposal hope to ensure that new commercial shooting facilities are consistent with Jefferson County's rural character? Are all reasonable provisions and guidance to be excluded from our ordinances and codes so that it is up to the one hearing examiner viewing a Conditional Use Permit to take on all the weight of what is a significant, life -changing decision for so many rural residents? And then, if it should pass the hearing examiner, is the rural character to be redefined, at the discretion of the business owner? We already have an outdoor shooting range facility in Jefferson County that is meeting our community's and police department's needs. Our County's rural character has been a century in the making and has involved the compatible siting of forestry, agriculture and small scale recreational activities stretching across our valleys and our waterfronts to enrich instead of degrade our pre-existing public recreational areas, lakes, conservation regions and rural residential communities. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00133 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/14/2018 ZON18-00036 (a bit more than "two cents" from a... - Planning Commission Desk Page 4 of 4 As a property owner I have the right to the enjoyment and use of my property. I have not moved towards a nuisance. The sound of daytime shooting from a new commercial range, especially without any enforceable and predictable daytime peace, will mean the loss of the use and enjoyment of my property and it will affect my general welfare and comfort, not to mention my property value if I need to sell. Are my pre-existing property rights, too, at the discretion of the new business owner? Obvious Point #3: Everyone wants a "good neighbor" — some person or company that is reasonable to deal with and can respect how their use and enjoyment of their property can be modified, as needed, to allow for neighboring property owners to retain a modified use and enjoyment of their properties... a sort of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" concept. A business may choose to embrace the concerns of neighbors and be that "good neighbor", but without established guidelines/expectations in the ordinances and codes as a "backstop", a business may also choose to ignore neighbors and create an atmosphere that contradicts our cherished "rural character". We have a good thing going here in Jefferson County and our Codes should reflect our values, protect our property rights and strengthen our valuable "rural character" for generations to come. If more time is needed to clarify definitions and establish language that reflects what the County has already admitted it values in its comprehensive plan, then by all means, extend the Moratorium. Please come out and walk beside Lake Leland. Sit for a moment at Tarboo Lake. Talk to rural residents and rural business owners about what they value about their way of life. You will come to know this for a fact yourselves: The "rural character" of Jefferson County relies upon making loud noises the exception, not the rule. Thank you again for all your work, patience and time. Sincerely, Nicole Fox 3748 Eaglemount Road Port Townsend November 7, 2018 Ref: ZON18-00036 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00134 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/14/2018 November 6, 2018 Planning Commission ZON18-00036 Thank you for conducting the meeting last night concerning the new Jefferson County ordinance that allows for-profit military and paramilitary training bases in our Istat forests. i am opposed to the Commercial Shooting Facilities ordinance as passed by our County Commissioners. Our Commercial Oun Flange Review Committee intended to model the Ktsap County ordinance but failed to include the 500 yard shoreline setback, Our County Council recently passed the ordinance without required setbacks because of threatened law- suits according to newspaper reports. Security Services Northwest pians to build a huge facility including seven gun ranger, helicopter pads, etc, near the shore of Tarboo Lake. My wife and ! puchased nine acres that straddle Tarboo Creek in 1995. We were able to move mere in 2001. With the guidance of Northwest Watershed Institute we donated 5.5 acres to Jefferson Land Trust. Peter BahW volunteer crews replanted the valley with spruce and willow seedlings that are now over 20 feet tell. We continue to pay property taxes on the donated land. This was a very small part of NWI's restoration of Tarboo Creek from north of us to Tarbox Bay, some seven miles south. Our two granddaughters have visited several times a year since they were toddlers and have expiored the valley and creek countless times, witnessed salmon spawning and the regrowth of the forest, As teens, they still like to enjoy the valley with grandpa. Cheryl and I had planned to spend our remaining years here but now our way of life Is threatened by a company that wants to build a huge gun range to make money 1.5 miles west of our home_ it will create a perpetual dtsturbance of our puce. It will ruin the rural experience for all of our neighbors up and down Tarboo Ridge and Tarboo Valley as well. It will contaminate the watershed with a heavy bad of uproar, lead and copper. How is it possible that one man, for profit, Could be allowed to shatter the peaceful existence of hundrecir of households and businesses in Jefferson County? To my knowiedge, no county police, sheriff or locat military commander has expressed a need for any kind of new gun range in Jefferson County. How can we citizens allow one man to destroy the experience of a pristine, publicly owned lake that we all pay to have stocked with trout; where we teach the youngsters to fish and swim? Please help keep the peace for all of us and future generations. Thank you for considering my letter. Sincerely, Michael H Halverson tarboocreek@men. romy 8081 Center Road ❑uilcene, Wa. 98376 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00135 NOV , 4X0,0 D November 11, 2018 Planning Commission ZON 18-00038 If asked what sort of business would destroy the peace of the Tarbox Lake area, I might have mentioned a garbage dump, a factory or a prison. In my wildest dreams, f would not have considered the possibility of a large scale military style training facility being located on the shores of Tarboo Lake, one and a half miles from our home. At the meeting on November 7, you heard concerns of citizens expressing reasons why such a facility would be incompatible with the peaceful nature of this area. Not one person spoke in favor of the proposed facility. The fact is that the livlihood of families living in Tarboo Valley, Eaglemount and Lake Leland areas would be damaged if not destroyed by such a plan. The quiet rural environment, which draws visitors and tourist dollars, would be damaged. For example, Concerts in the Bam, where locals and visitors have enjoyed classical music for decades, would cease to exist. AfI of East Jefferson county would be subjected to helicopter noise, Veterans with PTSD have settled here in an effort to avoid combat style noise. The history of Fort Discovery shows that compliance with regulations is difficult if not impossible to enforce. The time and money already spent on the restoration of the watershed would be wasted. Jefferson county already has a perfectly good shooting facility in Port Townsend. The environment, wildlife, local farms and business, and the health and safety of hundreds of families must not be sacrificed in favor of the financial gain of one individual. It is obvious that the Cedar Ridge Facility is incompatible with existing land use. We were here first. Sincerely, Cheyl Halverson, Quilcene 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00136 DI�PJZ, 3 6-F6-96 a A) e -a , DC M �j k)A tart ry 4 S L- v'% rz iZY UY W � V c 00(47-D t �� l r i �'C�,�' i� S� �� r � �Y G S +� ►� o {�r� � ID (+- ['l fl lam, er-tG 0 qty ow �� C� O 6 Ti 0 b: r 1aC_4 L CC -'y,, "--,\j om- tFt tri E --Eq- S . 6Y6% -LO Za_ IN0cz-Drz- 6(4-D0i► Ncr Qpm 6-a r _'l— L--� k:�N 0- i 1 [J p iJ 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00137 To. Jefferson County Planning Commission Cc; Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners November 7, 2018 (This letter was intended to be defivered & read at 11/7 meeting, by the time l got a r adjourned) I am very concerned that the newly passed gun use ordinance seems to be written for Joe D'Amico's plan to build Fort Discovery, Inc and does not reflect the traditional use of guns by citizens of and tourists to Jefferson County. I find this to be a violation of the trust that residents of the county place in the Board of County Commissioners. It also reflects antiquated ideas of gun ranges and does not address the need to protect both the natural environment and nearby residents, which, as a property owner and resident who lives in the vicinity of the proposed Fort Discovery I am deeply concerned and distressed about, From this point in time forward it would be more appropriate and in keeping with the current need and use for new gun ranges, if there is such a need, to be built indoors, Other citizens have as much right to live and maintain the rural lifestyle they have chosen, and invested in, as shooters do to shoot their guns. Indoor facilities meet both those needs. Along these same lines of respecting and upholding the rights of other residents, there should be no night shooting, no aircraft landing and critically important, restrictions on how close to lakes shooting can take place. I have lived near Tarboo Lake for over 40 years and have swam there often, many times I was the only person on the lake, other times groups of families and young teenagers were there swimming, boating and picnicking. This traditional use of Tarboo bake, or any designated 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00138 recreational lake in the county, is not compatible with the type of gun range permitted in the ordinance. I question why such an ordinance that seems to promote and encourage military type gun ranges was written. I do not know of any county planning or economic growth planning where a decision to develop in Jefferson County private military facilities was made. Local law enforcement bodies already have their training facilities and would not be using this private, for profit facility. I am not sure I know how such a facility fits into the general growth direction of rural Jefferson County which has been more agriculture and tourist oriented. Yes, such a facility might bring some people from out of the county to the area, but given the intent of the facility I do not see this as benefitting the local tourist economy. In the 7 years I managed the Port Townsend Visitor Information Center I do not recall even one time anyone inquiring as to whether we had a paramilitary shooting range for them or their family to use while vacationing here. That has not been the goal or focus of the growth of tourism. Yet I do know Tarboo Lake is often where people were sent who wanted to know where they could swim, especially families with young children who wanted a quiet, safe place to swim and picnicked. Having a private para -military facility, as the ordinance allows, without the restrictions previously proposed to the BOCC by the Tarboo Ridge Coalition, would eliminate this recreational use of the lake. It would no longer be a safe place for swimming, bird watching, fishing, boating, but rather it would be a dangerous, noisy place. Si ned, 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00139 Letter submission - Planning Commission Desk Letter submission Leigh Hearon<Ieigh@hearoninvestigations.com> Wed 11/14/2018 2:24 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; 5 1 attachment DCD comments.docx; Dear Planning Commission, Page 1 of 1 Please accept the attached letter as part of the record re your upcoming meeting(s) to discuss proposed changes to Title 18 to accommodate the new gun range ordinance in Jefferson County. Sincerely, Leigh Hearon Hearon Investigative Services www.hearoninvesticiations.com WA Lic #1744 360.732.0732 office 360.732.0017 fax 206.240.8324 cell This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. This e-mail is confidential and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly accessible records. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail message from your computer. Thank you. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00140 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/14/2018 November 13, 2018 Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: ZON18-00036 Dear Members: Several weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Board of County Commissioners stating my concerns about the draft gun ordinance before them, to be included as part of the public testimony heard on October 241h As you know, the Commissioners elected to accept the draft gun range ordinance, and now the Planning Commission has the unenviable task of deciding whether the newly minted definition of "commercial shooting facility" in the Title 8 gun range ordinance requires you to amend Title 18 so that it abides by the new expanded term. I believe Mr. Hunsucker has described this proposed change as "harmonizing" the two ordinances. I call it trying to change a legal definition for one reason only: to quell the litigious behavior of one particular party who lives in Clallam County but wants to install a military training ground on 40+ acres of locked -in forest land in Jefferson County— acreage that is alarmingly close to public recreational areas and to the homes which my neighbors and I consider our personal sanctuaries. For 35 years, my husband and I have welcomed thousands of people onto our farm to hear chamber music concerts in our iconic barn. We will continue to do so next summer. We also will continue to hold workshops, weddings, and other events on the farm. We dont have to fell trees, bulldoze or grade surfaces, construct gun ranges or build military housing to do what we've always done. We're ready and open for business, just as we were back in 1986, when we first opened our doors and people began driving across our bridge to see the magical festival environment we have created. As far as my husband and I are concerned, we will use our beloved property as we always have. But if the Planning Commission decides to capitulate to the needs of one developer, then we will take notice and act accordingly. Because if the definition of a "commercial gun range" is changed from its current language in Title 18 to encompass "organizational training for law enforcement officers or organizational training for members of the armed forces, or any combination of the above," the size and intensity of that gun range, a scant mile away from our property line, will be heard, and it will 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00141 surely curtail, if not destroy, how we have lived and operated our music festival and other events over the past several decades. Equally important, changing Title 18 to accommodate military training on gun ranges in Jefferson County will obliterate our peaceful and quiet enjoyment of our property. Please do your jobs wisely and well, and do not exempt commercial shooting facilities from the SSRT criteria in Title 18. Sincerely, Leigh Hearon Concerts in the Barn 7360 Center Road Quilcene, WA 98376 Cc: Law Office of Kenneth S. Kagan, PLLC 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00142 ECY SEPA 201806129 - Jefferson County Unified De... - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 1 ECY SEPA 201806129 - Jefferson County Unified Development Code Amendments - Comments ECY RE SWRO SEPA COORDINATOR <swrosepacoordinator@ECY.WA.GOV> Wed 11/14/2018 4:03 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; cc:Wecker, Kirsten (ECY <kalv461@ECY.WA.GOV>; Acklam, Nicholas (ECY) <nack461@ECY.WA.GOV>; Importance: High 5 1 attachment 201806129 ECY Comments.pdf; Austin Watkins, Planning Manager: Attached are Ecology's comments for the Jefferson County Unified Development Code Amendments (Ecology SEPA No. 201806129). This is the original final copy. Comments are due today 11/14/18. Please reply to this message for confirmation. *Please use the correct acronym "ECY" for the Department of Ecology (DOE is US Department of Energy). * Morgan L. Dorner State Environmental Policy Act Coordinator WA Department of Ecology I SWRO P: 360-407-6313 1 F: 360-407-6305 swro set)acoordinator(a� ecy. wa. gov SEPA Register: htti):Hecyai)sea/sei)ar/Main/SEPA/Search.asi)x 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00143 https://owa.co.j efferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/14/2018 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 November 14, 2018 Austin Watkins, Planning Manager Jefferson County Community Development Department 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Austin Watkins: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for Jefferson County Unified Development Code Amendments (ZON18-00036, MLA18-00098). The Department of Ecology (Ecology) reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s): TOXICS CLEANUP: Kirsten Wecker (360) 407-6246 Commercial Shooting Ranges typically encounter RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Metals as contaminants of concern. If and when contamination is discovered at these facilities, Ecology should be notified per WAC 173-340-300. For questions, contact Nicholas Acklam in Ecology's Southwest Regional Office (SWRO), Toxics Cleanup Program at (360) 407-6347. Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such, they may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate reviewing staff listed above. Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office (MLD:201806129) cc: Kirsten Wecker, TCP Nicholas Acklam, TCP 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00144 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Susan Freeman <susanleopoldfreeman@gmail.com> Wed 11/14/2018 9:08 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Thank you for considering this statement and for all your work. Page 1 of 2 My husband and I have been working on a restoration project on the Tarboo Creek for 14 years. We have worked on the creek almost every weekend for those 14 years. Our heart and our life is there. We believe so strongly in working on the land and making it better, not for us, but for everyone and for generations to come. My grandfather, Aldo Leopold, was the first person to do what we now call Habitat Restoration. He wrote a book he wrote called A Sand County Almanac, that talks about how we need to view the land as something that we care for and nurture, and not use just for our own benefit. This is called the Land Ethic. This concept resonates with people and hits a very deep emotional need that we, as humans, have. Our boys are the 4th generation in my family to put our lives into caring for the land. We have continued my grandfather's work here on Tarboo Creek. We have re -meandered the creek and have planted over 15,000 trees over the last 14 years. We have spent hours working on the creek, putting our love and life into this property. Our boys are the fourth generation in my family to do this work. Over the years the County, State and Federal government have put thousands and thousands of dollars into restoring the Tarboo/Dabob Bay watershed. We are just one part of this bigger picture. But each of us carries the pride and satisfaction of doing something positive for the world by making something in our own land better. This is in keeping with the Jefferson County's Approved Vision statement approved in February 2018. This plan puts "emphasis on community spaces ... encouraging an interactive community of healthy individuals." It says the county should "enjoy diverse local economy" but there is no mention of military training or anything close to that. It talks about marine trade, food systems, education, resource management, tourism, arts and culture. But the summary is most important. "we honor and respect the natural world as integral to our health and lifestyles. We protect open spaces, shorelines, forests, clean air and clean water, wildlife and wildlife habitat so future generations may also practice stewardship of the land." Then the paramilitary gun range application for a permit came up. All of a sudden our whole way of viewing our work came under threat. We didn't want something like this to ruin our land, our life and our work. As time has gone on, I realize that not only is this an issue for us, but this is an issue for all of Jefferson County and all of Washington State and really all of our country. I don't want this at Tarboo Lake, but I don't want this anywhere. Our whole country is becoming more populated and the remote places that could house this kind of thing becomes harder and harder to find. Jefferson County should be so proud of what has been going on. Young people are moving here and starting businesses and starting families. The rural nature with a combination of small farms, wild areas and small start ups is amazing. Is a paramilitary range really what is compatible with what the county has worked so hard to build? A small scale tourist and recreation permit is one thing and allowing para military and military training is another thing. Is this what we want in our county? How can our county allow military training when there are thousands of acres of military property. How can this kind of commercial range be put on the shores of a public lake? How will the county deal with lead contamination of the Tarboo Watershed? Will the hours and hours of work that we've done on our property be threatened by lead leakage? How can we have our friends out to work on this project if there are automatic weapons going off all day? Because of the way the valley is situated, sound travels very well and we will definitely hear it loud and clear. Family members of ours that have PTSD will not be able to come and work or be at our place. I'll never be able to explain to the thousands of volunteers, or to myself, how this could be allowed. Is this what we want our land to be used for? 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00145 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 We need land use protection to continue the county's vision. I suggest that the county keep our timber forest lands for forest products and small scale tourist and recreation use, not military training. To protect our lakes we should have a 500 yard set back from public lakes. To protect our sanity - no night time shooting, no helicopters. But the most sensible plan is to only allow new gun ranges to be indoors. This solves every issue. These are changes that make logical sense. Is this really what we want for Jefferson County? Please let us continue to have faith in the county and not do something just to avoid a lawsuit. As my grandfather said, "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." I'm asking you to respect our land and community. Thank you. Sincerely, Susan Freeman 680 Old Tarboo Road 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00146 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Shooting range is disturbing - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 1 Shooting range is disturbing Teri Nomura <nomura@windermere.com> Wed 11/14/2018 10:17 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Dear Planning Commission, We are depending on you to help Jefferson County be a place where people WANT TO LIVE. Not die. Or pretend to die or pretend to fight in war games. Having a new shooting range feels like a violation of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Not for the happy warmonger, of course. This plan is obviously making many people upset. How can you allow a war zone in a residential area? He wants to be able to blow up cars? Wouldn't that fall under toxic waste contamination? What is this- the Gaza Strip? Yes, shooting does have a psychological correlation to violence and death. I do not want to live near that. I am equally concerned about my friends who live near the proposed range- and for people that I have sold property to in that area. We count on you to protect us from noise pollution. We count on you to protect property values. People do not want to live near gun noise. They also do not want to live near stripjoints or porn shops, but somehow we can regulate that. Liquor stores and weed shops cannot be close to schools and that is also regulated. We do not want race tracks next to residential either- or new airstrips. These are all noise related. Do something. We are counting on you. This is yourjob. Yours truly, Teri Nomura 360-531-1602 nomura@windermere.com Windermere Port Townsend 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00147 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Tarboo Gun Range - Planning Commission Desk Tarboo Gun Range Alan Susnow <alansusnow@wavecable.com> Thu 11/15/2018 10:51 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Dear DCD members, Page 1 of 1 Please consider carefully the long term effects of allowing this gun range to be built. The area around this proposed gun range is known for it's beauty, wild life and serene way of life. Any short term gain achieved by allowing this proposal to proceed will be offset by the loss of all of these beautiful attributes! FOREVER! With Regards, Alan Susnow 181 Randolph St Port Hadlock 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00148 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 nora shapiro <nora.weaves@gmail.com> Thu 11/15/2018 2:51 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Page 1 of 1 No longer the Wild West, guns need to be used in a facility that has minimal impact on the region. In this period of increased violence nationwide, we need to be absolutely certain who is shooting, and where, and we need to be able to contain the shooting. Safety, noise, and the impact on the environment must be considered in the long-term view. It is not enough to satisfy the desires of a few in the short term. We need long-term planning that benefits the majority, which no doubt will also benefit our environment. We live in a lovely region, and we need to be working to maintain it. No outdoor shooting unless the gun is for hunting (and has a permit). Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Nora Shapiro Port Townsend 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00149 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 1 ZON18-00036 Jon Cooke <friendsofcookecampaign@gmail.com> Thu 11/15/2018 3:20 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Hi Planning Commission, looks like you got another task to wade through, thank you for your work. I attended the public comment period and listened to the testimonies. I am just throwing in a word of caution. I find it odd that during the gun range safety ordinance everyone was instructed to not venture into a different lane of land use, but now the commissioners are all in for changing land use restrictions for gun ranges - and get it done before the moratorium ends. I lost track of how many times I heard the commissioners complain that the public did not trust their motives in the safety ordinance, but I did notice a lack of people there in favor of gun ranges. Unless people were following the County Website's Calendar they would not, and did not, know about this meeting. My caution comes in the form of what you restrict gun ranges to might also apply to other endeavors. Example: not allowing overnight camping on the sight was brought up in the testimonies. What if someone starts a wedding venue will they be allowed to have overnight camping? Land use is a sticky issue, as you would be stepping into the rights of property owners and the government's limitations on our property rights is a delicate balance. There were a lot of restrictions thrown out there by people and I would just caution you to look at the big picture for the future of our county. Thank you Jon Cooke 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00150 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 Members of the Planning Commission - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 1 ZON18-00036 Members of the Planning Commission Susan miller <susanmiller@olympus.net> Thu 11/15/2018 4:10 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; 5 1 attachment Jefferson County Planning Commission.docx; Hello Planning Commission Members, Please accept the attached written comment on proposed amendments to the UDC Title 18 ZON18-00036. Thank you, Susan Miller 80 Gull Shadow Lane Port Townsend Wa. 98368 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00151 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Jefferson County Planning Commission pIancomm@co.iefferson.wa.us RE: ZON18-00036 Hello Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing to you in regard to your deliberations on a draft ordinance that would amend the UDC regarding commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County. I am concerned about the environmental, mental health, and economic impact from a proposed shooting facility in the Tarboo Lake area near Quilcene. I request a one year extension of the moratorium on any development of commercial shooting facilities in Jefferson County that will expire on December 17, 2018 unless extended. This time is needed for more study to determine the impact of the disbursal of quantities of ammunition into the environment; the psychological impact of the repetitive sound of gun shots on different people within the exposed range of the proposed facility; and the economic impact of the sound of repetitive gunshots on potential new residents looking for a rural environment in which to retire or raise a young family or tourists wanting to enjoy a vacation on the beautiful Olympic Peninsula. Please recommend this moratorium extension to the Board of County Commissioners with a request to further study the above issues and please consider the following points when describing Commercial Shooting Facilities: 1. Commercial Shooting Facilities are not essential public facilities 2. Commercial Shooting Facilities require a 500 yard buffer around lakes to protect against pollution by stray ammunition and allow enjoyment of the lake without worry of being shot. 3. Commercial Shooting Facilities require a 1000 foot set back from property lines to help protect neighbors from stray ammunition. 4. Commercial Shooting Facilities require law enforcement certification and environmental protection certification. 5. Commercial Shooting Facilities require that nuisance noise be defined and prohibited. 6. Commercial Shooting Facilities prohibit overnight accommodations. 7. Outdoor Commercial Shooting Facilities are limited to hours of shooting not to exceed 8 hours in a 24 hour period and do not extend past 6 pm and are limited to 5 days/week. 8. Commercial Shooting Facilities prohibit aircraft from taking off or landing (including drones). 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00152 9. Commercial Shooting Facilities are small scale recreation and tourist uses. 10. Commercial Shooting Facilities have a limited number of firing points. 11. Commercial Shooting Facilities require a minimum of a 20 million dollars insurance bond covering personal injury, environmental pollution, and fire. Thank you for recommending extension of the moratorium and recommending more study and defined limits regarding Commercial Shooting Facilities. Sincerely, Susan Miller 80 Gull Shadow Lane Port Townsend November 15, 2018 Ref: ZON18-00036 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00153 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Carol ODell <carolodell3855@gmail.com> Thu 11/15/2018 4:36 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Page 1 of 1 The public lakes of Jefferson County belong to all of us and Shorelines deserve special protection. These public lakes are for fishing, swimming and nature should be the first priorities. There should be NO commercial shooting facilities within 500 yards of lakes and navigable shorelines. Also existing land uses and the health and wellness of residents who live within three miles of a new facility must be protected from noise levels. Noise would be restricted to 40 hours per week during daylight hours and there should be prohibitions on non - gun explosions and use of helicopters. Carol O'Dell 816 Taft Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00154 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 The Shooting Range - Planning Commission Desk The Shooting Range Jason Victor Serinus <healrmn@planeteria.net> Thu 11/15/2018 7:14 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Dear all, Page 1 of 1 Although I live on Bell St. in Port Townsend, miles from Tarboo Ridge, I have been following the Gun Range saga with great interest. As a professional writer who moved here from the noise -infested East Oakland barrio, I'm very aware of the importance of silence, and the impact that a close -by gun range will have on quality of life, peace of mind, and sanity. I have watched Joe D'Amico use multiple threats and actions to silence and intimidate opposition to his gun range. Claiming legal ownership of the name of the community group opposing his plans, threatening everyone and their mother with legal action, and packing meetings are hardly the limits of his bullying. It's enough to turn one's stomach. Yes, people have a legal right to shoot, and target practice is needed for law enforcement. Having said that, no one has the right to inflict harm on other human beings, which is what an open air shooting range will most certainly do. Nor does anyone have the right to cause unnecessary harm to the environment and the animal who dwell thereon, which is certain to happen given the lead content of bullets. The only possible compromise is an enclosed gun range in a heavily soundproofed facility that is only open certain hours. It is the only viable option in this situation. Thank you for listening, jason victor serinus Jason Victor Serinus http://www.masonserinus.com Music and audiophile critic: Stereophile, San Francisco Classical Voice, Classical Voice North America, American Record Guide, Seattle Times, Stanford Live, Opera Now, Port Townsend Leader, Bay Area Reporter, Gay City News, Copper, and more. Whistler Extraordinaire: The Voice of Woodstock • The Pavarotti of Pucker "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." — Elie Wiesel "This is a time to remember all of us who are LGBTQ. It's a time to stand out and be proud, to parade who we are, to celebrate and to let them know we will not be silenced, we will not be stopped, we will not go back into the closet. Together, we will love." — JVS at our Orlando Massacre Support Rally in Port Townsend, WA(a)-planeteria.net 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00155 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Citizen input ZON18-000036 - Planning Commission Desk Citizen input ZON18-000036 Nancy Wyatt < nancywyatt50@gmail.com > Thu 11/15/2018 8:42 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; To: Jefferson County Planning Commission From: Nancy Wyatt RE: written ZON18-000036. Proposed gun range Nov. 14, 2018 Dear Planning Commissioners: Page 1 of 2 I'm writing in sincere earnest and in search for common sense planning which does not destroy the natural environment and reputation of East Jefferson. County. I have lived joyously and peacefully for over 40 years. This is where I lived while teaching for over 31 years in the Quilcene and Chimacum Schools, then retired here. I look forward to my next 40 years of serenity, good health, and the enjoyment of peace and quiet. Why would it be okay for someone to completely destroy this in order for them to profit from a gun range??? Maintain land zones that maintain serenity ... Since September 2017, I have participated in every step of the process regarding the proposed gun range and have helped make information available to other county residents who are also appalled at the idea and possibility of 14 hours of continuous gun fire a day with helicopter landings and take offs, etc. How could YOU and your family manage that kind of nerve wracking noise on a continual basis? For years??? In brief, and for the time being, at the minimum would you please consider the following: Please add the following language to "An Ordinance Amending Title 18 JCC relating to Shooting Facilities" that is under consideration. At section 1 add paragraph g. All newly constructed, privately owned, outdoor shooting facilities are prohibited from providing organizational training to military, paramilitary or law enforcement units. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00156 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Citizen input ZON18-000036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 Individual service and law enforcement men and women may train at private outdoor shooting facilities with their personally owned weapons. At Section 1 add paragraph h. Overnight accommodations, such as cabins, tent camping and RV parking and hook ups are prohibited at all outdoor commercial shooting facilities. I know you can make the right decisions to protect and preserve Jefferson County as a healthy place of natural beauty and sanity. You will be held responsible for what people of Jefferson County will live with forever. Sincerely, Nancy Wyatt. (Via nancywyatt50(?gmail.com) 1661 Dabob Rd Quilcene, WA 98376. 360-732-4069/360-531-2037 Sent from my iPad 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00157 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Rob Story <storyrc@gmail.com> Thu 11/15/2018 10:11 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; 5 1 attachment zon18-00036.docx; Dear Planning commission, Thank you for taking the time to review and consider my position related to the above noted ZON18-00036 I will attach the document but also put it in the text of a second email. Thank you, Rob Story Rob Story Brain and Sensory Support Cc/ Move Play Thrive PO Box 676, Chimacum, WA 98325 (360) 732-4356 www.mover)lavthrive.com Page 1 of 1 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00158 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 November 15, 2018 To: JeffCo Planning Commission Re: ZON18-00036 Dear Planning Commissioners and Board Members, Thank you for taking the time to read my statement regarding the above noted zoning issue. I have attended most of the meetings given related to the issues surrounding the land use proposals near Old Tarboo Lake. I agree this is a highly charged issue that has unique complications and complexities that require thoughtful and non -rushed consideration. My personal stance regarding the proposed changes to the county building/zoning codes are from the perspective of a resident located a very short distance from Old Tarboo Lake as well as a business owner in the region. My feelings about the proposed zoning change are not affected nor influenced by any individual or business applying for or asking for this zoning change. I have thoroughly read the document written by Bricklin & Newman LLP that was given to your group at the most recent meeting at the Chimacum High School. I l00% agree with their findings and proposals. So in short, I am against making ANY zoning changes that would open up Jefferson County to future industries that would adversely affect our environment and financial stability. There have been many people more policy informed and eloquent than I whom have talked in public testimony and submitted documents supporting the moratorium and the foresightedness to protect our way of life and still support those who choose to use guns. I would like to talk about the negative economic and social impact a change to ZON18-00036 would cause. My concern starts with public statements by Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Philip Hunsucker at several of the public hearings. What I have heard is that concessions have been made to avoid litigation. I can understand his concern for spending county funds in litigation. The reality is that this complicated situation will end in litigation no matter what and will cost the county money. We could move forward and make changes to our county codes to allow a company to move in who has used threat of litigation as a ramrod to get what they want. The county can avoid litigation from this direction but litigation will 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00159 most likely ensue from those who oppose the change of codes as proposed, because this is a change of code and not a "Harmonization". For me Harmonization or harmonizing means to work together and that is not what is happening here. If this code change does occur there will be a significantly larger financial cost to the county that will last for decades. This will come in the form of lower property taxes due to the devaluation of properties in the area. Furthermore there will most likely be a loss of business revenue in the area. Many local agencies including the Chamber of Commerce have spent significant time and monies to promote the tranquil area in our area and especially in the Chimacum Valley. It would not take long for visitors coming to the Chimacum Valley to realize it is not so tranquil anymore. Living in the Chimacum valley we all know how sounds travels and Old Tarboo Lake it in this valley. I can just picture Blackhawk helicopters flying down the valley past Finnriver Cidery as 800 people stand there and cover the ears and look up. I think about how an economic downturn would affect Finnriver Cidery as well as my place of employment at Chimacum Corner Farmstand. Between our two companies we employ over loo people. It is not a stretch to say that we could very well have to lay people off. There are so many costs to our community that would come with a change of code as proposed. My deepest hope is that you as a group can look to the future and make the choice to hold fast to changing this code. It would open us up to something that would change the character of our area forevermore. I admit that I do not know all of the options possible. I do know that this proposal is being ramrodded through. It is obvious and as a community we are deeply upset and angered by this situation and the answers we are being given by the people making the decisions to duck and cover. Thank you for your time. Robert C Story Eaglemount Rd, Chimacum 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00160 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Rob Story <storyrc@gmail.com> Thu 11/15/2018 10:11 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; November 15, 2o18 To: JeffCo Planning Commission Re: ZON18-00036 Dear Planning Commissioners and Board Members, Page 1 of 2 Thank you for taking the time to read my statement regarding the above noted zoning issue. I have attended most of the meetings given related to the issues surrounding the land use proposals near Old Tarboo Lake. I agree this is a highly charged issue that has unique complications and complexities that require thoughtful and non -rushed consideration. My personal stance regarding the proposed changes to the county building/zoning codes are from the perspective of a resident located a very short distance from Old Tarboo Lake as well as a business owner in the region. My feelings about the proposed zoning change are not affected nor influenced by any individual or business applying for or asking for this zoning change. I have thoroughly read the document written by Bricklin & Newman LLP that was given to your group at the most recent meeting at the Chimacum High School. I l00% agree with their findings and proposals. So in short, I am against making ANY zoning changes that would open up Jefferson County to future industries that would adversely affect our environment and financial stability. There have been many people more policy informed and eloquent than I whom have talked in public testimony and submitted documents supporting the moratorium and the foresightedness to protect our way of life and still support those who choose to use guns. I would like to talk about the negative economic and social impact a change to ZON18-00036 would cause. My concern starts with public statements by Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Philip Hunsucker at several of the public hearings. What I have heard is that concessions have been made to avoid litigation. I can understand his concern for spending county funds in litigation. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00161 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 The reality is that this complicated situation will end in litigation no matter what and will cost the county money. We could move forward and make changes to our county codes to allow a company to move in who has used threat of litigation as a ramrod to get what they want. The county can avoid litigation from this direction but litigation will most likely ensue from those who oppose the change of codes as proposed, because this is a change of code and not a "Harmonization". For me Harmonization or harmonizing means to work together and that is not what is happening here. If this code change does occur there will be a significantly larger financial cost to the county that will last for decades. This will come in the form of lower property taxes due to the devaluation of properties in the area. Furthermore there will most likely be a loss of business revenue in the area. Many local agencies including the Chamber of Commerce have spent significant time and monies to promote the tranquil area in our area and especially in the Chimacum Valley. It would not take long for visitors coming to the Chimacum Valley to realize it is not so tranquil anymore. Living in the Chimacum valley we all know how sounds travels and Old Tarboo Lake it in this valley. I can just picture Blackhawk helicopters flying down the valley past Finnriver Cidery as Boo people stand there and cover the ears and look up. I think about how an economic downturn would affect Finnriver Cidery as well as my place of employment at Chimacum Corner Farmstand. Between our two companies we employ over loo people. It is not a stretch to say that we could very well have to lay people off. There are so many costs to our community that would come with a change of code as proposed. My deepest hope is that you as a group can look to the future and make the choice to hold fast to changing this code. It would open us up to something that would change the character of our area forevermore. I admit that I do not know all of the options possible. I do know that this proposal is being ramrodded through. It is obvious and as a community we are deeply upset and angered by this situation and the answers we are being given by the people making the decisions to duck and cover. Thank you for your time. Robert C Story Eaglemount Rd, Chimacum Rob Story Brain and Sensory Support Co/ Move Play Thrive PO Box 676, Chimacum, WA 98325 (360) 732-4356 www.moveplaythrive.com 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00162 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Lili Story <spirit.of.the.woods@gmail.com> Thu 11/15/2018 11:04 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Greetings Planning Commissioners, Page 1 of 1 I request that you deny the permit to build an outdoor shooting facility --recreational or otherwise --in the location proposed by Joe d'Amico adjacent to Tarboo Lake; or at least require the facility to be completely indoors. Allowing an outdoor shooting range to manifest in this particular location would be an environmental and social outrage. Not only would it chemically pollute precious salmon habitat --which I have helped to restore by planting trees --it would also create massive noise pollution for countless residents in the area. Should this shooting range be built I would hear the results forever; which is infuriating given that one of the primary reasons I chose to live here is that it's quiet. Giving way to the creation of such a facility goes in direct defiance of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. We all voted you into your positions of power with the faith that you would be honorable and follow through with the plan for the region. If you sacrifice the community's well being in favor of a private, for-profit gun range monstrosity; you condemn a valuable watershed and fail countless families in the greater Tarboo area --people who have given their time and money for years to help restore and preserve our beautiful ecosystem. Do not waste that investment, do not break our trust. If you give this individual what he wants, others like him will follow. This is your chance to close the gates. This is your chance to uphold the ideals of the community and the plan; to keep this place safe and pristine for all living beings. I expect you to do this. I demand that you do this. I want to live the rest of my life here, and I want to spend it hearing birds, not bullets. Thank you, Lili Story 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00163 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 with visual attachments, part 1 - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 3 ZON18-00036 with visual attachments, part 1 Sonia Story <sonia@moveplaythrive.com> Thu 11/15/2018 11:36 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; From Sonia Story Eaglemount Road, Chimacum, WA Nov. 16, 2018 Greetings Members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, Sincere thanks for your service to our community. It helps to have some visuals to highlight the enormous possible safety hazards inherent in the proposed commercial shooting ranges near Tarboo Lake and watershed. Look at the two attachments with screenshots of bullet -range information and map of Tarboo vicinity. If the unprecedented, privately owned weapons training complex were to be built, the 7 proposed shooting ranges at the facility would face away from Tarboo Lake and directly toward State Highway 104 from two directions and toward Center road from one direction. In this scenario, it is only a matter of time before a tragic disaster happens. And then it is too late. If you allow this project to go through unchecked, it is a distinct possibility that someone traveling on these roads could get hurt or killed due to a direct hit or indirectly, from distracted driving due to all the noise. You would be accountable for this. We must admit that humans make errors, no matter how good the intentions. Not only are roads and drivers vulnerable to stray bullets, but homes, people and farms are within the direct vicinity and direction of the proposed shooting ranges. Additionally: Were this project to be built, there is no way to ensure oversight and safety precautions are adequate or even followed. Wildfires could easily start from explosives and gun fire and we could lose human beings, homes, farms, forests, businesses and all the natural beauty of the region. You would be accountable for this. In addition, bullets ricochet and someone could be killed or hurt at Tarboo lake. I trust you will recognize that near Tarboo Lake is absolutely the wrong place to put such a facility. To be consistent with the Jefferson county comprehensive plan, the designation for gun ranges MUST be kept for only "small-scale recreation and tourist uses". And "When a development regulation is inconsistent with a Comp Plan, the development regulation is UNLAWFUL." (according to Bricklin and Newman, land use attorneys, Re: "Amendment to Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities" emphasis added). 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00164 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 with visual attachments, part 1 - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 3 I urge you to do the right thing. The most lawful and common sense approach is to REJECT the staff's proposed Title 18 ordinance which leaves the whole county open to commercial shooting facilities of unlimited size and intensity. The land use attorneys of TRC have already proposed a sound plan that can be followed and would withstand legal challenge. It is a "no brainer" to follow the TRC recommendations which are based on already legally sound and working ordinance in Kitsap county. Respectfully, Sonia Story A Barret .50 c 111be.r Sniper rifle has an effactivi' range . �� w =.•F {how far you are likely la hi the target) of about 1.2 tulles (a Canadian sniper reportedly made a shot horn 1.5 Mlf+es), and an actual range (haw far the bullet can - travel) of about 41 mil Ins Z. What bullets travel the farthest, and why? Guns and Fire2rms - OLOM �,�t�i+� �rwnnn+a.�u�r�.�rli�fl�l*t�RrVkiir,.tr�vr3R.A�r�M,�tttsri�t-�+�tlwwhy 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00165 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 with visual attachments, part 1 - Planning Commission Desk Page 3 of 3 a" = Rtopxee Ixatri UcW, 0 ADOhML z-f[mif Q - S-) Fildiu] 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00166 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Jefferson County Planning Committee November 16th 2018 Regarding the new Gun Range Ordinance for Jefferson County: We moved to Port Townsend 2 years ago to have a peaceful place to retire. Unfortunately, when we bought our house it was not disclosed to us that we were approx. 1/3 mile away from Jefferson County Sportsman gun range. The first year we were here the gun noise was significant but we at least did not hear it in the house. This last year we now hear it, in our well insulated home, often. I am a Jefferson County Master Gardener and love to work out in my garden and orchard but have been forced to listen, with headphones, to books on tape or music in order to drown out the gun range noise. It has made me very unhappy that we are forced to listen to this gun range noise even on Thanksgiving, Easter, Christmas, Sundays and other holidays. We like to entertain on our back patio in the summer months but have been driven indoors due to the gun range noise. Our guests are often horrified that there is such loud noise from the Jefferson County Sportsman gun range. have nothing against the constitutional right to bear arms but what about my right to have a peaceful and healthy home. There must be a way to control the gun range noise. I would also ask you to limit the hours of the gun range to a sane, fair and reasonable amount of hours. If you look at the area around approximately 1 mile of the gun range you will see the house and land is not selling in the timely manner that it is compared to areas away from the gun range noise. The house and lot behind us has been up for sale for a year and has had to drop their price by $125,333 but has still not sold. The lot next to us has been for sale since 2335. We have been told that as soon as any buyers heard the gun range noise they have chosen to pass buying the lot. Nancee Braddock �cc�cud� NOV 1 6 2018 D 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00167 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us subject line: ZON18-00036. 6721 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 From; James Gurney, 31 Barbara Lane, Port Townsend, 98368 Since much attention has been paid to the Tarboo Lake Gun Range/Recreation Area project, I would ask the Planning Commission to turn its attention to the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association Gun Range and consider that zoning control of a gun range in a more rural area might be different than zoning control of a range in a primarily residential area.The JCSA gun range is a gun enthusiasts amusement park attracting many so-called "members" from Kitsap County, Clallam County and beyond. What you are allowing without restriction is an entertainment center for people, many of whom have no stake in the thoughtful development of this part of the county. It should be noted that the JCSA Range burdens the surrounding community by creating negative impact on property values/marketability, the environment and community safety. I would note that the JCSA range by virtue of its agreement with the county is subsidized by the county insomuch as no rent nor property taxes are paid on their 43 acre parcel (suggesting they could comply with an appropriate setback) of County Land. The written agreement between the county and the gun club appears to be easily re-negotiable/changeable in order to comply with new zoning restrictions. In regard to the issues mentioned above, please consider applying zoning restrictions in the following areas: SETBACK JCSA should be required to have a significant setback (1000 yds?) from residential, commercial and facilities such as the animal shelter. I estimate from looking at the aerial photos provided by the county that there are well over 100 residences, businesses and developable lots in less than a half mile from the JCSA Range. HOURS Please consider some restriction on operating hours. Operating such a facility seven days a week from dawn till dusk is grossly excessive. During the summer, daylight hours means 16 hours per day. Though I believe the club does not schedule evening shooting, there is no rational justification for shooting beyond dusk " commensurate negative safety and environmental issues. FACILITIES ���1V � � ���� Shooting should be primarily done indoors. Please, no military, paramilitary or exploding targets hope Commissioners would imagine themselves living a half mile a facility and ask, could I tolerate it's intrusiveness and negative impact on the community. Is this the highest and best use of the 43 acre County Owned site and is it consistent with the County General Development Plan for this area. Thank You. 11/16/18 Log mments tot or Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00168 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Seth Rolland <melseth@olypen.com> Fri 11/16/2018 7:21 AM T01anning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Hi Planning Commission, Page 1 of 1 I am writing in opposition to planned gun ranges in our county. There is lots of evidence that loud noise, and especially intermittent and explosive noises are disruptive to people's health and well-being. This is especially true of those who have PTSD from military service. I think everyone can acknowledge how stressful the sounds of gunfire are to many veterans, civilians who have been near or exposed to gunfire in the past and those who now rightly worry about the mass shootings that are occurring all over the country. The sounds of guns and war will cause stress to all those who can hear them. This is not the same as industrial noise. The obvious solution for those who want to practice shooting is to create an indoor range so their noise is contained and not affecting others. Other businesses have to mitigate their impacts, and with such a great impact this would be reasonable for gun ranges. You can read a study here about the greater impact that bursts of noise have than steady noise, and the financial burden shouldered by others: http://www.nonoise.org/library/drowning/drowning.htm A snippet from the report: Rapidly varying noise is much more annoying than constant noise, as decades of psycho -acoustics research have established. A varying noise commands the hearer's continuous attention, making it especially bothersome. Please ensure that any gun range is indoors and not impacting neighbors for miles around. Thanks, Seth Rolland 1039 Jackson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 379-0414 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00169 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Zon18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Zon18-00036 mel <melchristensen@olypen.com> Fri 11/16/2018 7:28 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Hi, as a resident of Jefferson County I want to relay my opposition to many features of this range due to the potential for pollution, both noise and environmental to a sensitive, natural area that many surrounding residents have worked hard to improve for salmon restoration. Please encourage an indoor shooting range for noise abatement and to contain the bullets in a controlled environment. Also, control the hours so that no training is done after early evening. I realize your choices are limited legally, but do your best to reign this in for the safety of nearby residents and the natural environment. Me'I Christensen Page 1 of 1 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00170 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18 - 00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18 - 00036 Jeff Taylor <jefft911@yahoo.com> Fri 11/16/2018 9:12 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Page 1 of 1 I live on Discovery Bay, across from where Fort Discovery was. From my experience, if the Tarboo Ridge range is allowed as planned this will make the area unlivable for any property in the surrounding area. The rights of the current property owners and longtime residents of the community owners should take president over the financial interest of an outside party. I am also opposed to paramilitary training in our community. I think it is a public health hazard, and is a cultural change I do not support. The military has plenty of property to support their training needs. There is a need to provide an area for recreational shooting, but this Tarboo Ridge projects creates many more problems then it solves. Jeff Taylor 440 Adelma Beach Road Port Townsend, WA 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00171 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036. -Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036. Tarboo Ridge Coalition <info@tarbooridgecoalition.org> Fri 11/16/2018 10:34 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; cc:Bob Siegel <bob@ijusticelaw.com>; From: Bob Siegel <bob@ijusticelaw.com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 8:19 AM To: Tarboo Ridge Coalition Cc: Brenda Bole; Randy Charrier; Al Latham Subject: ZON18-00036. As a resident of the area (Eaglemount) I wanted to make a statement in opposition to the proposed shooting range at Tarboo ridge, but don't know who to send it to. So, I will simply pass it on here to you. RE: Tarboo Ridge shooting facility To All Concerned, There are so many issues that the proposed facility raises that I could certainly use as the basis for my opposition. However, I would like to address just one here, which is probably the most important to me and many others similarly situated. That is, THE SANCTITY OF SOLITUDE. I, like so many others in the affected area, specifically chose this area and moved here after a lifetime of searching for a place where nature is abundant and protected, people were not crowded together, animals thrived, and solitude is sacred. Page 1 of 2 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00172 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036. -Planning Commission Desk I chose to forego the many luxuries and amenities of an urban life in exchange for this so rare and disappearing quality. And now, after years of homesteading the land, and building what I believed to be a legacy for myself and my family and friends, the very foundation of this effort is threatened, for no other reason than entertainment and personal profit. As I walk outside on a cool and damp November morning, watching the mist on the mountains and over the bay, or on a warm Summer afternoon watching eagles soar and sunlight bathe the mountains, should I be forced to endure the distant, but ubiquitous, crackle of weapons of war being fired for profit and entertainment? Should I, and all of the other wildlife residing here be forced to live under fire? Clearly, such a specter is disturbing at best. The sanctity of my solitude will be forever destroyed as will be the sacred character of this entire area. What price do we put on the sanctity of solitude? Can it be measured? Should it be sold off to the highest bidder? I think not, and I urge anyone who has any influence over this matter to oppose it wholeheartedly and vigorously! Respectfully, Robert J. Siegel Attorney At Law 808-840-7000 Page 2 of 2 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00173 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Fwd: ZON18-00036: SHOOTING RANGE REGS -Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 2 Fwd: ZON18-00036: SHOOTING RANGE REGS aIeawaters@olypen.com Fri 11/16/2018 11:49 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; November 16, 2018 Dear Commissioners, I am a resident, voter, and property owner of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. I appeal to you all to do whatever possible to reverse the process of approving an ordinance permitting outdoor shooting ranges in Jefferson County. I am certain you are aware of the growing problem of militarization of our peninsula, and the growing alarm, anger, and outrage of residents, not to mention the dismay of visitors and tourists. Our peace and wellbeing have been severely impacted in many ways in the past several years, from the Growler jet installation, to their now proposed expansion, to the naval blasting and bombing of our marine sanctuaries, to the invasion of our parks and lands by naval "practice" exercises using citizenry as "pretend" targets, etc. We have had enough. Giving approval to outdoor shooting ranges in our county will give the go-ahead to yet more invasive operations, further destroying our peace and privacy, negatively impacting the precious environment, and will put a large percentage of Jefferson County residents over -the -edge. Please, ask yourselves, in today's climate of inadequate gun control laws, daily episodes of violent and mortal mass gun attacks on our people, should officials representing the people of Jefferson County enact a regulation that gives development permission to a for-profit shooting range -- against the will of the people? Sincerely, Alea Waters, RN 375 Woodland Ave. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00174 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Fwd: ZON18-00036: SHOOTING RANGE REGS -Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-0275 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00175 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Shooting Ranges - Planning Commission Desk Shooting Ranges Lang Russel <langrussel@olypen.com> Fri 11/16/2018 11:56 AM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Dear Planners: Page 1 of 1 I am strongly opposed to permitting any outdoor shooting range in Jefferson County. The impacts of noise and environment degradation are completely unacceptable. Sincerely, Lang Russel 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00176 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Amendments to Title 18 Relating to shooting faci... - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 2 Amendments to Title 18 Relating to shooting facilities. Bob Siegel <bob@ijusticelaw.com> Fri 11/16/2018 12:38 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; RE: Tarboo Ridge shooting facility To All Concerned, There are so many issues that the proposed facility raises that I could certainly use as the basis for my opposition. However, I would like to addressjust one here, which is probably the most important to me and many others similarly situated. That is, THE SANCTITY OF SOLITUDE. I, like so many others in the affected area, specifically chose this area and moved here after a lifetime of searching for a place where nature is abundant and protected, people were not crowded together, animals thrived, and solitude is sacred. I chose to forego the many luxuries and amenities of an urban life in exchange for this so rare and disappearing quality. And now, after years of homesteading the land, and building what I believed to be a legacy for myself and my family and friends, the very foundation of this effort is threatened, for no other reason than entertainment and personal profit. As I walk outside on a cool and damp November morning, watching the mist on the mountains and over the bay, or on a warm Summer afternoon watching eagles soar and sunlight bathe the mountains, should I be forced to endure the distant, but ubiquitous, crackle of weapons of war being fired for profit and entertainment? Should I, and all of the other wildlife residing here be forced to live under fire? Clearly, such a specter is disturbing at best. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00177 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Amendments to Title 18 Relating to shooting faci... - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 The sanctity of my solitude will be forever destroyed as will be the sacred character of this entire area. What price do we put on the sanctity of solitude? Can it be measured? Should it be sold off to the highest bidder? I think not, and I urge anyone who has any influence over this matter to oppose it wholeheartedly and vigorously! Respectfully, Robert J. Siegel Attorney At Law 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00178 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Comment on ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Comment on ZON18-00036 Deborah Pedersen <deborahgpedersen@yahoo.com> Fri 11/16/2018 1:06 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; To the Jefferson County Planning Commission: Page 1 of 2 Having attended the Planning Commission's Wednesday, November 7, 2018, hearing at the Chimacum High School Auditorium and watched staff's presentation, I became concerned about the terms in our current Title 18 JCC that were pointed out as not adequately defined. Staff's draft ordinance amending Title 18 JCC relating to shooting facilities provides a number of amendments that improve Title 18 by better defining some important terms and concepts; however, I would like to see additional specificity that regulates outdoor commercial shooting facilities and hopefully implements a few of the "guardrails" recently mentioned by County Commissioner Kate Dean. I hope that Title 18 is the appropriate place to place them. The use table should specifically note that outdoor shooting facilities require a C(d), or discretionary conditional use permit. Title 18 sets forth our adopted land use policies about the shooting facilities. Most importantly, they are only allowed as "small-scale recreation and tourist uses." If and when a staff member or a hearings examiner reviews a conditional use permit application for a shooting facility, he/she can rely on this language. If the terms "small-scale" and "recreation and tourist" uses are not well enough defined, then the definitions should be improved, but they should not be redefined in a way that violates their obvious meaning. Shooting ranges are at the extreme end of the noise and danger spectrum of uses. Title 8.70 Noise Control needs to be "harmonized" with Title 18, both limiting the number of hours per day and the number of days per week during which shooting may occur. Seven days a week and 15 hours a day, all year round, are far too much to allow for a use as noisy as shooting. Uses on forest land are to be small- scale, defined as having minimal impact on neighbors. Constant, year-round loud noise cannot be construed as having a minimal impact. Please set specific limits on days per week and hours per day. It appears that a commercial shooting range must obtain an operating permit which includes a noise abatement plan. Unless standards have already been set governing the degree to which noise must be abated, the UCC must provide those limits. While off-duty training by members of law enforcement and the military could certainly be justified at a recreational facility, it defies all logic to include on -duty professional training under the same umbrella. Allowing such training is contrary to adopted public policy as found in our 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00179 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Comment on ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 comprehensive plan and JCC and is certainly contrary to the vast majority of public sentiment and as expressed publicly recently. It should be specifically excluded in Chapter 18 and in the Performance and Use -Specific Standards. For safety purposes, specific setbacks should be set. Can staff provide helpful language about what constitutes "minimal impact' on neighbors, perhaps from other regulations, such as those for marijuana businesses? Surely, this wheel has already been invented and has been used to make sure that development meets the clearly expressed goals for our county and our adopted plans and code. Although the new category of commercial shooting facility is based on a public process and its report, that public process does not begin to have the weight of years of county -wide public process in the development and adoption of our comprehensive plan. Commercial shooting facilities in our forest lands should be carefully restricted in order to ensure that they are small- scale recreational or tourist uses and that their impacts on neighbors can be minimized. Thank you for your consideration of my testimony. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00180 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 FW: ZON18-00036 - Gun Range Ordinance - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 2 FW: ZON18-00036 - Gun Range Ordinance jeffbocc Fri 11/16/2018 1:08 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Importance: High Hearing Comment forwarded to you as it came to leffbocc(o)co.iefferson.wa.us . Julie Shannon Executive Secretary II Jefferson County Commissioners Office 360 385 9100 From: Brenda Bole <irieaerie@olypen.com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 12:25 PM To: jeffbocc <jeffbocc@coJefferson.wa.us> Subject: ZON18-00036 - Gun Range Ordinance I would like to thank the Commissioners for considering these comments on the draft commercial gun range ordinance. Your review of the facts and your attention to the voices of your constituents is appreciated, as this very significant development is considered. It would be in the best interest of Jefferson County and its residents to be protected to at least the standards of our neighboring counties. Restrictions, especially as regards 500 -yard setback from lakes and other shorelines, should be honored and maintained. Setback standards adopted by Kitsap County and Callam County should be matched, at the least. I am against the use of this facility by military. We have Whidbey, Bremerton, Bangor, Indian Island, and painfully and potentially the Olympic National Forest. The military does not need this resource and there is no need to bring in large artillery, allow night shooting, or have helicopters or other aircraft landing. In the not -so -distant past no animals were protected and orcas were put in pens without a second thought. Over the decades the recognition of the moral need to protect a greater number of animals grew. We know our culture today is protecting the orca and the salmon, 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00181 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 FW: ZON18-00036 - Gun Range Ordinance - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 symbols of where we live. No animal, named or unnamed, protected or unprotected, can survive under gun fire. Our moral obligations do not end with the orcas and the salmon. It reaches to all of the animals and to all of the people living here. Noise level regulations are a must. Limiting the project to indoor firing would address many of these problems. WAC 173-60-040 should be a minimum standard of regulation. A full SEPA review should be required of this project. In attending public meetings on this proposed ordinance, there is clearly a strong sentiment in the community that the County is making decisions based on a fear of litigation rather than on objective reasoning. To make whatever decision is ultimately made, there is a direct need to use your authority to extend the moratorium while further research and discussions are had from a position that recognizes the many descending voices to this paramilitary styled gun range. I also support the recommended guidelines submitted by the Tarboo Ridge Coalition. Thank you for your time and consideration Brenda Bole 3441 Eaglemount Road Pt. Townsend, WA 98368 360-732-1313 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00182 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Regueira, Celene<CREGUEIRA@jeffersonhealthcare.org> Fri 11/16/2018 1:57 PM TaPlanning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Page 1 of 1 I stand with the Tarboo Ridge Coalition in resisting the proposed gun range. The natural environment and public safety should be paramount in this regard. Not private enterprise profit and military preparedness at the expense of peaceful citizens who live in the Tarboo Ridge wilderness area. These individuals live there because they can celebrate a safe, sane, natural environment in which they can live, raise families (including pets), operate businesses and enjoy the beautiful lake and surrounding wilderness. Furthermore, noisy gun ranges like the one proposed impacts wildlife, livestock, and people. If fouls the environment with noise, traffic, and unnecessary pollution. It is a stretch for me to even relate to a recreational shooting facility because I have never wanted to own a gun or rifle and do not hunt. A recreational shooting facility (gun range really, right?) near a placid lake is anathema. The least you could do is to locate the facility 500 yards from any lake, stream, watershed and of course, it needs to be indoors. Hours of operation must also be restricted and enforced 365 days of the year. It could be your backyard or your child or pet that is negatively affected by this facility. The funds going in to this facility can better be used for things to enhance our pristine northwest environment, not destroy it. Thank you, Celene Regueira Port Townsend, WA 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00183 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 With regard to shooting ranges - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 1 With regard to shooting ranges Mabs Sanok <mabscsanok89@gmai1.com> Fri 11/16/2018 2:09 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; My name is Mabs Sanok and I live on S. Discovery Rd. in Port Townsend and own property at 3654 Eaglemount Rd. I am writing because I have grave concern about the lack of protections for existing property owners with regard to the new Commercial Shooting Range ordinance, particularly as it applies to Mr. D'amico's proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility. The land Mr. D'amico purchased is subject to a CUP. When I look at the approval criteria for a CUP listed on the Jefferson County website, I have a very difficult time seeing how his application for a recreation and training center that incorporates seven outdoor gun ranges and two helicopter landing pads can be considered as meeting the very first criterion: "The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property." Furthermore, from what I understand about the nature of gun ranges and the scope of the intended facility, I can't see it conforming to many additional criteria listed. But it appears that D'amico's threat of lawsuit is a powerful tool for pushing through his agenda regardless. That fact concerns me greatly. Please, please consider the devastating impacts this facility will have on neighboring property owners. My husband and I chose to invest in our land. Our land is our legacy to our children. It represents the bulk of our family wealth and security. We purchased our land twelve years ago, well aware of the nature of rural life and the fact that we are surrounded by commercial forest land. We accept the noise of forestry harvest, hunting, agricultural machinery, and neighborhood target shooting. They are part of the rural character of our community. But sustained, high-intensity gunfire possible from 7am to 10 pm seven days a week has the very real potential of making our property both uninhabitable and unsellable. Such an impact would violate our rights as property owners to be able to enjoy our property. Our constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness as landowners is at stake. I have been told repeatedly on social media by Mr. D'amico and others that the commercial forest land surrounding his property will provide an adequate sound buffer for neighboring properties. However, when I asked Mr. D'amico what his noise mitigation plan was for when that commercial forest land is harvested, he told me I should be pressuring Pope not to cut it. He then told me it was a ridiculous question because why would he "fix his roof before it was leaking." Such a dismissive attitude towards the realistic concerns of neighbors brings into question Mr. D'amico's commitment to being a good neighbor, himself. In fact, he has a history of conflict with neighbors that stretches quite far back in time. In summary, I ask that the committee take seriously the impacts this development will have on both property values and the existing owners' rights to enjoy their properties. With no code enforcement officer in Jefferson County, with a developer who has a history of conflict with neighbors, and with an ordinance that does nothing to restrict size, intensity, and type of training being offered, residents of the Tarboo/Eaglemount/Dabob areas have reason to feel threatened by this facility. Thank you for both your service and your consideration, Mabs Sanok 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00184 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Zon18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 1 Zon18-00036 Mabs Sanok <mabscsanok89@gmai1.com> Fri 11/16/2018 2:10 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; My name is Mabs Sanok and I live on S. Discovery Rd. in Port Townsend and own property at 3654 Eaglemount Rd. I am writing because I have grave concern about the lack of protections for existing property owners with regard to the new Commercial Shooting Range ordinance, particularly as it applies to Mr. D'amico's proposed Cedar Hills Recreational Facility. The land Mr. D'amico purchased is subject to a CUP. When I look at the approval criteria for a CUP listed on the Jefferson County website, I have a very difficult time seeing how his application for a recreation and training center that incorporates seven outdoor gun ranges and two helicopter landing pads can be considered as meeting the very first criterion: "The conditional use is harmonious and appropriate in design, character, and appearance with the existing or intended character and quality of development in the vicinity of the subject property and with the physical characteristics of the subject property." Furthermore, from what I understand about the nature of gun ranges and the scope of the intended facility, I can't see it conforming to many additional criteria listed. But it appears that D'amico's threat of lawsuit is a powerful tool for pushing through his agenda regardless. That fact concerns me greatly. Please, please consider the devastating impacts this facility will have on neighboring property owners. My husband and I chose to invest in our land. Our land is our legacy to our children. It represents the bulk of our family wealth and security. We purchased our land twelve years ago, well aware of the nature of rural life and the fact that we are surrounded by commercial forest land. We accept the noise of forestry harvest, hunting, agricultural machinery, and neighborhood target shooting. They are part of the rural character of our community. But sustained, high-intensity gunfire possible from 7am to 10 pm seven days a week has the very real potential of making our property both uninhabitable and unsellable. Such an impact would violate our rights as property owners to be able to enjoy our property. Our constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness as landowners is at stake. I have been told repeatedly on social media by Mr. D'amico and others that the commercial forest land surrounding his property will provide an adequate sound buffer for neighboring properties. However, when I asked Mr. D'amico what his noise mitigation plan was for when that commercial forest land is harvested, he told me I should be pressuring Pope not to cut it. He then told me it was a ridiculous question because why would he "fix his roof before it was leaking." Such a dismissive attitude towards the realistic concerns of neighbors brings into question Mr. D'amico's commitment to being a good neighbor, himself. In fact, he has a history of conflict with neighbors that stretches quite far back in time. In summary, I ask that the committee take seriously the impacts this development will have on both property values and the existing owners' rights to enjoy their properties. With no code enforcement officer in Jefferson County, with a developer who has a history of conflict with neighbors, and with an ordinance that does nothing to restrict size, intensity, and type of training being offered, residents of the Tarboo/Eaglemount/Dabob areas have reason to feel threatened by this facility. Thank you for both your service and your consideration, Mabs Sanok 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00185 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 tmch@olypen.com Fri 11/16/2018 2:15 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Page 1 of 1 A proposal such as this that will impact so many and benefit so few needs to be very carefully dissected for all potential impacts and the long term degradation of property values and how far reaching that impact can be. Typically projects with such a large scale impact will have an overlay on a surrounding area or region of area and I am wondering if there has been a study or thought to determine how large this area impact could be and how the proponent would mitigate such a significant impact. Thank you for your hard work and consideration on such a complex and emotional land use issue. Terry McHugh John L. Scott PT 360-301-1763 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00186 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Public Comment for ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 3 Public Comment for ZON18-00036 PJ Sullivan <patrick@ssnwhq.com> Fri 11/16/2018 2:40 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; cc:'Greg Overstreet' <greg@ssnwhq.com>; 5 1 attachment 11-16-18 Planning Commission letter.docx; Nov. 16, 2018 Please accept this public testimony for the Jefferson County Planning Commission's debate regarding ZON18-00036. This letter is in support of the "harmonizing" updates to the Unified Development Code as recommended by Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Philip Hunsucker. Years ago, County officials told Joe D'Amico to find a more remote place for his company's shooting range. And so began a search for a suitable parcel zoned as "inholding forest" which means no adjoining residential neighbors and almost no chance of residential encroachment. Jefferson County Central Services Director Mark McCauley, during an early meeting of the Commercial Shooting Facilities Committee (which he chaired) in 2018, held up a County zoning map and said that new commercial shooting ranges would have to be located south of State Route 104 and east of Highway 101— exactly what Mr. D'Amico had concluded after spending years looking for an inholding parcel. If the County Commissioners mean what is said in the moratorium about wanting to protect the viability of commercial shooting ranges, the parcel near Tarboo Lake meets that goal because it is about as isolated a piece of private property as still exists in East Jefferson. There are no residential neighbors within one mile and comparatively few within two miles. The parcel is surrounded by commercial forestland owned by Pope Resources and forestland owned by the State provides a further buffer to potential residential encroachment. Mr. D'Amico did consider other inholding parcels, but they were closer to populated areas so he opted for the more remote location which happened to be near Tarboo Lake. He obtained the parcel in 2017 from a willing seller at market price. Mr. D'Amico purchased the property specifically because Jefferson County Code indicates that an inholding parcel is most suitable for a shooting range. He filed permit applications with the County in June of 2017 to start the land development process. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00187 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Public Comment for ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 3 Mr. D'Amico is prepared to seek a Conditional Use Permit and put his proposal before a Hearings Examiner with SEPA review and let the established public process determine the outcome. Jefferson County's Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor has said, repeatedly, that the County cannot legally write an ordinance that favors one specific location over another, or one specific project over another. The same standard applies to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also knows, through other land use issues, that the NIMBY (not in my backyard) protest defense carries no weight, otherwise nothing would be built anywhere. With more than 66 percent of Jefferson County already under state or federal control, and more land being set aside each year for conservation, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for commercial growth at the same time County leaders talk about budget problems from lack of revenue. Indeed, candidate forums this year included repeated calls from local and state -level candidates to make it easier for businesses and property owners to obtain development permits. The new Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance has 8 layers of safety and operational rules. It requires a commercial shooting facility to be built to the same health and safety standard no matter who or how many use the facility. Containment of rounds fired is required. All users are subject to restrictions on types and caliber of rifles and handguns. Sound abatement procedures are to be detailed. The ordinance gives the County immediate authority to stop operations if the operating permit is violated. Few businesses are going to be so heavily regulated. In terms of the sound of gunfire, which based on public comment is the most common concern with the location of any commercial shooting facility, the proposed site at Tarboo Lake should not be pre- judged with the sounds that currently come from the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association ranges. The new CSF ordinance, and a variety of other operational factors some of which are to be decided in the Conditional Use Permit process, indicate that the sound of the legal gunfire — a use which is protected under state law — won't be as widespread as some people claim. Fact Checks: -- Contrary to testimony given at the Nov. 7 Planning Commission meeting, Tarboo Lake is not the headwaters to Tarboo Creek. Browns Lake is where Tarboo Creek originates. The outflow from Tarboo Lake dries up for much of the year. --The Kitsap County ordinance the Tarboo Ridge Coalition touts as the basis for its suggested regulations has not been fully tested in court, particularly the ban on shooting around lakes. Jefferson County's Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor has advised the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission against adoption of any boundary or setback rules which would be considered arbitrary and capricious especially when dealing with a Second Amendment right. In closing, please support the "harmonizing" updates to the Unified Development Code as recommended by Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Philip Hunsucker. Respectfully, 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00188 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Public Comment for ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk Page 3 of 3 Patrick Sullivan Port Townsend 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00189 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Nov. 16, 2018 Please accept this public testimony for the Jefferson County Planning Commission's debate regarding ZON18-00036. This letter is in support of the "harmonizing" updates to the Unified Development Code as recommended by Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Philip Hunsucker. Years ago, County officials told Joe D'Amico to find a more remote place for his company's shooting range. And so began a search for a suitable parcel zoned as "inholding forest" which means no adjoining residential neighbors and almost no chance of residential encroachment. Jefferson County Central Services Director Mark McCauley, during an early meeting of the Commercial Shooting Facilities Committee (which he chaired) in 2018, held up a County zoning map and said that new commercial shooting ranges would have to be located south of State Route 104 and east of Highway 101— exactly what Mr. D'Amico had concluded after spending years looking for an inholding parcel. If the County Commissioners mean what is said in the moratorium about wanting to protect the viability of commercial shooting ranges, the parcel near Tarboo Lake meets that goal because it is about as isolated a piece of private property as still exists in East Jefferson. There are no residential neighbors within one mile and comparatively few within two miles. The parcel is surrounded by commercial forestland owned by Pope Resources and forestland owned by the State provides a further buffer to potential residential encroachment. Mr. D'Amico did consider other inholding parcels, but they were closer to populated areas so he opted for the more remote location which happened to be near Tarboo Lake. He obtained the parcel in 2017 from a willing seller at market price. Mr. D'Amico purchased the property specifically because Jefferson County Code indicates that an inholding parcel is most suitable for a shooting range. He filed permit applications with the County in June of 2017 to start the land development process. Mr. D'Amico is prepared to seek a Conditional Use Permit and put his proposal before a Hearings Examiner with SEPA review and let the established public process determine the outcome. Jefferson County's Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor has said, repeatedly, that the County cannot legally write an ordinance that favors one specific location over another, or one specific project over another. The same standard applies to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also knows, through other land use issues, that the NIMBY (not in my backyard) protest defense carries no weight, otherwise nothing would be built anywhere. With more than 66 percent of Jefferson County already under state or federal control, and more land 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00190 being set aside each year for conservation, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for commercial growth at the same time County leaders talk about budget problems from lack of revenue. Indeed, candidate forums this year included repeated calls from local and state -level candidates to make it easier for businesses and property owners to obtain development permits. The new Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance has 8 layers of safety and operational rules. It requires a commercial shooting facility to be built to the same health and safety standard no matter who or how many use the facility. Containment of rounds fired is required. All users are subject to restrictions on types and caliber of rifles and handguns. Sound abatement procedures are to be detailed. The ordinance gives the County immediate authority to stop operations if the operating permit is violated. Few businesses are going to be so heavily regulated. In terms of the sound of gunfire, which based on public comment is the most common concern with the location of any commercial shooting facility, the proposed site at Tarboo Lake should not be pre -judged with the sounds that currently come from the Jefferson County Sportsmen Association ranges. The new CSF ordinance, and a variety of other operational factors some of which are to be decided in the Conditional Use Permit process, indicate that the sound of the legal gunfire — a use which is protected under state law — won't be as widespread as some people claim. Fact Checks: -- Contrary to testimony given at the Nov. 7 Planning Commission meeting, Tarboo Lake is not the headwaters to Tarboo Creek. Browns Lake is where Tarboo Creek originates. The outflow from Tarboo Lake dries up for much of the year. --The Kitsap County ordinance the Tarboo Ridge Coalition touts as the basis for its suggested regulations has not been fully tested in court, particularly the ban on shooting around lakes. Jefferson County's Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor has advised the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission against adoption of any boundary or setback rules which would be considered arbitrary and capricious especially when dealing with a Second Amendment right. In closing, please support the "harmonizing" updates to the Unified Development Code as recommended by Jefferson County Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Philip Hunsucker. Respectfully, Patrick Sullivan Port Townsend 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00191 ZON18-00036 PLEASE READ - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 PLEASE READ fern stroble <fern.estroble@gmail.com> Fri 11/16/2018 3:49 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; My husband, Pat, and I have lived 24 years on our acreage located 2 miles from the proposed site for a Para Military Training Facility. We chose our property for the necessity of its quiet surroundings. Pat suffers combat -induced PTSD from serving our country as a helicopter door gunner in the Vietnam War. Together, we began a honey bee business in 2012. Our business is doing extremely well, in part due to our location and the type of bee stock we work with. This is an aggressive bee which requires us both to suit down AND have a calm demeanor during our necessary inspections of their hives. Page 1 of 1 We oppose having a Para Military Training Facility in our back yard, due to the unrelenting noise pollution of helicopters, firearms, explosives of any type. These type sounds will devastate my husband with flashbacks, ruin our lives and our honey business. Not to mention the impact it will have on the 5 communities with an approximate 350 families within a 3 mile radius of ground zero. The real estate values of our properties will go down as well. When buyers look to purchase a home in the country ... they generally don't seek a place offering the noise from a war zone. Please don't allow zoning for a Para Military Training Facility at Tarboo Lake, it will not and could never be a compatible neighbor in our area. Sincerely, Fern and Pat Stroble TARBOO CREEK HONEY 943 Old Tarboo Rd Quilcene, Wa 98376 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00192 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Fwd: ZON18-00036 PLEASE READ - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 1 Fwd: ZON18-00036 PLEASE READ fern stroble <fern.estroble@gmail.com> Fri 11/16/2018 3:58 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: fern stroble <fern.estroble@cimail.com> Date: Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 15:58 Subject: ZON18-00036 PLEASE READ To: <plancomm@co.iefferson.wa.us> My husband, Pat, and I have lived 24 years on our acreage located 2 miles from the proposed site for a Para Military Training Facility. We chose our property for the necessity of its quiet surroundings. Pat suffers combat -induced PTSD from serving our country as a helicopter door gunner in the Vietnam War. Together, we began a honey bee business in 2012. Our business is doing extremely well, in part due to our location and the type of bee stock we work with. This is an aggressive bee which requires us both to suit down AND have a calm demeanor during our necessary inspections of their hives. We oppose having a Para Military Training Facility in our back yard, due to the unrelenting noise pollution of helicopters, firearms, explosives of any type. These type sounds will devastate my husband with flashbacks, ruin our lives and our honey business. Not to mention the impact it will have on the 5 communities with an approximate 350 families within a 3 mile radius of ground zero. The real estate values of our properties will go down as well. When buyers look to purchase a home in the country ... they generally don't seek a place offering the noise from a war zone. Please don't allow zoning for a Para Military Training Facility at Tarboo Lake, it will not and could never be a compatible neighbor in our area. Sincerely, Fern and Pat Stroble TARBOO CREEK HONEY 943 Old Tarboo Rd Quilcene, Wa 98376 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00193 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-0036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-0036 Peter Bahls <peter@nwwatershed.org> Fri 11/16/2018 4:25 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@co.jefferson.wa.us>; 5 1 attachment NWI-Planning Commission shooting range ZON18-00036 comments Nov 16 2018.pdf, Page 1 of 1 Please include attached letter from Northwest Watershed Institute as part of the public record. Thank you! Peter Bahls, Executive Director Northwest Watershed Institute 3407 Eddy Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-385-6786 www.nwwatershed.org 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00194 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 -1r.11 �wc> Northwest Watershed Institute Planning Commission c/o Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Email to plancomm(a�co.jefferson.wa.us 3407 Eddy Street I Port Townsend, Washington 98368 voice 360.385.6786 fax 360.385.2833 email peter@nwwatershed.org I www.nlNwatershed.org November 16, 2018 RE: ZON 18-00036 Proposed Amendments to the UDC, Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities Dear Members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, First, I ask you to carefully consider and support the recommendations provided by Tom Richardson, retired attorney and District #1 representative on the Commercial Shooting Facilities Review Committee, in his letter of November 8, 2018. Mr. Richardson points out critical changes that need to be made to the Title 18 amendments proposed by Philip Hunsucker, chief civil deputy prosecuting for Jefferson County and important role of the Planning Commission in addressing the land use issues left out of the ordinance. Second, I ask you to support the analysis and recommendations provided by the Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC). The TRC letter describes the major shortcomings in the new commercial shooting facilities ordinance ("new ordinance") that can only be addressed at this point as proposed amendments to the UCD by the Planning Commission. These critical gaps in the new ordinance in regard to appropriate siting criteria and size of shooting facilities appropriate for Jefferson County are not solved by the proposed amendments to the land use code. If anything, the minor proposed changes to the land use codes appear to make it easier, not harder, to build a large and poorly sited weapons training facility in an incompatible location. Changes needed to the UCD to deal with shooting ranges are an extremely complex issue with very high stakes for the long-term health and welfare of Jefferson County's residents and environment. It is not fair to give the Planning Commission only enough time to rubber stamp the proposed minor amendments that do not address size and siting criteria; two considerations that are key to protecting the quality of life, property rights, and the environment in Jefferson County. 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00195 Northwest Watershed urges the Planning Commission to request, in no uncertain terms, that the Board of County Commissioners extend the Commercial Shooting Range Ordinance for 6 months to allow time for both the Planning Commission and BoCC to carefully evaluate, develop, and adopt land use code amendments that protect the interests of Jefferson County's citizens and our public resources. The public is not served by rushing this process through and it is my understanding that the BoCC has legal authority, and justification in this case, to extend the moratorium. Given that the moratorium ordinance addressed only the Title 8 upgrades, the BoCC would likely need to enact an amendment to the MO that specifically articulates the need for companion revisions to Title 18. Preparations for extending the moratorium should be made immediately so that there is no "gap" when applications for new shooting ranges could become vested under the existing regulations. Sincerely, Peter Bahls Executive Director 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00196 ZON18-00036 - Planning Commission Desk ZON18-00036 Jean Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Fri 11/16/2018 4:25 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; 5 1 attachment Commercial shooting facilities 11.16.2018.docx; Thank you for your consideration of my comments Jean Ball Page 1 of 1 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00197 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 November 16, 2018Jean Ball, Qui Ice ne Resident atTarboo Ridge Commercial Shooting Facility Title 18 Proposed Draft Amendments I appreciate and value the proposed amendments to title 18 supplied by staff for consideration by the BoCC and Planning Commission. I would like a few other issues considered. 18.20.030 (8)(d) Says shooting areas should be surrounded by 8'high earthen berm, wall or depression. While that may be sufficient for a non-commercial shooting facility in someone's back yard, it is not sufficient for a commercial shooting facility with higher volumes of paid guests who are firing from multiple points over the course of unspecified hours of the day. I propose that all commercial shooting facilities be required to have no less than 8' high solid fences which are sight obscure and which surround the perimeter of the property boundary, fully enclosing the facility and set back 25' from the property boundary (just as is required by marijuana producers in Jefferson County). Such a fencing requirement would help prevent unauthorized access by humans and wildlife and it would also prevent stray projectiles from leaving the subject property. This fencing should be accompanied by a "Screen -A" style landscaping plan as mentioned in the next paragraph. 18.30.130 Talks about landscape screening for business land uses in Jefferson County. I propose that all commercial shooting facilities be required to plant and maintain a "Screen -A" landscape plan which shall be located around the property boundary. This "Screen -A" landscape plan should be no less than 10' in width and be accompanied by an 8' high sight obscure solid fence which shall be set back no less than 25' from the property boundary as mentioned in the previous paragraph. 18.40.530 Speaks about approval criteria of business land use. Hours of operation for commercial shooting facilities should be carefully curtailed so as to protect the neighboring properties useful enjoyment of their land, the harmonious and appropriate design of the rural character, and to avoid detrimental use of properties in the vicinity. Failure to specify hours of operation will result in significant adverse impacts to the human and natural environment in the vicinity. The term "vicinity" should be defined to mean any location which is impacted in any manner as detected by any of the 5 senses (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste). Hours of business operation which impact the environment or humans in the vicinity should be severely limited to standard bankers' hours. Staff proposal to allow indoor commercial shooting facilities on any R/R parcel is a terrible idea and will likely be met with an overwhelming outpouring of opposition from the community. 18.20.350 (1)(a) Small Scale Recreational and Tourist Uses says that aerial recreational activities such as balloon rides, glider and parachute events shall be allowed land uses. It does not say that motorized 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00198 aircraft shall be allowed. Yes, I realize that glider and parachute events require the use of a motorized aircraft, but the term "events" precludes these motorized aircraft from being an allowed use on a regular basis. The spirit of the JCC is clear to me, regular use of motorized aircraft is an unwelcome land use in this neck of the woods. Given the potentially significant impacts to the useful enjoyment of property owners' land, helicopters should be prohibited outright, with the exception of emergency evacuation. Further, 18.70.060 (5) specifies that one of the exempt noises are "aircraft in flight or flight operations at airports and airfields". I do not believe any designated forest land in Jefferson County should be used as an airfield or airport. Therefore, aircraft's rightful place is at the airport, not at a commercial shooting facility, and not in conjunction with a cottage industry permit on an undesignated business location. 18.20.350 (8)(e) Specifies that the minimum lot size for a rifle range shall be 10 acres. That strikes me as woefully inadequate. If we consider the fact that projectiles may travel several miles, the fact that sound travels several miles, that lead contamination travels in the ground and surface water and that 10 acres is just a tiny piece of land for such activities, I am not at all satisfied with that particular portion of JCC. Please add a zero and make the minimum lot size 100 acres for rifle ranges. 18.20.350 Small Scale recreation and Tourist Uses is clearly not the right place to put a commercial shooting facility. Multiple firing points at commercial shooting facilities should be limited to no more than 20, with a maximum of 8 persons firing at any given time. Destructive devices as defined in 18US 921 should not be permitted at any time in Jefferson County. "Minimal impacts" are not those which degrade the environment, create sound pollution, destroy residents' peaceful enjoyment of the lakes, or create hostility in the community. "Leisure or recreational in nature" is not commercial or military. The watershed aquifer capacity allowance and allowable water rights should be considered when determining the allowable locations for commercial shooting facilities. Sub -basins with extremely limited reserves and potential for future water rights to be granted should be grounds for denial of permit applications for commercial shooting facilities. For example, my home is above the Tarboo sub - basin. The Department of Ecology only has about half a dozen more water rights to grant in my region, and there is a maximum allowable volume measured in gallons. If Jefferson County permits a business to use all the remaining water volume rights, no more homes will be allowed in my region. We need homes 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00199 desperately in this area. We do not need more commercial shooting facilities. Allowing a private enterprise to snuff out the ability for landowners to build homes and gain water rights to supply their homes is unacceptable land use. Jefferson County's crown jewel is our natural environment. We live here to immerse ourselves in the natural wonders that exist in this region. We cherish our shorelines, our waterways, our mountains, our lakes, our streams, our wildlife and our peaceful enjoyment of those things. We only have 10 small public lakes in Jefferson County. Those lakes are a source of calm. We swim, fish, and boat in those pristine lakes. Many of those lakes don't allow motorized boats so why would we allow the unrelenting disturbances of commercial shooting facilities (I'm not talking about hunters) to permanently destroy our peaceful enjoyment of these natural treasures with unrelenting gunfire? NO! This is not acceptable. This is not reasonable use of land and should not be allowed to exist within several miles of any of our lakes. 500 yards is nowhere near sufficient and that is not even being proposed by staff. I hope our Commissioners come to their senses on this issue and protect our lakes more thoroughly than the Critical Areas Ordinance does because 150' setback is a joke. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of November, 2018 Jean Ball 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00200 ZON18-00036 Stand up for our watershed - Planning Commission Desk Page 1 of 2 ZON18-00036 Stand up for our watershed Sonia Story <sonia@moveplaythrive.com> Fri 11/16/2018 4:29 PM To:Planning Commission Desk <PCommissionDesk@cojefferson.wa.us>; Part 2 From Sonia Story Eaglemount Road, Chimacum, WA Nov. 16, 2018 Greetings Members of the Jefferson County Planning Commission, Thank you for your service to our community. As you can see from the attachment here, the proposed commercial shooting facility is exactly adjacent to Tarboo Lake. No sane individual would allow an enormous weapons training facility so close to a pristine watershed, wildlife corridor and salmon restoration site. Please do away with any fears of lawsuits and do the right thing. To be consistent with the Jefferson county comprehensive plan, the designation for gun ranges MUST be kept for only "small-scale recreation and tourist uses". And "When a development regulation is inconsistent with a Comp Plan, the development regulation is UNLAWFUL." (according to Bricklin and Newman, land use attorneys, Re: "Amendment to Title 18 Relating to Shooting Facilities" emphasis added). I urge you to choose the most lawful and common sense approach is to REJECT the staff's proposed Title 18 ordinance which leaves the whole county open to commercial shooting facilities of unlimited size and intensity. The land use attorneys of TRC have already proposed a sound plan that can be followed and would withstand legal challenge. It is a "no brainer" to follow the TRC recommendations which are based on already legally sound and working ordinance in Kitsap county. Respectfully, Sonia Story 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00201 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 ZON18-00036 Stand up for our watershed - Planning Commission Desk Page 2 of 2 a" Rrsee watri 0 ADOhML z-f[mif O - S-) Fildiu] 11/16/18 Log for Comments to JCPC for Tit. 18 Amendments CSF - 00202 https://owa.co.jefferson.wa.us/owa/ 11/16/2018 Fro From: Robyn Johnson <johnsrobyn@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 1:36 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Public Comment on Title 18 "Harmonizing" 10 December, 2018 To: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners From: Robyn Johnson, Tarboo Bay, Quilcene WA Subject: proposed ordinance harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12-1102-18. Dear Commissioners Dean, Kler, and Sullivan, My lifetime career of leadership in community nonprofit organizations has been to bring people together to grow and keep communities embedded in the values of honesty, fairness, civility, courage, and the passion for a just and caring society. It is disheartening to sit in the BoCC meetings week after week, and hear mostly "small talk" during the commissioners' comment time, after highly significant issues are raised by citizens who are seeking WISE, LEGAL, ORDERLY ACTION. What are we, as citizens, to do when our elected officials refuse to enact leadership in the face of intimidation and threats, and we are unsupported in our efforts by our county government? Where is honest, clear, open leadership in Jefferson County government? I cannot see it. And I hear no explanation for its absence. It makes me feel not so much angry as just plain heartbroken. William Stafford speaks of a thread we follow. What happens when the thread of decency, honesty, and leadership in community life erodes away? The Way It Is There's a thread you follow. It goes among things that change. But it doesn't change. People wonder about what you are pursuing. You have to explain about the thread. But it is hard for others to see. While you hold it you can't get lost. Tragedies happen; people get hurt or die; and you suffer and get old. Nothing you do can stop time's unfolding. You don't ever let go of the thread. Please take the path of truth and courage and extend the Moratorium to have the time to address the extreme problems of Title 8, including removing commercial shooting ranges from the SSRT classification and bifurcating the shooting range ordinance into two ordinances, when in fact they intermingle in content. 'effbocc �r From: Leigh Hearon<leigh@hearoninvestigations.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:11 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Re: Proposed Ordinance "Harmonizing" Title 18 with Jefferson County Code with Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12 To Commissioners Sullivan, Kier, and Dean: I am writing today to ensure that my opinion is part of the public record concerning the proposed ordinance harmonizing Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code with Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance No. 12, so that I may be a party in future lawsuits levied against the County. As you all know, even before the moratorium began Phillip Hunsucker, the man you trust to provide sound and prudent legal advice, has been talking on a weekly, if not daily basis, with representatives from Fort Discovery. We know through a few unredacted emails that he has discussed elements of Fort Discovery's future military training facility with Ft. Discovery's counsel. But there are well over 500 pages of emails between Hunsucker and Overstreet in 2018 in which we don't know what they've discussed, since they've been excluded from the public under the questionable exemption of "mediation communications." Hunsucker's assertion that his hidden emails to and from Greg Overstreet during the entire moratorium period, outside the presence of a trained mediator, have focused on deciding what to mediate is risible and will not stand up to legal challenge. As our commissioners, you should extend the moratorium until the public is fully aware of the communications that have taken place between the County prosecutor and Fort Discovery. You should extend the moratorium until DCD has a code enforcer on staff who can actually enforce ordinances you vote into being. You should seriously consider the thoughtful and appropriate recommendations from the Planning Commission. And you should suggest to Hunsucker that he widen his circle of friends and talk to people who live in the sanctuary of Tarboo Ridge, rather than just the guy who lives in Clallam County and is determined to build a military training facility in Jefferson County, 1.2 miles from my door. Sincerely, Leigh Hearon TRC Board Member 7360 Center Road Quilcene, WA 98376 rrom: Rae Deane Leatham <gerryrae@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:52 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Fwd: Lead Dust At Firearms Ranges Poses A Health Risk: Shots - Health News: NPR, Lead PollutionAtOutdoorFiring Ranges, Outdoor Gun Range bmp EPA Attachments: Lead Dust At Firearms Ranges Poses A Health Risk Shots - Health News NPR.pdf, Lead PollutionAtOutdoorFiringRanges.pdf; Outdoor Gun Range bmp EPA .pdf Board of Commissioners Subject: Lead Dust At Firearms Ranges Poses A Health Risk: Shots - Health News : NPR, LeadPollutionAtOutdoorFiringRanges, Outdoor Gun Range bmp EPA The included documents emphasize the danger of lead from outdoor firing ranges. Table 2.1 in the EPAs Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Gun Ranges have no benefits of locating such a range in either a wooded area or an area with a contiguous body of water but do include the dangers for contamination of wildlife and drinking water sources. While a 500 -yd setback as recommended by the Tarboo Ridge Coalition is laudable it may not be enough to prevent contamination in either the adjacent lake, stream or eventually Hood Canal and its commercial shellfish. Since one Winchester 30-30 bullet contains enough lead to contaminate the entire water supply of Seattle and a modest estimate of 750 rounds per day would contaminate the soil with enough lead to qualify as a superfund site in 2 years I urge you to be wary of licensing any outdoor gun range where runoff can further degrade the waters of Puget Sound and increase the lead in commercial shellfish in Hood Canal Lead levels considered toxic to humans would bankrupt these important industries. If the Tarboo Lake Gun Range is licensed I would urge a legal statement that any violation of maximum lead in adjacent wells, lake, creek, bay or downstream waters which endangers an individual through direct contact and/or consumption of the water be cause for immediate shutdown and cleanup borne at the expense of the gun range owner(s). I urge you to adopt the recommendations of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition. Rae Deane Leatham 46 Village Way PMB 195 Port Ludlow 98365 Sent from my iPhone n p rl shots PUBLIC HEALTH Lead Dust From Firearms Can Pose A Silent Health Risk May 10, 2017 • 2:51 PM ET ANGUS CHEN Firearms using lead ammunition spray lead dust out of the muzzle and ejection port when fired. Herra Kuulapaa Precires/Science Photo Library/Getty Images Firearms safety is key for people who use weapons at work or for recreational shooting. But one risk has been little acknowledged: Lead dust exposure. In a standard bullet, a solid lead core wrapped in a copper jacket sits atop a stack of gunpowder and lead primer. When the gun fires, the primer ignites, the gunpowder lights, and some of the lead on the bullet boils. When the casing snaps out of the ejection port, lead particles trail behind it. As the bullet hurtles down the barrel of the gun, a shower of lead particles follows. If a gun range isn't ventilated well, lead dust collects on shooters' clothing and hands and lingers in the air, where it can be inhaled. The more people shoot, the greater the risk of being exposed to dangerous amounts of lead. It becomes an occupational hazard for weapons instructors, police and defense personnel. It can also put family members at risk. A 1 -year-old boy in Connecticut was found to have high blood lead levels at a routine doctor's visit. There were no lead paint or pipes in the child's home. The exposure was traced to his father's job as a maintenance worker at an indoor shooting range; the father cared for his son after work in lead - contaminated clothing, according to a 2015 report from the state public health department. In order to reduce risk, the Department of Defense has lowered its blood lead standard to 20 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, three times more restrictive than its previous standard, which relied on Occupational Safety and Health Administration guidelines. These OSHA guidelines apply to workers inside the United States, including employees of private firing ranges, but not to customers of those ranges. The DoYs new blood lead policy, in effect as of April, comes after a National Academy of Sciences report published in 2012 showing that defense personnel face significant health risks from lead from firing ranges, defense department spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel James Brindle told NPR. "DOD's subject matter experts in toxicology and occupational medicine used the Committee's report to propose the lower allowable blood lead level." The study also showed that people should expect negative health consequences at the blood lead standard set by OSHA. The OSHA standards for blood lead and exposure to lead have long been criticized as inadequate and dangerously outdated. "The current [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] standard hasn't been updated since the 1970s," says Dr. Elena Page, an occupational and environmental hazards physician at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. "It's widely acknowledged that the OSHA standard is not protective. They're clearly aware of that, and there's been a lot of pressure to change it." OSHA did not provide comments or interviews requested for this story. About 1 million law enforcement officers train on indoor ranges, according to the CDC, and there are 16,000 to 18,000 private indoor ranges in the U.S. Currently, the OSHA standards for lead exposure decree that employees must stop working if they have a blood lead level of 6o micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, and workers can return to the job if their blood lead level drops below 40 for two consecutive tests. But adverse effects on cardiovascular health, brain function and kidney function have been connected to blood lead levels as low as 5. "There's no amount of lead in your blood that's safe," Page says. The issue of lead exposure and firearms is divisive, even the question of whether higher lead levels are unsafe. "Well, that's their opinion," says Larry Keane, the vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. "We believe there are efforts by others that want to diminish people's participation in shooting sports or exercise their second amendment rights. They put out or advocate positions that are unsupported by the evidence." The need for a stricter lead standard is obvious, says Adam Finkel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a former OSHA official. "OSHA is really letting people down," he says. "We're learning more about the neurologic effects of lead, and for whatever reason this substance has the capability of causing a whole spectrum of health effects at the OSHA standard that people don't appreciate." Many effects from lead can be subtle or nonspecific, says Mark Laidlaw, an environmental health scientist at RMIT University in Australia. "Memory and concentration problems, headache, abdominal pain, mood disorders — they can be attributed to a number of things unrelated to lead," he says. "You can have one of these health effects, but the shooters might not realize these are associated with their shooting. They just don't know they're being lead poisoned. At levels slightly higher than 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, people may begin suffering spontaneous abortions or kidney dysfunction, according to the CDC. As the volume of lead in the body increases, the effects become more severe. "At levels of 10 or less, there's definitely evidence of increased incidence of tremor. Some are more cognitive effects," says Catherine Beaucham, an industrial hygienist at NIOSH and author of a 2014 report that found that most people with elevated blood levels were exposed from working at recreational firing ranges. "With acute lead poisoning, you can get wrist drop, nerve problems, abdominal pain. If it gets high enough, you can get a coma and death." Firing ranges can be particularly hazardous environments. Defense department ranges, private recreational firing ranges and law enforcement facilities have been found to be contaminated with high levels of lead, according to investigations by The Oregonian and Seattle Times in 2016 and 2014. Often, neglected or failing ventilation equipment was to blame. A review of lead exposure at shooting ranges that Laidlaw published last month found that nearly all participants in the 36 studies had blood lead levels above the 5 microgram ceiling recommended by the CDC; some had levels higher than 40. "You got to understand, the more bullets you shoot, the higher your blood lead level. The more visits you take to the range, then the higher your blood lead level." And when OSHA has inspected firing ranges in the last few decades, the agency has commonly found lead contamination violations. "It's about 30 years of sampling. They haven't done very many, but just a quick look shows about 35o air samples," Finkel says. About half of samples exceed the 50 microgram per cubic meter air level standard for workplaces, Finkel says, and some gun ranges had contamination levels]up to 24,100 micrograms per cubic meter of air. "So, it's terribly, terribly common, and [OSHA] finds overexposures even to their 40 -year-old inadequate standard." SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS q Veteran Teaches Therapists How To Talk About Gun Safety When Suicide's A Risk The defense department's new blood lead limit of 20 does not go far enough, Laidlaw says. He thinks a better standard would be a maximum of io micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. "It is a step in the right direction, however the best way to deal with the problem is to eliminate lead from bullets and primers," he says. "I worry about the health of the young men and women in the military who are exposed to lead regularly while using firearms." The Defense department has a long-term goal of reducing employees' blood lead levels to below io, Brindle says. "The DOD policy requires mandatory removal of the worker from workplace exposures when their blood lead level exceeds 20, and effectively will achieve the long-term average blood lead level to stay below io," he writes to NPR in an email. But some within the industry say it's not necessary to abandon lead ammunition. " [Lead] is only a problem if [gun ranges] are not designed maintained properly," says Bill Provencher, the co-founder of Carey's Small Arms Range Ventilation in Tinley Park, Ill. "Even if OSHA standards are somewhat risky, a properly ventilated range has hardly detectible lead levels at o.6 [micrograms per cubic meter of air.]" The most important thing aside from range ventilation, Provencher says, is to make sure that people are using safe practices like carefully washing their hands and clothes after shooting. "I would say [awareness] is going from not very good to good," he says. "The people I've met with really high lead levels, most of them did seriously silly things like working in the environment while drinking coffee. Ranges can be an unsafe place, but they can be perfectly safe places. There are people out there who are just hard headed and do silly things." Correction May 11, 2017 An earlier version of this story misspelled Catherine Beaucham's last name as Beauchum. occupational health firearms lead poisoning public health department of defense Sign Up For The Health Newsletter See how medical research, insurance coverage and other news affect your health, sent weekly. SUBSCRIBE By subscribing, you agree to NPR's terms of use and privacy policy. More Stories From NPR HEALTH FDA Seeks Ban On Menthol Cigarettes To Fight Teen Smoking nc/ALI n Startup Offers To Sequence Your Genome Free Of Charge, Then Let You Profit From It Popular on NPR.org POLITICS Yes, It's Almost Decision Time For 2020 Democratic Presidential Hopefuls "VnUrL. A Toy Monkey That Escaped Nazi Germany And Reunited A Family 0 0 NPR Editors' Picks i..au ■■1va E4 Generation Z Is The Most Racially And Ethnically Diverse Yet POLITICS Pence, Putin And Bolton Have 'Informal Conversation' At Asian Summit In Singapore shots About Subscribe READ & LISTEN CONNECT Home Newsletters News Facebook Arts & Life Twitter Music Instagram Podcasts Contact Programs Help ABOUT NPR GET INVOLVED Overview Support Public Radio Finances Sponsor NPR People NPR Careers Press NPR Shop Ombudsman NPR Events Corrections Visit NPR terms of use privacy your privacy choices text only © 2018 npr CENVI RONMENTAL WORKING G R O U P r" Lead Pollution at Outdoor Firing Ranges Jane Houlihan, Research Director Richard Wiles, Senior Vice President Outdoor firing ranges can be highly contaminated with lead Lead is the most prevalent contaminant at Superfund sites across the country (EPA 2001a). The highly toxic metal triggers more Superfund cleanups than any other industrial chemical or waste product in the environment. Lead is considered the number one environmental threat to children's health by the federal government, and at very low levels is linked to subtle developmental delays and reduced I.Q. in children (EPA 2001b, 2001c). Recognition of the toxicity of lead is broad and nonpartisan. On April 17, 2001, the Bush Administration took its first action against lead polluters, in an announcement that the Bush Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would uphold a Clinton Administration rule requiring all businesses releasing 100 pounds of lead a year (or greater) to report this pollution to the government. The announcement came despite objections raised by affected industries. Lead contamination has now emerged in another context: firing ranges. The military has been involved in massive lead cleanup efforts for years, at an estimated 700 military firing ranges across the country. In this report, we present the first estimates of lead pollution at commercial and private firing ranges. Our analysis shows that shooting ranges are likely to be one the biggest sources of lead pollution in the country (Figure 1). Assuming a very modest level of activity at the nation's 1,813 firing ranges - just 15 customers shooting 50 rounds a day - firing ranges would put nearly nine million pounds of lead into the environment per year. This is more lead pollution than is produced by any other industry except metals mining and manufacturing, and waste recovery operations. While most of this lead will likely remain on the site, the nation's firing ranges represent a major potential source of lead in water and wildlife, and a potential liability to nearby property owners who may find themselves living next to a hazardous waste site or who might be victims of lead drifting onto their property. Figure 1. Outdoor firing ranges put more lead into the environment than nearly any other major industrial sector in the U.S., yet they remain almost entirely unregulated. 9- Estimated possible range: 4.1 - 205 million pounds of lead per year' w 0 N 8 C 7- 6- 65 5- .0 4 C 0 3 °- 2 a� J Chemical and Stone, clay, and Electric utilities Electrical Outdoor firing chemical product glass equipment ranges manufacturing manufacturinq manufacturinq (estimated)3 Notes: 1) This figure represents the top five lead polluting industries in the country after metals mining and manufacturing, and waste recovery operations. 2) Industrial emissions are Toxics Release Inventory reportable emissions for 1999 of lead and lead compounds. 3) Assumes 15 people firing 50 rounds per day at 1,813 ranges nationwide. Estimated possible range of lead pollution produced at 1,813 ranges: minimum value shown represents 10 people firing 20 rounds per day for each range; maximum value shown represents 100 people firing 50 rounds per day for each range. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. l 71 8 CONNECTICUT A V E N U E, N. W. - SUITE 6 0 0 - WASHINGTON, D. C. 2 0 0 0 9 T E L. ( 2 0 2) 6 6 7- 6 9 8 2 - F A x ( 2 0 2) 2 3 2- 2 5 9 2 Page 2 Environmental Working Group Firing ranges are exempt from pollution control laws In spite of widespread scientific and political agreement on lead toxicity and the need to reduce it, commercial firing ranges are exempt from the EPA's new lead reporting requirements, and virtually every major pollution control law in the United States. A number of loopholes allow unlimited lead contamination at outdoor firing ranges. In spite of legal precedents to the contrary (VPC 2001), EPA continues its policy allowing firing ranges near water bodies to operate without the pollution discharge permits that are required under the Clean Water Act for all other lead -polluting industries. These ranges present a significant water pollution threat, according to industry sources (NASR 2000). Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, most industries are under strict requirements to dispose of lead waste safely, typically in hazardous waste landfills; shooting ranges are exempt because the act of firing bullets into the soil has not been interpreted by EPA as "discarding" lead. The military's response to contamination at its ranges illustrates the potential magnitude of the problem. The armed forces are involved in massive lead cleanup efforts at an estimated 700 military firing ranges across the country. Private firing ranges enjoy immunity from the environmental laws that drive these cleanups, despite the fact that their operation can result in contamination levels many times what triggers major remediation efforts at industrial and military sites. At very modest levels of activity it is quite possible that every firing range in the U.S. is contaminated with lead at levels that would trigger Superfund cleanups (Figure 2). The threat lead poses to the surrounding environment and communities is not known, but could be substantial. If totally dissolved into the environment: • A single shot from a 30-30 Winchester containing 8.1 grams of lead could contaminate about 370 cubic feet of soil to Superfund site contamination levels (the equivalent of about 56 bathtubs filled with Superfund site dirt) . The lead in just one bullet from a 22 -caliber rifle (2.6 grams) could contaminate one day's worth of drinking water for the entire population of Salt Lake City with a level of lead deemed unsafe by the EPA. (One bullet weighing 2.6 grams fully dissolved in 51,000 gallons of water results in a lead concentration of 15 parts per billion, the legal limit for drinking water.) The amount of lead used in bullet production over a period of four years would be enough to contaminate the entire State of Rhode Island at Superfund levels, to a depth of one foot. Figure 2. Even at modest levels of activity, a single firing range can become contaminated with tens of thousands of pounds of lead. 120000 100000 0 a 80000 iv D M 0 60000 C: 40000 0 a o 20000 T n 0 50 100 150 200 Customers per day at a firing range Source: Environmental Working Group. Page 3 Environmental Working Group What is a safe level of lead exposure? There is no amount of lead exposure known to be completely safe for a child. Federal safety standards are based on exposures that present a risk for a child's brain to be measurably harmed. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses a benchmark safety level of 100 micrograms of lead per liter of a child's blood as an indicator for children at risk for the harmful effects of lead. The federal government considers that a child playing outdoors is at risk for lead poisoning if concentrations of lead in the soil where the child is playing are higher than 400 parts per million (400 ppm). Through incidental contact with soil from outdoor play, children ingest tiny amounts of soil through what the EPA calls children's normal "hand-to-mouth" activity. In other words, children play in the dirt, get dirt on their hands, and then put their hands and fingers in their mouths, or eat food without washing their hands. When industrial pollution impacts residential areas - for instance, when soil is contaminated with levels of lead that could put children at risk for lead poisoning - various environmental laws in this country, including the Superfund law, require cleanup actions to make the area safe for children. In contrast, most firing ranges fall outside the purview of environmental statutes. Lead levels can build up to any amount at most privately owned outdoor firing ranges and neighboring properties, with absolutely no requirements for soil testing or remediation until that property is sold. Generally it is only after rivers, streams, or public water supplies have become contaminated that citizen lawsuits can force cleanup actions. Figure 3. In just 2 years a typical firing range can have lead contami- nation equivalent to a 5 -acre Superfund site. w o_ o � a a� C: E .o ca C o E Co o E u M -0 C: C: o U = a Ln c 10 1❑ 2 years 5 years 10 years 20 years Years of firing range operation at and average rate of 750 rounds per day Source: Environmental Working Group. Table 1. If totally dissolved in the water supply, the lead contained in a single bullet could contaminate the amount of water consumed daily by hundreds of thousands of people. Source: Environmental Working Group. Contamination level was taken as 15 ppb, the action level under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Lead contained in a One bullet can contaminate the Equivalent to the single shell or bullet amount of water consumed daily amount of water (grams) by this many people... consumed daily in... 12 -gauge shotgun shell 28.0 1,866,667 Houston 45 automatic pistol match ammunition 12.0 799,200 San Francisco 308 Winchester round 9.7 648,000 Baltimore 30-30 Winchester round 8.1 540,000 Seattle 9 mm Luger handgun bullet 7.5 496,800 Denver 22 caliber rifle bullet 2.6 172,800 Salt Lake City Source: Environmental Working Group. Contamination level was taken as 15 ppb, the action level under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Page 4 Environmental Working Group Outdoor firing ranges can be contaminated with tremendous amounts of lead that can contaminate water supplies and put children at risk Consider a firing range that has just 15 visitors each day, each of whom fires about 50 rounds or bullets. Assuming an average lead content representative of the common types of ammunition used, in just two years the entire top foot of soil over an area of five acres could be contaminated to Superfund levels. This firing range operating over a period of 20 years would contain about 9.6 times the amount of lead that could trigger a Superfund cleanup (Figure 3). Ranges operating at a higher volume of activity on the same space could easily contaminate the ground to a level where remediation would require the soil to be treated as hazardous waste before it was placed in a double -lined hazardous waste landfill. The lead found in soil at firing ranges will be in the form of various amounts of dust, small fragments, and nearly intact bullets and pellets. The bullets and pellets will dissolve with time as rain leaches through the soil. Depending on soil type and pH, varying amounts of lead can move off the site, potentially contaminating water supplies. At any given time, the contamination profile at a firing range can include highly contaminated soil in the backstop or berm, more diffuse contamination across the entire extent of soil leading to the backstop, and then some area under the ground in which rainwater has leached lead into the groundwater to form a plume of contamination. Lead will migrate more quickly in sandy soil, with a higher potential to contaminate water supplies. The lead contained in even a single bullet can contaminate the amount of water consumed daily by hundreds of thousands of people (Table 1). Children living near firing ranges can be exposed to lead through dust that blows off the range to contaminate the air and soil nearby. Families living near firing ranges could be drinking water from their private well that is contaminated with lead that has leached from the range soil. Public water supplies can be contaminated. In the long-term, each firing range in the U.S. almost certainly represents a piece of land so highly contaminated that it would require a massive cleanup effort to be safe for wildlife or any industrial or residential use. Outdoor firing ranges are exempt from new lead pollution reporting rules New rules finalized by EPA in January 2001, and supported by the Bush Administration, require industries across the country to report even small amounts of lead pollution to a public database maintained by the government called the toxics release inventory (TRI). Facilities that discharge just 100 pounds of lead each year to the environment are subject to these new, strict reporting requirements. Private firing ranges are exempt from the new reporting requirements, regardless of how much lead they put in the environment. And the amounts appear to be substantial. A small firing range can emit 100 pounds of lead to the environment (the minimum to trigger reporting for the regulated co 0 T d 0- C: c 0 0 0 - co w 0 0 C 0 0 a - Figure 4. A representative outdoor firing range pollutes at 48 times the level that triggers strict reporting requirements for industrial polluters. 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Reporting threshold for lead pollution by industrial polluters Estimated yearly lead pollution at a representative outdoor firing range - no reporting requirements Source: Environmental Working Group. Page 5 Environmental Working Group industries) in a matter of days. For example, a range that has 15 customers each day, each of whom shoots 50 rounds or bullets, would create 100 pounds of lead pollution in 7.5 days, or 4,800 pounds of lead contamination in a year (Figure 4). Despite their significant lead pollution, outdoor firing ranges are exempt from the reporting requirements of EPA's new rules. These ranges are not required to report their pollution, they are not required to get a permit to pollute, and they are not required to clean up the pollution that they cause (unless injured parties bring legal action). This broad exemption from environmental statutes is producing thousands of highly contaminated toxic waste sites at firing ranges across the country. Recommendations Private firing ranges are a potentially huge and completely unregulated source of lead pollution in the environment. In order to more fully understand the exact nature of this problem and devise solutions to address it, we recommend that the U.S. EPA, in coordination with state environmental agencies, immediately begin a study of the problem of lead contamination at commercial and private shooting ranges. As a part of that study the U.S. EPA should commission a study of lead levels in the blood of range employees and their children, frequent users of the facilities and their children, as well as children living near these facilities. Methodology Estimates of lead pollution presented in this report are based on the following assumptions: • Soil at firing ranges: Representative unit weight of soil into which bullets are fired — 110 pounds per cubic foot • Weight of ammunition: taken as representative weight from the range of weights of commonly -used ammunition (Ramage 2000): 12 -gauge shotgun shell - 28 grams 22 caliber rifle bullet - 40 grains (2.6 grams) 9 mm Luger handgun bullet - 115 grains (7.5 grams) 45 automatic pistol match ammunition - 185 grains (12.0 grams) 30-30 Winchester round - 125 grains (8.1 grams) 308 Winchester round - 150 grains (9.7 grams) . For purposes of calculations of total pollution, an average bullet weight, 123 grains (8.0 grams) was assumed. This represents the mean of the 5 lightest types of ammunition shown above (shotgun shells were not included). • Calculations of contamination relative to Superfund levels: For purposes of discussing the possible extent of contamination at firing ranges relative to that at Superfund sites, lead concentrations were calculated assuming the lead to be concentrated in the upper foot of soil at a range. • Total number of commercial firing ranges: Calculations of national pollution amounts from firing ranges assume 1,813 operating firing ranges. This is the number of outdoor ranges registered on the National Shooting Sports Foundation web site, but this list is not comprehensive. Catogories of ranges included in the estimated total, as listed on www.nssf.org, are: handgun outdoors, rifle outdoors, skeet shooting, sporting clays, trap shooting, and cowboy action shooting. • Average amount of water consumed by an individual: Taken as the average population wide consumption in the U.S., one liter (0.29 gallons) per day, from water consumption data presented in EPA 1999. Page 6 Environmental Working Group References Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Estimated Per Capita Water Consumption in the United States. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001a. Fact sheet on common contaminants at Superfund Sites. Internet posting at http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/accomp/ei/contam.htm Environmental Protection Agency. 2001b. Office of Children's Health Protection. Fact sheet on developmental and neurological problems. Internet posting at www.epa.gov/children/toxics.htm. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001c. Indoor Environments Division. Lead fact sheet. Internet posting at httl2://www.epa.gov/iaq/lead.html National Association of Shooting Ranges (NASR). 2000. Lead Management Facility Development Video Series #2. Ramage, Ken, ed. 2000. Gun Digest 2001: 55th annual Edition. Krause Publications. Violence Policy Center. 2001. Poisonous Pastime. The Health Risks of Shooting Ranges and Lead to Children, Families, and the Environment. PAUnited States EPA-902-13-01-001 Environmental Protection Revised June 2005 Agency Region 2 160,000,000 Ibs per year/ 9000 outdoor ranges = 8.9 tons per range. Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges For additional copies of this manual, please contact: United States Environmental Protection Agency Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance RCRA Compliance Branch 290 Broadway, 22nd FI. New York, New York 10007-1866 Tel: 212-637-4145 Fax: 212-637-4949 Copies of this manual along with any additions or updates can also be obtained on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/region2/waste/leadshot Copying and Reprinting This document is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reprinted. Fourth Printing, June 2005 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Notice This manual is intended to provide useful general information to shooting range owners/operators. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not certify or approve ranges, range design or lead management practices. While every effort has been made to provide up-to- date technical information, this manual is not to be used as a substitute for consultation with scien- tists, engineers, attorneys, and other appropriate professionals who should be called upon to make specific recommendations for individual range design and lead management. Any variation between applicable regulations and the summaries contained in this guidance docu- ment are unintentional, and, in the case of such variations, the requirements of the regulations govern. This guidance was developed by EPA Region 2 in cooperation with a few states as well as many EPA offices. In addition, EPA, with the assistance of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) provided all 50 states with an opportunity to review the RCRA regulatory portion of the guidance. At the time of printing, about 40 states had contacted the EPA and given their support and concurrence. EPA is continuing to get the agreement of the re- maining states. Therefore, it appears that most, if not all, states will share the same view as to how lead shot is regulated. Following the steps set forth in this guidance should result in compliance with applicable regulations. EPA does not make any guarantee or assume any liability with respect to the use of any information or recommendations contained in this document. This guidance does not constitute rulemaking by the EPA and may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right or benefit enforceable, at law or in equity, by any person. Notice BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Acknowledgements The USEPA would like to acknowledge the support of: • The National Rifle Association of America • The National Shooting Sports Foundation • The Wildlife Management Institute • Mark Begley of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection • Mr. Dick Peddicord of Dick Peddicord and Company, Inc. These participants provided valuable information and assistance as peer reviewers in the develop- ment of the manual and their efforts are truly appreciated. EPA also wishes to give special thanks to Dr. Charles W. Sever of Okie Environmental Consulting, L.L.C., Inc., Mr. Mike Warminsky of Brice Environmental Services Corp., and Mr. Victor Ordija of Sporting Goods Properties.The EPA also wishes to acknowledge and thank the many others who provided important comments and insight, and especially those individuals who took the time to meet with us in person or on the phone. Cover photo by: Mr. Jack Hoyt, EPA Region 2 Acknowledgements BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Statement of Goals The goals of this manual are: • to inform shooting ranges: • that the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) purpose in developing and distributing this manual is to assist range owners and operators to operate in an environmentally protective manner. • to promote an understanding of: • why lead is an environmental, public and regulatory concern, • what laws and regulations apply, • the benefits of applying good management practices, • what can be done to successfully manage lead, • why implementing lead best management practices is an integral part of environmental stewardship, • how to minimize litigation risk. • to promote action by ranges to: • adopt and implement best management practices for managing lead, • recycle a finite natural resource, • become a model for other ranges through proper lead management, • advocate environmental stewardship. Statement of Goals This page intentionally left blank BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges EPA Statement on National Guidance �`'jE� srgr�s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY �rri WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 o c yam,- ,0" 4( PRO, OCT 10 20101 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SUBJECT: National Guidance on Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting R es '_1` FROM: a otsw gir-edct�or-� Office o%lolidWaste TO: RCRA Senior Policy Advisors The purpose of this memo is to transmit a Region 2 document entitled "Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges," EPA -902-B-01-001, January 2001. This report is a technical information manual to assist range owners and operators in managing lead at shooting ranges. The report covers the environmental concerns, applicable laws and regulations, and current best management practices. This document was developed collaboratively with a number of stakeholders and is considered by my office to be the national guidance on this subject. Back round Lead at some shooting ranges can be a significant environmental concern depending on location (e.g., proximity to wetlands) and hydrogeologic setting, as evidenced by a number of cases where lead pellets and shot have been taken in by fish and fowl at ranges over wetlands, and at some ranges where streams in acid lead -leaching environments have picked up lead contamination. Recognizing these problems, Region 2 in collaboration with EPA HQ, States, shooting range associations, and other shooting range experts, developed the enclosed technical guidance to identify the problems and solutions for preventing and controlling these problems. We commend this guidance to you as an information source for your use in working with range owners and operators to identify and address these concerns at specific ranges. Copies of this manual have been sent to all 50 States, with the help of ASTSWMO, and at least 40 States have responded with concurrence and support for this guidance. Also enclosed for your information is a list of references "Summary of Shooting Range Lead Management Guidance" prepared by various shooting range -interested associations, and a copy of an NPDES permit for the Naperville, IL Sportsman's Park shooting range. Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov RecycledJRecyclable • Printed With Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) EPA Statement on National Guidance BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges If you have any questions regarding lead at shooting ranges, please contact George Meyer (Chief RCRA Compliance Branch, Region 2) at 212-637-4144, Mever.George 2a epa.gov, or Ken Shuster in the Office of Solid Waste at 703-308-8759, shustenkenneth,epa.g It is my hope that wide distribution of these documents will help encourage greater cooperation and coordination on shooting range issues among RCRA, Superfund, and Water staff in the regions and states. To this end, it would be helpful if you would send the name of a point of contact in your region to Ken Shuster and George Meyer. For additional copies of the Region 2 guidance, please contact George Meyer. It is also available at www.epa.gov/region2/waste/leadshot. Enclosures cc: George Meyer, Region 2 Elaine Davies, OERR Michael Cook, OW Eric Schaeffer, ORE, OECA Craig Hooks, FFEO, OECA Bob Byrne, Wildlife Management Institute Barbara Simcoe, ASTSWMO Regional Superfund Division Directors w/o Region 2 enclosure Regional Water Division Directors w/o Region 2 enclosure Regional RCRA Enforcement Section Chiefs w/o Region 2 enclosure EPA Statement on National Guidance BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table of Contents Page Listof Figures...................................................................................................................ii Listof Tables.....................................................................................................................ii Introduction.......................................................................................................................iii Chapter I - Environmental and Regulatory Concerns at the Shooting Range ................ 1-1 1.0 Background...............................................................................................1-1 1.1 Lead Contamination's Impact on Human Health and the Environment ......1-2 1.2 Legal Requirements & Court Rulings........................................................1-6 1.3 Benefits of Minimizing Lead's Environmental Impact...............................1-12 Chapter II - Range Characteristics & Activities to Consider When ImplementingBMPs................................................................................. II -1 2.0 Background............................................................................................. II -1 2.1 Physical Characteristics........................................................................... II -1 2.2 Operational Aspects................................................................................. II -4 2.3 Planning a New Range............................................................................. II -4 Chapter III - BMPs for Outdoor Ranges....................................................................... III -1 3.0 Background.............................................................................................III-1 3.1 Bullet and Shot Containment Techniques (Step 1) ...................................111-1 3.2 BMPs to Prevent Lead Migration (Step 2) ................................................ III -5 3.3 Lead Removal and Recycling (Step 3) .................................................. III -11 3.4 Documenting Activities and Record Keeping (Step 4) ........................... III -17 3.5 Additional Economic Considerations..................................................... III -18 3.6 Summary of Key BMPs for Shooting Ranges ........................................ III -18 3.7 Certificate of Recognition....................................................................... III -18 References Appendix A - Resources Appendix B - Lead Shot Alternatives Appendix C - Sample Bullet Containment Devices Appendix D - RCRA Regulatory Requirements and Interpretations Appendix E - Template for an Environmental Stewardship Plan for Management of Lead Shot/Bullets Table of Contents - i BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges List of Figures Figure Number Page 1-1 Effects on the Human Body from Excessive Exposure to Lead 1-5 2-1 pH Scale II -1 3-1 Four Steps to Build a Successful Lead Management Program III -1 Utilizing a Variety of BMPs 3-2 Sample Filter Bed System III -10 3-3 Examples of Common Lead Reclamation Equipment III -11 List of Tables Table Number Page 1-1 Application of Key Terms to Outdoor Ranges 1-10 2-1 Common Physical Characteristics at Ranges - Potential Risks II -3 and Benefits Associated with Range Operations 3-1 Summary of Key BMPs III -19 3-2 Calculating Weight of Lime to Increase Soil pH Values III -6 Lists of Figures and Tables - ii Introduction This manual provides owners and operators of outdoor rifle, pistol, trap, skeet and sporting clay ranges with information on lead management at their ranges. This manual serves as a reference guide and presents best management practices (BMPs) available to the shooting range community. The practices have been proven to effectively reduce or eliminate lead contamination and may also be economically beneficial to the range owner/operator. Since each range is unique in both the type of shooting activity and its environmental setting, specific solutions are not provided in this manual. Rather, a range owner or operator may use this manual to identify and select the most appropriate BMP(s) for their facility. Other information on environmental aspects of management at outdoor shooting ranges can be found in the National Shooting Sports Foundation's Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges. The manual does not address range layout or design to meet range safety or competition requirements. For information on range safety and competition requirements, range owners/ operators are directed to other comprehensive reference materials available on that subject, such as the National Rifle Association's Range Source Book, and the National Association of Shooting Range's website (www.rangeinfo.org). Owners/operators of ranges may want to assign the use of this BMP Manual to a specific team or committee. Delegating this responsibility to a specific team or group helps to assure that the BMP's are identified and implemented. The manual is organized as follows: • Chapter I provides the background on why lead is of concern to human health and the environment. It includes a discussion of how environmental laws impact shooting ranges BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges and the importance of an integrated BMP program to manage lead. • Chapter II discusses physical and operational characteristics to be considered when selecting a successful BMP program. Chapter III addresses best management techniques for rifle/pistol ranges, skeet and trap ranges, and sporting clay ranges. In this chapter, the manual explores possible solutions to prevent, reduce and/or remove lead contamination for each type of range. The Appendices provide current (as of June 2005) contacts for lead reclamation and recycling companies, vendors that provide prevention and/or remediation techniques and shooting organizations that have additional information on the lead issue. Additionally, the Appendices provide information on alternatives to lead, diagrams of bullet trap designs, summaries of regulatory requirements and interpretations, and a sample Environmental Stewardship Plan. EPA is very interested in any suggestions you have about practices included in this manual which have proven effective in controlling lead contamination or recycling lead bullets/shot. Please send such information to the address below. Also, for additional information, or to be added to the list of lead reclaimers or remediation contractors, contact the National Rifle Association (NRA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) or: 11 Lead Shot Coordinator RCRA Compliance Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 290 Broadway New York, New York 10007-1866 Telephone: (212)637-4145 E -Mail: Leadshot.Region2@epa.gov Introduction - iii This page intentionally left blank Chapter 1: Environmental and Regulatory Concerns at the Shooting Range 1.0 Background Outdoor shooting ranges provide recreational facilities for millions of shooting sports enthusiasts in the United States. Recently, there has been a growing public concern about the potential negative environmental and health effects of range operations. In particular, the public is concerned about potential risks associated with the historical and continued use of lead shot and bullets at outdoor ranges. This concern is not unfounded. An estimated 9,000 non-military outdoor ranges exist in the United States, collectively shooting millions of pounds of lead annually. Some ranges have operated for as long as several generations. Historical operations at ranges involved leaving expended lead bullets and shot uncollected on ranges. Many of these ranges continue to operate in the same manner as in the past. It is estimated that approximately four percent (4%) (80,000 tons/year) of all the lead produced in the United States in the late 1990's (about 2 million tons/year), is made into bullets and shot. Taking into account rounds used off -range, and rounds used at indoor ranges, it is clear that much of this 160,000,000 pounds of lead shot/ bullets finds its way into the environment at ranges. Since the mid -1980's, citizen groups have brought several lawsuits against range owners and have urged federal and state agencies to take action against owners and operators of outdoor shooting ranges. The citizen groups argued that range owners improperly managed discharged lead bullets and shot. Federal courts have supported parts of these suits, requiring range owners/operators to clean up lead - contaminated areas. Concurrent with the increased citizen suit activity, the federal EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges (CDCP), and a large number of states have identified human exposure to all forms of lead as a major health concern in the United States. Lead management practices at ranges across the United States remain inconsistent. Some range owners/operators have examined the impact of range operations on human health and the environment and have implemented procedures to manage and/or remove accumulated lead from ranges. Other range owners/operators are just beginning to characterize and investigate their ranges in order to design an environmental risk prevention and/or remediation program(s) specific to their sites. A third group of ranges has adopted a "wait and see" policy — taking no action until specifically required to do so by law or clear guidance is in place. Finally, a fourth, small, but important group of range owners/operators remain unaware of lead's potential to harm human health and the environment, and of existing federal and state laws. To manage lead, many owners and operators have successfully implemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) at their ranges. These range owners and operators have realized many benefits from sound lead management including: - stewardship of the environment, natural resources and wildlife, - improved community relations, - improved aesthetics of the range/good business practices, - increased profitability through recovery/ recycling lead, a valuable and finite resource, and - reduced public scrutiny. Shooting sports organizations [e.g., National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF)] promote lead management throughout the United States. These organizations have researched different methods to effectively address potential and actual lead mobility and exposure without detracting from the enjoyment of the sport. The NRA, NSSF, and a number of other shooting sports organizations strongly encourage range Chapter I - Page 1-1 owners/operators to develop a BMP program that contains elements discussed later in this manual. Contact the NRA and NSSF for additional guidance materials available on lead management practices. By implementing appropriate lead management at outdoor shooting ranges, range owners and operators can reduce the environmental and health risks associated with lead deposition, meet legal requirements and realize quantifiable benefits. 1.1 Lead Contamination's Impact on Human Health and the Environment Exposure Routes Historically, the three major sources for human exposure to lead are lead-based paint, lead in dust and soil and lead in drinking water. Typically, human exposure occurs through ingestion, which is the consumption of lead or lead -contaminated materials, or by inhalation. The main human exposure to lead associated with shooting ranges is through lead - contaminated soil. However, other pathways are discussed below, along with lead's detrimental effects on humans and animals. Lead can be introduced into the environment at shooting ranges in one or more of the following ways. Each of these pathways is site-specific and may or may not occur at each individual range: • Lead oxidizes when exposed to air and dissolves when exposed to acidic water or soil. • Lead bullets, bullet particles, or dissolved lead can be moved by storm water runoff. • Dissolved lead can migrate through soils to groundwater. Lead oxidizes when exposed to air and dissolves when exposed to acidic water or soil When lead is exposed to acidic water and/or BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges soil, it breaks down by weathering into lead oxides, carbonates, and other soluble compounds. With each rainfall, these compounds may be dissolved, and the lead may move in solution in the storm runoff waters. Decreases in water acidity (i.e., increases in its pH) will cause dissolved lead to precipitate out of solution. Lead concentrations in solution are reduced by this precipitation. At pHs above 7.5, very little lead remains in solution. Increased time of contact between lead and acidic water generally results in an increase in the amount of dissolved lead in the storm runoff water. The five factors which most influence the dissolving of lead in water are summarized below: Annual Precipitation Rate - The higher the annual precipitation rate, the faster the lead weathers. Also, during prolonged rains, the contact time between water and lead is increased. In general, the higher the precipitation rate, the higher the potential risk of lead migration off-site in solution. pH of Rain and Surface Water - The acidity of the rainwater decreases as basic (alkaline) minerals in the soil are dissolved. If sufficient minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and iron are present in local soils, then the lead may quickly precipitate out of solution entirely as these other minerals are dissolved. The pH of shallow surface water is an indicator of the presence or absence of basic minerals in the local soil and in gravel within the stream beds through which the water has moved. The water in deeper streams and lakes is more likely to be composed of acidic rainwater that is not neutralized. Contact Time - The contact time between acidic surface water and lead is a factor in the amount of lead that is dissolved. For example, lead shot deposited directly into a lake has a longer contact time then lead shot deposited in upland areas. Soil Cover - Organic material will absorb lead and remove it from a water solution. The thicker the organic leaf and peat cover on the soil, the lower the lead content in solution in water leaving the shot area. Organic material has a strong Chapter I - Page 1-2 ability to extract lead out of solution in water, pH of Groundwater - During periods of no rainfall, the water flowing within most streams comes from groundwater discharging into the stream channel. Therefore, the acidity of the groundwater affects the acidity of the surface water, and hence, affects the solubility of any lead particles carried into the stream during storm runoff. Lead bullets, bullet particles or dissolved lead can be moved by storm water runoff The ability of water to transport lead is influenced by two factors: velocity of the water and weight or size of the lead fragment. Water's capacity to carry small particles is proportional to the square of the water's velocity. Clear water moving at a velocity of 100 feet per minute can carry a lead particle 10,000 times heavier than water moving at a velocity of 10 feet per minute. Muddy water can carry even larger particles. The five factors that most influence velocity of runoff are described below: Rainfall Intensity - The greater the volume of rainfall during a short period of time, the faster the velocity created to carry the rainfall off-site. The higher the annual rainfall, the greater the number of periods of heavy rainfall. Topographic Slope - Generally, the steeper the topographic slope, the faster the velocity of stormwater runoff. Soil Type - More rainfall will soak into sandy soils then into clay soils. Hence, for a given rainfall intensity, the volume of runoff will be greater from areas underlain by clays or other low permeable soils than from permeable sandy soil. Velocity - Velocity tends to decrease as stream width increases. Merging streams, eddy currents, and curves in streams are other factors that may reduce the velocity. Generally, the shorter the distance from the lead deposit to the property line, the more likely it is that the lead fragments in suspension will be transported off- site. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Vegetative Cover and Man-made Structures - Structures such as dams and dikes reduce the water's velocity and greatly reduce the size and weight of the lead particles the water can carry. Since lead particles are heavy compared to the other suspended particles of similar size, they are more likely to be deposited under the influence of anything that reduces velocity of the storm runoff. Grass and other vegetation reduce runoff velocity and act as a filter to remove suspended solids from the water. Dissolved lead can migrate through soils to groundwater Acidic rainwater may dissolve weathered lead compounds. A portion of the lead may be transported in solution in groundwater beneath land surfaces. Groundwater may transport lead in solution from the higher topographic areas to the lower areas such as valleys, where it is discharged and becomes part of the surface water flow. If the water flowing underground passes through rocks containing calcium, magnesium, iron, or other minerals more soluble then lead, or through minerals that raise the pH of the water, then the lead in solution may be replaced (removed) from the solution by these other metals. However, if the soil is a clean silica sand and gravel, fractured granite, or similar type material, then the lead may move long distances in solution. The factors most likely to affect the amount of lead carried by the groundwater in solution are discussed below: Annual Precipitation - Generally, high precipitation rates result in heavy dew, more frequent rainfall, numerous streams, shallow depth to groundwater, shorter distance of travel, and more rapid rates of groundwater flow. Also, the greater volumes of rainfall over geologic time probably have reduced the amount of calcium and other soluble basic minerals that could raise the water pH and cause lead to precipitate (settle) out of solution from the groundwater. Soil Types - Clays have a high ionic lead bonding capacity and more surface area to which the lead can bond. Also, groundwater movement in clay is very slow, which increases the contact time for lead to bond to the clay. Chapter I - Page 1-3 Low permeability reduces the amount of historical leaching and increases the probability of the presence of basic (pH -increasing) minerals that can precipitate out of solution in groundwater or cause the lead to bond to the clay. All of the basic calcium and related minerals generally will have been removed from the clean silica sand and gravel soils, so the lead in solution in groundwater in these type soils can move long distances (miles) through the ground relatively unchanged. Soil Chemistry - The more basic minerals like calcium and magnesium that are present in soils along the pathways through which the groundwater moves, the greater the lead precipitation (removal) rate. Lead should move in solution only a short distance (a few feet) through a sand composed of calcium shell fragments, but could move in solution long distances (miles) through clean quartz sand. Depth to Groundwater - In areas of groundwater discharge such as river flood plains and most flat areas, the groundwater surface is often a few feet below the surface. Remember, the shorter the distance traveled, the greater the risk that the lead will migrate into the environment. Shallow depth to groundwater is indicative of higher risk for lead to reach the water. pH of Groundwater - Although other factors influence solubility of lead in water, a good rule of thumb is that lead will precipitate out of solution when the pH or alkalinity of water is greater then about 7.5. But, lead dissolved in acid groundwater may travel many miles without change. Health Effects of Lead Exposure on Ranges Lead poisoning is a serious health risk. At higher concentrations, it is dangerous to people of all ages, leading to convulsions, coma and even death. At even very low concentrations, it is dangerous to infants and young children, damaging the developing brain and resulting in both learning and behavioral problems. Figure 1- 1 describes the effects of exposure to lead on children and adults. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Federal, state and local actions, including bans on lead in gasoline, paint, solder and many other lead -containing products, have resulted in significant reductions in average blood -lead levels. Despite these advances, the number of lead -poisoned children remains alarmingly high. Children living in older homes may be exposed to lead in peeling paint or paint dust. Children can also come in contact with lead in soil and with lead dust carried home on the clothing of parents. On ranges, inhalation is one pathway for lead exposure since shooters are exposed to lead dust during the firing of their guns. Because wind is unlikely to move heavy lead particles very far, airborne dust is generally considered a potential threat only when there are significant structures that block air flow on the firing line. Under such conditions, the hygiene and other practices proposed by the NRA for indoor shooting ranges in their "Source Book" are applicable to outdoor ranges. Range workers may also be exposed to lead dust while performing routine maintenance operations, such as raking or cleaning out bullet traps. Owners/operators may want to protect these workers by requiring them to wear the proper protective equipment or dampening the soil prior to work. Another exposure route for lead at outdoor ranges is ingestion by direct contact with lead or lead particles. For example, lead particles generated by the discharge of a firearm can collect on the hands of a shooter. These particles can be ingested if a shooter eats or smokes prior to washing his/her hands after shooting. The relative risk of lead exposure to people in a well managed facility is low. Detrimental effects due to elevated lead levels can also be found in animals. Excessive exposure to lead, primarily from ingestion, can cause increased mortality rates in cattle, sheep and waterfowl. For example, waterfowl and other birds can ingest the shot, mistaking it for food or grit. Waterfowl, in particular, are highly susceptible to lead ingestion. This is a concern at ranges where shooting occurs into or over Chapter I - Page 1-4 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranges Effects on the Human Body from Excessive Exposure to Lead If not detected early, children with relatively low levels of lead (as low as 10 microgram/deciliter for children) in their bodies can suffer from: - damage to the brain and nervous system, - behavior and learning problems (such as hyperactivity and aggressiveness), - slowed growth, - hearing problems, - headaches,and - impairment of vision and motor skills. Adults can suffer from: - difficulties during pregnancy, - reproductive problems in both men and women (such as low birth weight, birth defects and decreased fertility), - high blood pressure, - digestive problems, - neurological disorders, - memory and concentration problems, Brain or Nerve Damage - muscle and joint pain, and go- - kidney dysfunction. Lead affects the body in many ways Slowed Growth MMMMMMOMMOMM— Digestive Problems Reproductive Problems (Adults) Hearing Problems Figure 1-1: Effects on the Human Body from Excessive Exposure to Lead Chapter I - Page 1-5 water. Many of the legal and government actions that have been brought against ranges are based on elevated levels of lead and increased mortality in waterfowl. For example, in one case, an upland area of a range became a temporary pond after a thunderstorm. Waterfowl used the pond to feed and shortly thereafter, there was a waterfowl die -off (increase in bird mortality), apparently from lead ingestion. 1.2 Legal Requirements & Court Rulings To date, most litigation concerns have been at shotgun ranges where the shotfall zone impacts water or wetland areas. The potential environmental and human health risks are greater at these ranges. However, all ranges, including those not located near water bodies, may be subject to legal and government action if proper range management programs are not implemented. Range owners/operators should expect greater scrutiny as ranges become more visible to regulators, environmental groups and the general public. Citizen groups have been the driving force behind most legal actions taken against outdoor ranges. These groups have sued range owners/ operators under federal environmental laws. Two of EPA's most comprehensive environmental laws, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), specifically provide citizens with the right to sue in cases in which the environment and human health are threatened. These citizen suits have been highly effective in changing the way ranges operate, even when out-of-court settlements have been reached. The decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Remington Arms and New York Athletic Club set a legal precedent in the application of RCRA and/or the CWA to outdoor ranges. Lead management programs at outdoor ranges must comply with both laws. Actions have also been taken under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act Remington moved for a summary judgment (CERCLA) commonly know as Superfund. dismissing the complaint, and the Connecticut State and local statutes and regulations may Coastal Fisherman's Association cross -moved also apply. To ensure environmental laws are for a partial summary judgment on the issue of being followed, range owners/operators must liability. On September 11, 1991, the United BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges understand the legal issues and requirements. 1.2.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) RCRA provides the framework for the nation's solid and hazardous waste management program. Under RCRA, EPA developed a "cradle -to -grave" system to ensure the protection of human health and the environment when generating, transporting, storing, treating and disposing of hazardous waste. RCRA potentially applies to many phases of range operation because lead bullets/shot, if abandoned, may be a solid and/or a hazardous waste and may present an actual or potential imminent and substantial endangerment. Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association v. Remington Arms Company, et al. In the late 1980s, the Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association filed a lawsuit against Remington Arms Company as the owner of the Lordship Gun Club. The Lordship Gun Club (a.k.a. Remington Gun Club) is a 30 -acre site in Stratford, Connecticut, located on the Long Island Sound at the mouth of the Housatonic River. In the mid-1960s, the Lordship Gun Club was reconstructed to its final configuration of 12 combined trap and skeet fields and one additional trap field. Over the years, the Lordship Gun Club became known as one of the premier shooting facilities on the East Coast. The Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association filed a lawsuit, alleging that lead shot and clay targets are hazardous waste under RCRA. The Complaint alleged that because the lead shot and clay targets were hazardous wastes, the gun club was a hazardous waste storage and disposal facility subject to RCRA requirements. The plaintiff also sought civil penalties and attorney's fees. Chapter I - Page 1-6 States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled on the case. Regarding the plaintiff's claims under RCRA, the District Court ruled in favor of the Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association, holding that the lead shot and clay targets were "discarded materials" and were "solid waste;" therefore, the materials were subject to regulation under RCRA. The court further stated that the discharged lead shot was a "hazardous waste," but declined to rule on whether the clay target fragments were also hazardous waste. Remington petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court to review the lower court's ruling. On June 11, 1992, both parties presented oral arguments before the court. Subsequent to oral arguments, the appellate court requested that EPA file an amicus brief "addressing whether lead shot and clay target debris deposited on land and in the water in the normal course of trap and skeet shooting is 'discarded material'... so as to constitute 'solid waste' under RCRA." On March 29, 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reached its decision. With respect to RCRA, the court both reversed and affirmed the lower court's opinion in part. Briefly, the decision affects currently operating and future gun clubs, and the following key points are of primary concern: 1. With respect to RCRA, the court agreed with EPA's amicus brief, which had argued that shooting at gun clubs is not subject to regulatory (as opposed to statutory) requirements. In other words, during routine operations, gun clubs are not viewed as facilities that manage hazardous wastes subject to RCRA regulations and, as such, do not require RCRA permits. 2. Another argument in the EPA's amicus brief with which the court agreed was the view that the RCRA statute allows citizen suits to be brought if a gun club's shooting activities pose an "imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment." Although gun clubs BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranqes are not subject to RCRA regulations, EPA or any state, municipality, or citizen group can take legal action under the statutory provisions of RCRA against gun clubs for actual or potential environmental damage occurring during, or even after, the operation of the club. Under RCRA, the plaintiff would be eligible to recover its legal fees as well. 3. The court concluded that lead shot and clay targets meet the statutory definition of solid waste because these materials were "discarded (i.e. abandoned)" and "left to accumulate long after they have served their intended purpose." Further, the court concluded that based upon toxicity testing and evidence of lead contamination, the lead shot was a hazardous waste subject to RCRA. The important point to consider here is that if lead shot and clay target debris are discarded (i.e. abandoned), these materials are considered a solid waste as defined in the statute and the facility may be subject to governmental or citizen suits. If, on the other hand, the discharged lead shot is recovered or reclaimed on a regular basis, no statutory solid waste (or hazardous waste) would be present and imminent hazard suits would be avoided. Thus, the Remington Arms case is an important legal precedent. Even though regulations have not been issued regarding gun club operations and environmental protection, gun clubs are still at risk of legal action under RCRA if they fail to routinely recover and reclaim lead, do not take steps to minimize lead release or migration, or if they abandon lead in berms. Gun clubs where there is shooting into water, wetlands, rivers, creeks, and other sensitive environments have the highest degree of litigation risk. Conversely, gun clubs that have the lowest risk of environmental litigation or government action are those clubs that do not shoot into water or wetlands and which have an active program to recover lead. The following describes how RCRA may apply to outdoor shooting ranges. Chapter I - Page 1-7 How is Lead Shot Regulated Under RCRA? Lead shot is not considered a hazardous waste subject to RCRA at the time it is discharged from a firearm because it is used for its intended purpose. As such, shooting lead shot (or bullets) is not regulated nor is a RCRA permit required to operate a shooting range. However, spent lead shot (or bullets), left in the environment, is subject to the broader definition of solid waste written by Congress and used in sections 7002 and 7003 of the RCRA statute. With reference to reclaiming and recycling lead shot, the following points should serve as guidance in understanding RCRA and how it applies to your range. (A more detailed discussion of the underlying RCRA rules applicable to lead shot removal at ranges is included in Appendix D) Removal contractors or reclaimers should apply standard best management practices, mentioned in this manual, to separate the lead from soil. The soil, if then placed back on the range, is exempt from RCRA. However, if the soil is to be removed off-site, then it would require testing to determine if it is a RCRA hazardous waste. • Lead, if recycled or reused, is considered a scrap metal and is, therefore, excluded from RCRA. Collected lead shot and bullets are excluded from RCRA regulation, and need not have a manifest, nor does a range need to obtain a RCRA generator number (i.e., the range is not a hazardous waste "generator"), provided that the lead is recycled or re -used. The reclaimer does not need to be a RCRA transporter. However, it is recommended that ranges retain records of shipments of lead to the receiving facilities in order to demonstrate that the lead was recycled. Records should also be kept whenever the lead is reused (as in reloading.) The range should be aware that it ultimately may be responsible for the lead sent for BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges reclamation. Therefore, only reputable reclaimers should be utilized. Lead from ranges destined for recycling may be temporarily stored on range property after separation from soil if the lead is stored in closed, sealed containers, the containers are stored in a secure location and routinely inspected by range staff, and records of inspections are maintained. Sections 7002 and 7003 of the RCRA statute allow EPA, states or citizens to use civil lawsuits, to compel cleanup of or other action for "solid waste" (e.g., spent lead shot) posing actual or potential imminent and substantial endangerment. Such actions can be sought whether the range is in operation or closed, and is based solely on a determination that harm is being posed or may be posed by the range to public health and/or the environment. Since the risk of lead migrating increases with time, making ranges that have not removed lead more likely candidates for government action or citizen lawsuits under RCRA Section 7002 and 7003, ranges are advised to maintain a schedule of regular lead removal. With time, lead in soil can become less desirable to reclaimers and smelters, thereby potentially reducing or eliminating financial returns from lead removal. Moreover, such soil may be subject to more expensive treatment to separate the lead for recycling. Lead removal will allow the range to: avoid contamination of the site and potential impacts to human health and the environment; reduce liability with regard to potential government agency or citizen suit action; and, possibly, benefit economically from the recycling of lead. Additional guidance on reclaiming lead is provided in other parts of this manual. Soil from berms and shotfall zones may be moved to another area of the range for such reasons as addressing potential environmental impacts (e.g., runoff), altering the layout to address safety concerns or allowing different types of shooting activities, or adding or removing shooting positions. However, removal of lead prior to such Chapter I - Page 1-8 movement of soil is normal practice and highly advised because it extends the usable life of the materials and reduces the possibility of release of lead into the environment. If lead is not first removed, it will be further dispersed and will be more difficult to remove in future reclamation. Written records of all such activity should be maintained indefinitely, as they will be necessary in subsequent construction or range closure. This RCRA summary applies to operating and non-operating ranges, and the use of BMPs at operating ranges is highly recommended. However, because of increased risk if lead is not actively managed, such application may not preclude the need for remediation, as appropriate and/or as required by states' regulations, when a range is permanently closed, on-site lead is abandoned, or the land use changes. Introductory guidance for remediation can be found at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw or www.epa.gov/superfund. Look under the sections "Cleanup" or "Resources," or use the Search function. 1.2.2 - Clean Water Act The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters:' The most common allegation against ranges by the EPA and citizen groups, is that they violate the CWA if they do not have permits that allow spent ammunition to be discharged into water. The CWA prohibits "the discharge of any pollutant by any person" into the waters of the United States without a National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit. There have been two court cases that have applied the provisions of the CWA to civilian shooting ranges. To understand how the CWA can apply to shooting ranges, a summary of the cases follows. Also see Table 1-1. To understand the application of the CWA to outdoor ranges, one must know the definitions of key terms and how they have been applied to shooting activities. See Table 1-1. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootina Ranaes In the Remington Arms and the New York Athletic Club lawsuits, citizen groups argued that the defendants violated the CWA by discharging pollutants from point sources into the Long Island Sound without a NPDES permit. Application of the CWA requires the violations to be ongoing. Consequently, the court in Remington Arms dismissed the CWA charge against the range because it had ceased operating before the lawsuit was filed. However, in the New York Athletic Club case, the club was still in operation during the time of litigation, but had switched to steel shot. EPA's opinion on this case also addressed the CWA violation. EPA argued that certain trap/skeet ranges can convey pollutants, via point sources, to water in violation of the CWA if a NPDES permit is not obtained. Although some shooting organizations have disagreed with the EPA position, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York specifically found that: • The mechanized target throwers, the concrete shooting platforms, and the shooting range itself are considered point sources as defined by the CWA; • Expended shot and target debris, including non-toxic shot, such as steel shot, left in water, are pollutants as defined by the CWA. Although the New York district court's decision in the New York Athletic Club case is not controlling in any other district, range owners and operators of outdoor ranges that shoot over or into wetlands or other navigable waters of the United States should be aware of it. Based on the court's decision in the New York Athletic Club case, any range whose shot, bullets or target debris enter the "waters of the United States" could be subject to permitting requirements as well as governmental or citizen suits. "Waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States" are waters of the United States, including territorial seas that include any body of water that has any connection to, or impact on, interstate waters or commerce. The waters may include lakes, Chapter I - Page 1-9 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table 1-1: Application of KeyTerms to Outdoor Ranges Key Term statutory Definition Application to New York Athletic Club Discharge of a "any addition of any pollutant to Shooting into water (including wetlands) Pollutant navigable waters from any point constitutes a discharge. In the New York source" (emphasis added) Athletic Club, the range did not dispute that its shooting operations resulted in the 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (12) deposition of spent shot and other debris into the waters of the United States. Point Source "any discernible, confined, and In New York Athletic Club, the court found discrete conveyance... from which that shooting ranges act to systematically pollutants are or may be channel pollutants into regulated waters discharged" into the Nation's and that mechanized target throwers waters. convey pollutants directly into water. Specifically, it stated, "A trap shooting 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (14) range... is an identifiable source from which spent shot and target fragments are conveyed into navigable waters of the United States." The court also determined that the concrete shooting platforms can be seen as separate "point sources" under the CWA or as one facet of the shooting range that systematically delivers pollutants (e.g. shot and wadding) into the water. Pollutant "dredged spoil, solid waste,... In New York Athletic Club, shot and target munitions... discharged into residue constitute a form of "solid waste" water' subject to regulation under the CWA as a "pollutant." Based on these 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (6) determinations, the court supported EPA's contention that the ranges were discharging pollutants from a point source without a permit, in violation of the CWA. Chapter I - Page 1-10 ponds, rivers, streams, wetlands, or even guts that are frequently dry, which may not be obvious to range owners/operators. These ranges may be required to remediate contaminated sediments and soils, which could be both difficult and expensive, and to cease operations over waters and wetlands. It is essential that these ranges change the direction of shooting, to avoid shooting over or into wetlands or other navigable waters of the United States, and initiate lead removal and recycling activities, where feasible. In addition, these ranges can cause a substantial impact on wildlife and wetlands, which range owners/operators may be required to restore under other federal laws (e.g., CERCLA, discussed below). Lead shot entering a water body substantially increases the potential risk of contaminating surface and groundwater which, in turn, threatens human health and the environment. Finally, as New York Athletic Club, Remington Arms and similar cases show, neighbors have the most leverage when range activity affects wetlands and waterways. For ranges located away from coastal areas or whose operating areas are situated wholly over land, compliance with the CWA can be achieved by obtaining a NPDES permit for piped or channeled runoff from the range into water . Shooting ranges impacting wetland areas may be subject to other regulations found in Section 404 of the CWA. This section is the principal federal regulatory program protecting the Nation's remaining wetland resources. Any plan by range owners/operators to dredge and/or fill wetlands may require a permit and will come under close scrutiny by federal, state and local governments and citizen groups. Owners and operators must comply with the CWA for range design, redesign, construction, reclamation or remediation occurring in wetland areas. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges 1.2.3 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), imposes liability on past and present owners or operators of properties where a release of a hazardous substance into the environment exists. CERCLA is used to ensure that an owner/operator cleans a contaminated site or to seek reimbursement from past owners/operators or disposers (potentially responsible parties or PRPs) when a party, either the government or private party, has cleaned up the contamination. Under CERCLA, lead is considered a hazardous substance. EPA has the authority to order a PRP to clean up a site or conduct the cleanup and recover its costs from the PRP under CERCLA. Responsible parties may be held liable for all cleanup costs, which can be substantial. Under CERCLA, shooting ranges may be liable for government costs incurred during the cleanup of ranges, natural resources damages, and health assessments and/or health effects studies. The following two examples illustrate how shooting ranges (including one operated by the federal government) can be affected by CERCLA. Southern Lakes Trap and Skeet Club Site, Lake Geneva. Wisconsin, et al. In 1992, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) began an investigation to determine the cause of death of over 200 Canada geese. The geese died as a result of acute lead poisoning after ingesting lead shot, which research indicated came from the Southern Lakes Trap and Skeet Club. The USFWS, in its role as Natural Resource Trustee, took action to recover the cost of damage to the natural resources (i.e., migratory geese) under CERCLA. In addition, EPA pursued a separate action under the Agency's CERCLA response authority. The club had leased the property from the property owners to operate a shooting range. The Shortly after EPA sent out the notice of potential recognized specificallyroterrain liability to the current and former owners and reoogn¢ed as °non�uvelland"areas. y Chapter I - Page 1-11 operators of the club site, the club closed permanently. In 1994, EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) against one current and one former owner of the property where the now closed Southern Lakes Trap and Skeet Club was located. The AOC required the owners to perform a site assessment, which included an evaluation of the costs to restore the wetlands. In 1998, EPA completed activities to clean up the site and restore some of the natural resources and wetlands. In a negotiated settlement, EPA recovered $1 million of the cost of the cleanup. Walter L Kamb v. United States Coast Guard, et al. In another CERCLA action, Mr. Kamb (court appointed property guardian) sued the U.S. Coast Guard, California Highway Patrol, City of Fort Bragg, and the County of Mendocino (the defendants) for recovery of cleanup costs under CERCLA. Mr. Kamb had been appointed by the Mendocino County Superior Court to sell the property on behalf of the property owners. The property was formerly used by defendants as a rifle, pistol and trap range. Soil analysis indicated the presence of lead in the form of leadshot, bullets, pellets, and dust. The court found the defendants were "responsible parties" (liable for cleanup costs) under CERCLA. No apportionment of liability was made and the final determination of each parties' pro rata share of the response cost was deferred. This case shows that range activity need not affect a water body to trigger CERCLA liability. CERCLA is a powerful statutory authority that can greatly impact current and former range owners/operators. The statute allows for recovery of damages to natural resources, the cost of any health assessment studies and all cleanup costs. Liability may extend to past owners and operators long after a range ceases operation. 1.2.4 Additional Laws and Regulations Shooting ranges may also be subject to state and local laws and regulations. Many states BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges have adopted their own environmental laws, which are based on federal laws. Specifically, these states have laws and regulations that mirror the CWA and RCRA program laws. EPA - approved state program laws must be as stringent as the federal laws and may be more stringent. Activities at shooting ranges may also be subject to local laws, ordinances and regulations addressing issues such as noise, zoning, traffic, wetlands and nuisance. Often, citizens or neighbors of outdoor shooting ranges can initiate noise nuisance claims against range owners/operators. Because many states have passed legislation protecting ranges from noise nuisance lawsuits, these may turn into claims of environmental violations under the laws discussed above due to the presence of lead and other products at ranges. 1.3 Benefits of Minimizing Lead's Environmental Impact All ranges will benefit from proactively implementing successful BMPs. Even if range activities currently do not cause adverse public health and environmental impacts, by developing and promoting active lead management programs, ranges will benefit in the following ways: • Through a sound lead management program, shooting sports enthusiasts can reduce the potential of lead exposure and contamination to humans, animals and the environment. A lead management program will result in improved public relations for the range and the shooting sports. Ranges can promote and publicize their successful BMP programs to improve their public image. Since many of the legal and governmental actions begin with or are due to citizen groups, an active lead management program may improve the public image of the range with these citizen groups. • The removal of spent lead from the range presents a clean, well maintained facility, which will increase customer satisfaction. Chapter I - Page 1-12 Lead is a recyclable and finite resource and can be recovered from the active portion of ranges and sold to lead reclaimers. Frequently, reclaimers do not charge range owners/operators to recover lead from ranges, and owners and operators may receive a percentage of the profit from the sale of reclaimed lead. This factor drives recycling efforts at many ranges. • By reducing or eliminating a potential source of lead migration in soil, surface water and groundwater, range owners/ operators may avoid costly and lengthy future remediation activities. Finally, implementing a BMP program for lead may eliminate or greatly reduce the risk of citizen lawsuits and the legal costs associated with these lawsuits. Through management and removal practices, lead may no longer represent a threat upon which citizen lawsuits are based. Range owners/operators may question whether the benefits of a regular and timely BMP program outweigh the efforts of implementing and maintaining a program. The questions may arise especially for ranges at which shooting activities involve waterways, since national attention has focused on ranges located adjacent to water (e.g., Remington Arms and the New York Athletic Club). However, all outdoor ranges may be subject to legal actions under RCRA and CERCLA authority. All of the benefits for adopting best management practices are available and worthwhile for every range owner and operator. The following sections provide information that will assist the range owner or operator in implementing a BMP program for recovery and recycling of lead shots and bullets. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Chapter I - Page 1-13 This page intentionally left blank Chapter II: Range Characteristics & Activities to Consider When Implementing Best Management Practices (BMP) 2.0 Background ' Since each firing range site is unique, BMPs for lead must be selected to meet site- specific conditions in order to achieve maximum success. A range's physical characteristics and the operational aspects (e.g., volume of shooting, shooting patterns and operating schedules) will effect which BMPs may apply and how they will be implemented. Accordingly, whether designing a new outdoor range or operating an existing range, it is important that BMPs incorporate techniques appropriate for the range's individual characteristics. Section 2.1 of this chapter identifies the physical characteristics that must be considered when evaluating your range. A summary of common physical characteristics at ranges is also presented in Table 2-1. These factors include: • Range Size (primarily for shotgun ranges) • Soil Characteristics • Topography/Runoff Direction • Annual Precipitation • Ground and Surface Water • Vegetation • Accessibility Section 2.2 discusses the operational aspects that must be considered. These factors include: • Lead Volume • Size of Shot/Bullets BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges 2.1 Physical Characteristics Physical characteristics of ranges, relative to lead management issues, are discussed below. Range Size Shotgun range design and type affects the ease of lead shot collection. Larger ranges typically tend to have lead shot that is dispersed over a wider area, while smaller ranges tend to concentrate lead shot in a smaller area. Reducing the area of the shotfall zone will concentrate the shot within a smaller area, allowing for easier cleanup and reclamation. BMP techniques for reducing the shotfall zone at trap and skeet ranges, as well as sporting clay ranges, are discussed in Chapter III. Soil Characteristics Spent lead bullets and shot are most often deposited directly on and into soil during shooting. When lead is exposed to air and water, it may oxidize and form one of several compounds. The specific compounds created, and their rate of migration, are greatly influenced by soil characteristics, such as pH and soil types. Knowing the soil characteristics of an existing range site is a key component to developing an effective lead management plan. Soil pH 1 2345 6;78;9 1011 12 13 14 Acidic Ne tral Alkaline = Ideal Soil Range Figure 2-1 — pH scale • Operating Schedule Soil acidity is measured as pH on a scale • Shooting Direction and Pattern (illustrated as Figure 2-1) between 1 (most • Range Life Expectancy acidic) and 14 (most alkaline, or basic), where 7 is termed neutral. Ideal soil pH for shooting In addition, Section 2.3 discusses issues that ranges is 6.5 to 8.5.' are specific to implementing BMPs when 1 National Shooting Spots Foundatim,°EmironawtalAspecs planning a new range. of Construction and Management of outdoor Shooting Ranges;' June 1997. Chapter 11 - Page II -1 Lead reacts more readily and may become more mobile under acidic (pH < 6) or higher alkaline (pH>8) conditions. This means that spent lead shot left in or on such soils may eventually break down and contaminate underlying soil. In moderately alkaline soils (pH 7 - 8.5), the lead precipitates out of solution and binds to the soil. This "binding" effect prevents the lead from migrating to the subsurface. In general, soils in the eastern part of the United States tend to be acidic, whereas western soils tend to be more alkaline. Soil Physical Characteristics The migration rate of specific lead compounds is affected by the physical characteristics of soil. For example, dense soils, consisting of heavy clays, will prevent the lead compound from moving quickly through the subsurface. Any "free" lead ions become attached to clay particles, with this bond helping to prevent migration. However, with denser soils, the amount of surface runoff increases. Although clay soils inhibit migration, lead reclamation by contemporary removal machinery tends to be more difficult in clayey conditions. Clayey soils tend to clog the screens and "bind" with shot and bullets. This situation may require additional traditional screening, or perhaps screening using water to enhance separation. In contrast, sandy soils or gravel may not impede migration because the open pores of these soils allow lead compounds to percolate quickly. Fortunately, lead reclamation activities are more easily conducted in sandy soils. With this in mind, ranges located in sandy soils should remove lead more frequently. Annual Precipitation One of the most important factors that influences lead degradation (i.e., chemical reactions) and migration is precipitation. Water, most often in the form of rain, provides the means by which lead is transported. In general, ranges located in areas with high annual/seasonal rainfa112 have a higher risk of lead migration than those located in BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges arid regions. This is especially true of outdoor ranges using "Steel Bullet Traps" Steel bullet traps build up a layer of lead residue; these particles are extremely small and more easily transported by rain/water. Also, the smaller the particle, the quicker it will degrade. A bullet trap needs to have a means to collect contact water, or be covered to prevent water from reaching it, and to minimize releases and degradation. Topography/Runoff Directions The topography of your range impacts both the ease of lead reclamation and the mobility of the lead. For example, lead reclamation is more successful at ranges where the shotfall zone is relatively flat, since many lead reclamation companies use heavy machinery that cannot operate on slopes or steep hills. Another important characteristic is the direction in which your range topography slopes. During and after periods of rain, stormwater runoff may wash lead particles or lead compounds off the range. If there are surface water bodies such as lakes, rivers, or wetlands downgradient, the potential for lead to adversely affect the surrounding environment is even greater. Therefore, it is important to identify and control the direction of surface water runoff at your range. BMPs for modifying and controlling runoff are described in detail in Chapter III. Groundwater Groundwater depth should be considered when developing a lead management plan since the closer the groundwater is to the surface, the greater the potential for dissolved lead to reach it. Vegetation Vegetative ground covers can impact the mobility of lead and lead compounds. Vegetation absorbs rainwater, thereby reducing 2 Heavyannual rainfall is anything in excessof the average annual rainfall, which forthe northeast United States (e.g. NewYork, New Jersey) is between 40 and 45 inches. Chapter 11 - Page II -2 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootina Ranaes Table 2-1— Common Physical Characteristics at Ranges — Potential Risks and Benefits Associated with Range Operations Physical Potential Risk to Environment Potential Benefits in Preventing/Managing Characteristics Contamination Clay, acidic soils Acidic soils contribute to lead dissolution May impede percolation of water through -- increasing the potential for lead contaminated soil contamination Binds "free" lead ions -- may increase run-off May benefit growth of vegetative covers Difficult to reclaim lead via sifting/raking Sandy, alkaline Contaminated rainwater can easily Alkaline soils may inhibit lead dissolution soils percolate through soil and groundwater Easier to reclaim lead via sifting/raking Extremely alkaline soil will not support vegetation Sandy, acidic soils Acidic soils contribute to lead dissolution Easier to reclaim lead via sifting/raking -- increasing the potential for lead contamination Contaminated rainwater percolates quickly through sandy soils Steep Rolling May promote off-site drainage or None Terrain drainage to on-site surface water bodies Can impede reclamation of expended shot via raking Flat Terrain Rainwater may "pond" in areas, Expended shot easily recovered promoting lead dissolution and contamination Off-site drainage minimized Wooded areas May impede lead reclamation activities None making equipment difficult to maneuver May provide habitat for wildlife - increasing exposure to lead On-site or VERY high potential for contamination None contiguous surface when shot fall zone is located over or water bodies adjacent to water; increased wildlife exposure; increased lead dissolution. This is NOT an option for successful range location and may be more likely subject to litigation and/or governmental action if lead is deposited into water bodies Vegetation Lead may be absorbed into grasses, Ground covers slow down surface water run - other wildlife food sources on and run-off Some vegetation can extract lead ions from the soils Chapter 11 - Page II -3 the time that the lead is in contact with water. Vegetation also slows down surface water runoff, preventing the lead from migrating off-site However, excessively wooded areas (such as those often used for sporting clay ranges) inhibit lead reclamation by making the soils inaccessible to some large, lead -removal machinery. Understanding the type, concentration and variety of vegetation on your range is necessary for developing your lead management program and implementing BMPs at your range. Accessibility Accessibility to shotfall zones and backstops is extremely important for lead reclamation activities. A range that is not accessible to reclamation equipment will have difficulty implementing lead reclamation practices. 2.2 Operational Aspects Operating practices can have a great affect on the volume and dispersion of lead at your range. Lead Volume Keeping records of the number of rounds fired over time at your range is important. The number of rounds fired provides a realistic estimate of the quantity of lead available for reclamation. This information helps to determine when reclamation is necessary in order to prevent accumulation of excess amounts of lead, thereby decreasing the potential for the lead to migrate off-site. Size of Shot/Bullets Knowledge of the size shot/bullets used on your range may be helpful. Lead reclamation companies generally use physical screening techniques to separate lead shot and bullets from soil. These screens come in a variety of sizes. Knowing what size shot/bullets have been used at your range will allow the reclaimer to maximize the yield of lead shot/bullets at your range. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Shooting Direction and Patterns Shooting directions and patterns are important to consider when determining the effectiveness of bullet containment devices. For example, many bullet traps are effective in containing bullets fired from specific directions. It is vital that you utilize bullet containment devices that match your range's specific shooting patterns and manufacturers specifications. Understanding the shooting direction and patterns will also help to correctly identify the shotfall zone at trap and skeet ranges. Shooting into Water Bodies Shooting into water bodies or wetlands should not occur. Besides the environmental impacts discussed previously, the introduction of lead to surface water bodies will likely cause a range to be susceptible to litigation and/or governmental action. Shooting into water bodies or wetlands is NOT an option for ranges that want to survive in the future. Range Life Expectancy and Closure The life span of your range may be impacted by many factors, including financial and environmental issues, noise, and encroachment on residential areas. If your range is slated for closure, contact your local state or EPA representatives for guidance. 2.3 Planning a New Range As discussed in the previous sections, site characteristics and operational aspects affect lead migration, degradation and reclamation activities at ranges. If you are planning on opening a new range, you should select and/ or design a site in consideration of the factors discussed in this manual. This will allow you to minimize the potential of lead impacting your site or adjacent properties. A new range owner has the advantage of being able to design a successful lead management program in full consideration of the site characteristics and recommended BMPs. This advanced understanding of operational aspects Chapter 11 - Page II -4 and requirements will allow you to minimize the potential for lead migration prior to opening. The most important site selection criteria to consider when selecting a new range location include: topography; surface water flow patterns; and depth to groundwater. If possible, ranges should be developed on flat terrain, as it facilitates reclamation and reduces the chance of off-site migration due to surface water runoff as compared with highly sloped terrain. When considering a prospective location for a range, ask yourself: What is the direction of surface water runoff? Does the site drain to surface water (e.g., streams, rivers) on-site? Off-site? Can the range design be modified to minimize potential runoff? Is reclaimation equipment accessible to the area to clean the range? By selecting an appropriate location and designing a lead management program in consideration of site characteristics, new shooting ranges can be developed to minimize the potential for lead contamination. Other important site characteristics can be modified. For example, a new shotgun range can be designed to concentrate the shotfall area, vegetation can be added or altered, and the most advantageous shooting direction can be selected. These modifications are BMPs, and are discussed in further detail in Chapter I II. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Chapter 11 - Page II -5 This page intentionally left blank Chapter III: Best Management Practices (BMPs) For Outdoor Ranges 3.0 Background ' To operate an outdoor range that is environmentally protective requires implementing an integrated lead management program, which incorporates a variety of appropriate BMPs. These BMPs create a four step approach to lead management: ► Step 1 - Control and contain lead bullets and bullet fragments ► Step 2 - Prevent migration of lead to the subsurface and surrounding surface water bodies ► Step 3 - Remove the lead from the range and recycle ► Step 4 - Documenting activities and keeping records An effective lead management program requires implementing and evaluating BMPs from each of the four steps identified above and illustrated as Figure 3-1. The BMPs discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 should not be considered alternatives to lead reclamation, but rather BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges practices that should be followed between lead reclamation events. It is important to note that the cost and complexity of these BMPs vary significantly. It is your range's individual characteristics that will determine which BMPs should be implemented. The specific BMPs are described more fully below. 3.1 Bullet and Shot Containment Techniques (Step 1) 3.1.1 Bullet Containment Knowing where spent lead is allows the appropriate BMP to be used. The single most effective BMP for managing lead in these areas is by bullet containment. Owners/operators should employ a containment system that allows for the maximum containment of lead on-site. The containment systems mentioned in this section are for reference only. Each containment design for a range is site specific. Each owner/operator must look at the various factors in determining which containment system is best for his or her range. Some factors include: overhead, cost of installation, maintenance (e.g., creation of lead dust from steel containment systems). Range owner/operators should consult with various contractors to determine which containment system is best for their range. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Control and Contain (Section 3.1) Prevent Migration (Section 3.2) Remove and Recycle (Section 3.3) Document Activities and Record Keeping (Section 3.4) Bullet containment -- Monitor and adjust soil pH (e.g., lime Hand raking and sifting -- Document number of rounds fired/shot size - Earthen Backstops spreading) - Screening Document BMP(s) - Sand Traps Immobilize lead e.g., used at ranges to phosphate spreading) -- Vacuuming control migration - Steel Traps Control runoff -- Soil washing -- Document date and - Lamella or Rubber provider of services Granule Traps - Plant vegetation Working with a and utilize organic reclaimer Keep records for the - Shock Absorbing ground cover life of the range and Concrete - Recycling at east 10 years after - Implement closing Shot Containment engineered runoff controls -- Evaluate the - Reduce shotfall effectiveness of zones BMPs used Figure 3-1 — 4 Steps to Build a Successful Lead Management Program Utilizing a Variety of BMPs Chapter III - Page III -1 This section discusses BMPs for controlling spent lead bullets and fragments in a "controlled" and well-defined area behind the target area. Containing bullets and bullet fragments is critical to successfully managing lead. There are a variety of containment device options available that serve as BMPs to control lead. The principle behind all of them is trapping and containing the actual bullet. They include: ► Earthen Berms and Backstops ► Sand Traps ► Steel Traps ► Lamella or Rubber Granule Traps ► Shock Absorbing Concrete For each type of trap, design variations have been developed to fit the specific needs of an individual range. Below are discussions of each general category of trap. Some bullet containment devices are so comprehensive that they virtually eliminate lead's contact with the environment. However, it is important to discuss all types of bullet containment devices because they are part of comprehensive BMPs for managing lead at rifle and pistol ranges. EPA does not endorse any bullet containment design as being "better" than another. Different containment designs attempt to eliminate lead's contact with the environment, however, additional BMPs may be required for lead management. EPA recommends that you discuss your range's bullet containment needs with a variety of vendors before deciding what type of containment device to use. This manual does identify the possible advantages and disadvantages associated with each containment device in Table 3-1, at the back of this chapter. Earthen Berms and Backstops BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges backstop (earthen material, i.e., sand, soil, etc., which is located directly behind the targets). The earthen backstop is generally between 15 and 20 feet high with a recommended slope as steep as possible'. In many instances, backstops may be naturally occurring hillsides. When using an earthen berm or backstop, ensure that the uppermost layer (to a depth of one to two feet) exposed to the shooting activity is free of large rocks and other debris. These materials tend to increase ricochet and bullet fragmentation, which will, in turn, make lead reclamation activities more difficult, not to mention possible safety issues. Removal of lead from earthen backstops may require lengthy reclamation (see Section 3.3) of the soil to remove the lead. Continued use of the backstop without removing the lead may result in increased ricochet of bullets and fragments. In addition, the backstop may lose its slope integrity because of "impact pockets" that develop. Once the lead has been removed from the earthen backstop, the soil can be placed back on the range and used again. Adding lime and phosphate during the rebuilding process is recommended as appropriate (see Section 3.2). However, other bullet containment techniques, including those listed below, should be considered prior to reestablishing an earthen backstop. Sand Traps A variation of the earthen backstop is the sand trap. Sand traps range from those that are simply mounds of sand or soil located directly behind the bullet targets, which serve as backstops to a sand trap that employs a system designed to contain, collect and control lead and contact water. This sand trap uses a grade of sand that is ballistically acceptable. Regular maintenance must be performed to remove larger particles (bullets) from the impact area. These traps are placed so that bullets fired across the range pass through the targets and become embedded in the sand. These traps are typically 15 to 20 feet high with a slope as Perhaps the most common bullet containment 1. National Rifle Association, "The NRA Range Source system at rifle and pistol ranges is the earthen Book: A Guide to Planning and Construction;' June Y P 9 1998 Chapter III - Page III -2 steep as possible. The most important design criterion for these traps is that the uppermost layer (to a depth of 1 to 2 feet) be free of large rocks and other debris to reduce ricochet and bullet fragmentation, and to facilitate reclamation efforts. There may also be an impermeable layer (e.g., clay or liner) under the sand to prevent lead from contacting the soil underlaying the trap. Sand traps come in various designs and levels of complexity. The sand trap may be ballistic grade sand contained in a high backstop, or a more complex "Pit and Plate" system. The Pit and Plate system uses an angled, steel deflection plate cover that helps to direct bullets and bullet fragments to the top layer of sand only. Some of the more sophisticated sand traps incorporate lead recovery devices. However, the Pit and Plate may increase the surface -to -mass ratio of the bullet splatter and, therefore, may increase environmental risk of lead migration. Regardless of the type of sand trap that is used, the traps become saturated with bullets/bullet fragments. Once this happens, the sand must be sifted (see Section 3.3) to remove the bullets. The recovered bullets can then be sold to a lead recycler (this is discussed in more detail later in the chapter). After sifting, the sand can be returned to the trap. Continued use of the trap, without removing the lead, may result in an increased risk of ricocheting off the backstop and thus creating an increased safety hazard. Furthermore, the sand trap will become unstable over time. Sand traps may be located over an impermeable liner, to prevent lead from contacting soil underlying the trap. This will provide additional protection to soil and groundwater. Steel Traps Steel traps are located directly behind the targets so that expended bullets, along with bullet particles, are directed into some form of deceleration chamber. Once inside the chamber, the bullets decelerate until the bullets/ bullet particles fall into collection trays at the bottom of the deceleration chamber. When the BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootina Ranaes trap is full, or on a more frequent basis, the spent lead can easily be reclaimed for recycling. With some steel traps, expended lead bullets may not come in direct contact with soils, thereby possibly minimizing lead's contact with the environment. Consequently, the need for other BMPs (e.g., lime spreading, and/or engineering controls), such as those required at ranges with unlined earthen backstops or unlined sand traps, may be avoided if this trap design is selected for the range's bullet containment device. In addition, bullet removal is somewhat easier than from a sand trap, and may only require emptying the bucket or tray containing the bullets and/or bullet fragments. However, an increase of lead dust and fragmented lead may be an additional environmental concern. Therefore, understanding the amount of lead dust and fragments is important to a successful lead management program. Also, some steel trap designs are not intended for shooting at different angles, therefore limiting the shooter to shooting straight on (no action shooting). As with sand traps, steel traps vary in design and complexity. For example, the Escalator Trap has an upward sloping deflection plate that directs bullets into a spiral containment area at the top. The Vertical Swirl Trap is a modular, free standing trap with four steel plates that funnel the bullets into a vertical aperture in which they spin, decelerate, and become trapped in a bullet collection container. The Wet Passive Bullet Trap is equipped with steel deflection plates that slope both upward and downward. The upwardly sloped deflection plate is covered with an oil/water mixture to help reduce the occurrence of ricochet and bullet fragmentation. The bullet follows its own path in the round deceleration chamber for bullet recycling. Lamella and Rubber Granule Traps The Lamella Trap uses tightly -hanging, vertical strips of rubber with a steel backing to stop bullets. This trap is located directly behind the targets and, in many cases, the targets may actually be mounted to the trap. Lead removal Chapter III - Page III -3 requires mining the bullets from the rubber. The Rubber Granule Trap uses shredded rubber granules, housed between a solid rubber front and a steel backing, to stop bullets once they pass through the target. For both traps, the bullets remain intact, thus eliminating lead dust and preventing lead and jacket back splatter. Depending on the design of the rubber trap, the bullet either remains embedded in the rubber strip or falls to the bottom of the trap, from which the bullets are removed for recycling. These traps, when properly installed, are intended to increase safety by decreasing the occurrence of back splatter and eliminating the introduction of the lead dust into the air and ground. However, there are several concerns over their use, since they may: require additional maintenance; in some cases, present a fire threat under extremely high volume use (due to heat from friction created upon bullet impact); not withstand weather elements over the long term; and cause the rubber particles to melt to the lead bullets, making reclamation more difficult. With the availability of fire-resistant rubber and gels (see Appendix A), these issues are becom- ing less of a concern than in earlier models. Shock Absorbing Concrete In addition to the bullet containment devices discussed above, there are new designs and innovations continually being developed. One of these innovative bullet containment devices is Shock Absorbing Concrete (SACON). SACON, which has been used as a bullet containment device since the 1980s and was extensively field tested by the military, has become commercially available in the past several years as a backstop material for small arms ranges. For conventional rifle and pistol ranges, SACON may provide a means to easily reclaim lead. Additionally, crushed, lead-free SACON can be recycled (recasted) after bullet fragments have been removed by adding it to other concrete mixtures for use as sidewalks, curbs, etc. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges 3.1.2 Shot Containment Reducing the Shotfall Zone Unlike rifle and pistol ranges, the area impacted by lead shot fired at trap, skeet and sporting clays ranges is spread out and remains primarily on the surface. Knowing where spent lead is allows the appropriate BMP to be used. The single most effective BMP for managing lead in these areas is reducing shotfall zones. Concentrating the lead shot in a smaller area by modifying the shooting direction facilitates lead management by providing a smaller and more dense area of lead to both manage in-place and reclaim, thereby making the management and reclamation process simpler and more effective. Sporting Clays Courses Technologies have been developed to assist in reducing the range size of trap and skeet, and sporting clays facilities. The National Sporting Clays Association (NSCA) supports and promotes the Five -Stand Sporting Clays compact course design for shooting sporting clay targets, invented by Raymond Forman of Clay -Sport International, Cochrane, Alberta, Canada. The targets are directed over a smaller area than in English Style Sporting Clays (conventional sporting clays). It was originally designed to be overlaid on a conventional trap or skeet field and to be an alternative to earlier designs, which cover a much larger area. Another design, known as the National Rifle Association (NRA) Clays, is a portable target throwing unit which concentrates 15 rail - mounted machines on a two-story flatbed trailer. The NRA has also developed "compact sporting," which is specifically for sporting clay facilities. This practice alters the angle that the target is thrown to concentrate the shotfall zone. Skeet Fields The typical single skeet field has a shotfall zone that is fan -shaped. For skeet fields with multiple stands side-by-side, the shotfall zones would overlap creating a shotfall zone that has a concentration of shot near the center of the fan. Chapter III - Page III -4 Trap Fields One way to reduce the shotfall zone at trap fields is to build the fields at an angle to one another. This will make the shape of the shooting dispersal pattern smaller and more concentrated. However, if you do decide to choose this option, be aware of safety issues when designing the overlapping shotfall zones For a range with only one trap field, one way to minimize the shotfall zone is to keep trap machines set in as few holes as possible (e.g., the number two or three hole setting). This reduces the area of lead concentration by limiting the angles for pigeon throwing, and therefore the area for lead shot fall. However, when two or more trap fields are positioned side by side, the shotfall zone will be continuous regardless of the "hole" setting. Shot Curtains Another method to consider for concentrating lead shot is the use of a shot curtain. This device is emerging as a potentially effective tool to keep lead shot out of selected areas of the range and, thereby, reduce the size of the shotfall zone and corresponding cost of reclamation. Different designs and material have been utilized in shot curtains and a number are in operation. The effectiveness of shot curtains is site specific and their long term viability and expense have yet to be fully determined. 3.2 BMPs to Prevent Lead Migration (Step 2) This section discusses BMPs for preventing lead migration. These BMPs include: ► Monitoring and adjusting soil pH ► Immobilizing lead ► Controlling runoff These BMPs are important for all outdoor ranges. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootina Ranoes 3.2.1 Monitoring and Adjusting Soil pH and Binding Lead Lime Addition The BMP for monitoring and adjusting soil pH is an important range program that can effect lead migration. Of particular concern are soils with low pH values (i.e., acidic conditions), because lead mobility increases in acidic conditions since the acid of the soils contributes to the lead break down. The ideal soil pH value for shooting ranges is between 6.5 and 8.5. This BMP is important because many soils in the eastern United States have pH values lower than 6.2 To determine the pH of your soil, purchase a pH meter at a lawn and garden center. The pH meters are relatively inexpensive but valuable tools in the management of lead at your range. If the soil pH is determined to be below 6, the pH should be raised by spreading lime. It is recommended that the pH be checked annually. One way to control lead migration is by spreading lime around the earthen backstops, sand traps, trap and skeet shotfall zones, sporting clays courses and any other areas where the bullets/shots or lead fragments/dust accumulate. For example, lead mobilized in rainwater from the lead that spatters in front of backstops after bullet impacts can be effectively controlled by extending a limestone sand layer out about 15 feet in front of the backstop. Likewise, spreading lime over the shotfall zone will help to raise the pH of the very top soil layer to a pH closer to ideal levels and reduce the migration potential of lead. This is an easy, low cost method. Spreading lime neutralizes the acidic soils, thus minimizing the potential for the lead to degrade. Lime can be easily spread by using a lawn fertilizer drop spreader available at any lawn and garden center. Smaller forms of limestone (powdered, pelletized, and granular) are better suited 2 National Shooting Sports Foundation, "Environ- mental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges," June 1997 Chapter III - Page III -5 because they dissolve and enter the soil more quickly then larger forms. However, the smaller forms of lime must be replenished more often. Conversely, limestone rock dissolves more slowly but does not need to be replenished as often. The larger rock form is better suited for drainage ditches, where it can decrease lead mobility by raising the pH of the storm water runoff. Another way to control lead migration in earthen backstops is to break the capillarity within the base of the backstop. Most porosity in the soil material used in backstop is of capillary size, and, as a result, water is pulled upward into a capillary fringe within the base of the backstop. The height to which the water will rise in an earthen backstop depends on the soil material in the backstop. Water will rise more then 6 feet in clay, 3.3 feet in silt, 1.3 feet in fine sand, 5 inches in coarse sand, and only 2 inches in gravel. Because of capillarity, the spent bullets may be in contact with acidic rainwater for a longer period of time, hence more lead is dissolved. Breaking the capillarity by adding a layer of limestone or gravel to the base of the backstop should reduce the rate of deterioration of spent bullets, the erosion of the backstop, and the amount of lead going into solution in the water in the backstop. Also, any lead dissolved should precipitate out of solution as the acids are neutralized and the pH raised from the water passing through and reacting with the limestone. Lime spreading is an especially important method for implementing this BMP at sporting clays ranges where heavily wooded areas are BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges less accessible to conventional lead removal equipment. These types of ranges also tend to have more detritus (e.g., leaves, twigs, etc.) on the ground, which can increase soil acidity as they decompose. In these areas, semiannual monitoring of the soil pH levels is suggested. Spreading bags of 50 pounds (at ranges with sandy soils) or 100 pounds (at ranges with clayey soils) per 1,000 square feet of range will raise the pH approximately one pH unit for a period of between one and four years, respectively. The market price of lime in either the granular or pelletized form commonly ranges from approximately $2.00 to $4.00 per fifty pound bag. Table 3-2 provides information for raising pH levels of clay soils in temperate climates (i.e., Mid-Atlantic/Northeast). Additional information on the amount of lime to apply may also be found on the bags of the purchased lime and/or from the local lawn and garden center. It should be noted that if the soil pH is below 4.5, the addition of lime may only raise the soil pH to approximately 5. In this situation, other BMPs should be used as well. If the soil pH is above the ideal range upper value (8.5), do not add lime. Adding lime to a soil of this pH could result in mobilization of the lead. Lime spreading may be done at anytime during the year, except when the ground is frozen. Additionally, it is important to remember to monitor the soil pH annually, as the effectiveness of the lime decreases over time. Additional routine applications will be necessary throughout the life span of most ranges. Table 3-2 — Calculating Weight of Lime to Increase Soil pH Values* * Lime requirements stated as pounds of lime/100 square foot of problem area for clay soils in temperate climates (i.e., Mid-Atlantic/Northeast US). Chapter III - Page III -6 Current pH 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 Desired 5.0-6.0 14 11 8 5 3 - - - pH 6.5-8.5 - - - 20 17 11 7 - * Lime requirements stated as pounds of lime/100 square foot of problem area for clay soils in temperate climates (i.e., Mid-Atlantic/Northeast US). Chapter III - Page III -6 Phosphate Addition In addition to lime spreading, another way to control lead migration is phosphate spreading. This method is recommended where lead is widely dispersed in range soils, a range is closing, or there is a high potential for vertical lead transport to groundwater (e.g., low soil pH, shallow water table). Under these circumstances, range soils may benefit from phosphate treatment. Unlike lime spreading, the main purpose of phosphate spreading is not to adjust soil pH but to bind the lead particles. This process also decreases the potential amount of lead that can migrate off-site or into the subsurface. Phosphate spreading can be done either separately or in conjunction with lime spreading. Generally, 15 to 20 pounds of phosphate per 1,000 square feet will effectively control the lead. Phosphate spreading is especially recommended for sporting clays ranges and those parts of ranges not easily accessible by reclamation equipment. Phosphate spreading should be repeated frequently during the range's lifetime. See pilot testing under "Other Ways to Bind Lead" below for proper frequency for replacing phosphate. You can purchase phosphate either in its pure form, as phosphate rock, or as lawn fertilizer. The average lawn fertilizer costs approximately $7.00 per 40 pound bag. If you purchase lawn fertilizer, remember to check the bag for the actual percentage of phosphate. Most fertilizers contain 25% phosphate, so that if you purchase a 40 pound bag of fertilizer that contains 25% phosphate (i.e., 10 pounds of phosphate) you will need to spread 80 pounds of fertilizer per 1,000 square feet of the backstop. A typical fertilizer drop spreader can be used for distributing the phosphate. Like lime, phosphate should not be spread when the ground is frozen. In addition, it is not advised to use phosphate near water bodies since it contributes to algal blooms. Rock phosphate is a better choice if water is nearby. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Other Ways to Bind Lead Although it may be possible to minimize lead's mobility by spreading fertilizers that contain phosphate at impacted areas of the range, a more comprehensive procedure for immobilizing leachable lead in soils, by using pure phosphate in rock form or a ground phosphate rock [Triple Super Phosphate (TSP)], was developed and patented by the U.S. EPA/Ohio State University Research Foundation and RHEOX, Inc. This procedure used a three step approach to minimize lead's mobility. The first step was to identify the boundaries of the area of the range to be treated. This included not only determining the length and width of the range area, but also the depth of lead within the area. Depth was determined by taking sample cores of the area, which also identified "hot spots" where lead accumulation was greatest. Once the area was identified, the second step was to treat the area with TSP. Pure phosphate rock was used rather then fertilizers, as this phosphate is insoluble in water and will not cause an increase in phosphate runoff. In this step, pilot testing was conducted. Here, various amounts (in increasing percentages by weight) of TSP were added to the affected soil areas, then the area was tested according to an EPA test method that identified the amount of leachable lead in a given soil sample. This test is called the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, or TCLR Separate TCLP testing of the range's hot spots was conducted. Upon completion of the pilot testing, which determined the amount of TSP needed at the range, the third step was to begin actual treatment of the range. Where the depth of the lead accumulation was shallow (less than two feet), then standard yard equipment, such as tillers, seed/fertilizer spreaders, and plows were used to mix TSP with the affected soil. Where the affected area's lead accumulation was deeper than two feet, an auger was required to mix the TSP with the affected soil. Random testing of the range ensured the effectiveness of the treatment level. Chapter III - Page III -7 3.2.2 Controlling Runoff The BMPs for controlling soil erosion and surface water runoff are important to preventing lead from migrating off-site. There are two factors that influence the amount of lead transported off-site by surface water runoff: the amount of lead fragments left on the range and the velocity of the runoff. The velocity of the water can successfully be controlled at outdoor ranges by: (1) using vegetative, organic, removable and/or permanent ground covers; and (2) implementing engineered controls which slow down surface water runoff and prevent or minimize the chances of lead migrating off-site. Bear in mind that safety considerations and potential ricochets need to be considered when implementing any engineered controls. Vegetative Ground Cover Planting vegetative ground cover (such as grass) is an important and easy erosion control method. Vegetation provides several benefits by minimizing the amount of lead that will run off the land surface during heavy rainfall. It is important to use a mixture of grass seeds to ensure that the cover will last into the future (i.e., annual rye grass lasts one year and dies and perennial rye grass lasts three to four years, then dies off). Fescue grasses form useful mats that are effective in controlling erosion. Ground cover absorbs rainwater, which reduces the amount of water the lead is in contact with, as well as the time that the lead is in contact with the water. Furthermore, the ground cover will divert and slow down surface water runoff, thus helping to prevent lead from migrating off- site. Grasses yield the greatest benefit at rifle and pistol ranges where the bullet impact areas are sloped, and water runoff and soil erosion may be more likely. Specific recommendations are to: Utilize quick growing turf grass (such as fescue and rye grass) for the grass covering BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges of backstops, which can be removed prior to reclamation and replanted thereafter; Avoid vegetation that attracts birds and other wildlife to prevent potential ingestion of lead by wildlife; and Use grass to direct surface water drainage away from the target area (e.g., planting them at the top of the backstop or sand trap). This will minimize the water's contact with lead bullet fragments, minimizing the potential for lead migration. Grass is not impermeable; however, it does slow down the rate of flow and reduce the amount of lead entering the soil via rainwater. Remember, grass requires periodic maintenance (i.e., mowing) to maintain its effectiveness as well as for aesthetic reasons. Mulches and Compost Mulches and composts can reduce the amount of water that comes in contact with the lead fragments. In addition, mulches and compost contain hermic acid, which is a natural lead chelating agent that actually sorbs lead out of solution and reduces its mobility. At a minimum, the material should be two inches thick. These materials can be spread over any impacted area and/or low lying areas where runoff and lead may accumulate. Like vegetative covers, organic surface covers are not impermeable. In addition, the organic material needs periodic replacement to maintain effectiveness and aesthetic integrity. Furthermore, these materials should be removed prior to any lead removal event, as they may impede sifting or screening. Note that these materials tend to be acidic (especially during decomposition), so, if low pH is a concern at your range, this option may not be appropriate. Again, however, lime may be used to control pH (see Section 3.1.1) Surface Covers Removable Surface Covers Removable surface covers may be effective at outdoor trap and skeet ranges. In this case, impermeable materials (e.g., plastic liners) are Chapter III - Page III -8 placed over the shotfall zone during non-use periods. This provides the range with two benefits during periods of rainfall: (1) the shotfall zone is protected from erosion; and (2) the spent lead shot is contained in the shotfall zone and does not come in contact with rainwater. Permanent Surface Covers For outdoor rifle and pistol ranges, impact backstops and target areas can also be covered with roofed covers or other permanent covers to prevent rainwater from contacting berms. However, this method may be less desirable because of the cost to install the roof, which must be carefully designed to avoid safety issues with ricochets, etc. For shotgun and other ranges, synthetic liners (e.g., asphalt, Astroturfrm, rubber, other synthetic liners) can also be used beneath the shotfall zone to effectively prevent rainwater or runoff from filtering through lead and lead contaminated soil. Synthetic liners will generate increased runoff, which must be managed, however. No single type of liner is suitable for all situations based on site characteristics. Therefore, liners must be chosen on a site- specific basis, bearing in mind the site's unique characteristics, such as soil type, pH level, rainfall intensity, organic content of soil, and surface water drainage patterns. Engineered Runoff Controls Runoff control may be of greatest concern when a range is located in an area of heavy annual rainfall because of an increased risk of lead migration due to heavy rainfall events. A "hard" engineered runoff control may be needed in this situation. A heavy rainfall event is defined as rainfall that occurs at such a rate that it cannot be absorbed into the ground and causes an increase in the volume and velocity of surface runoff. The impacts of rainfall are greater in rolling or sloped terrain (increases velocity of runoff) or where surface water bodies are located on, or immediately adjacent to, the range. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Examples of "hard" controls include: ► Filter beds Containment Traps and Detention Ponds Dams and Dikes ► Ground Contouring. Designing and implementing these "hard" engineering controls may require the assistance of a licensed professional civil engineer. They are included in this manual to offer the reader a general understanding of these BMP options. However, this manual does not offer specific instructions for construction and operation of these controls. For information about designing and implementing any of these controls, or assistance with other range design questions, contact a licensed professional civil engineer having applicable experience or the NRA Range Department, at (800) 672-3888, ext. 1417. The National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) may be contacted at (203) 426-1320 for specific references regarding the use and design of these controls. Filter Beds Filter beds are engineering controls built into an outdoor range to collect and filter surface water runoff from the target range. The collected runoff water is routed to a filtering system, which screens out larger lead particles, raises the pH of the water (thus reducing the potential for further lead dissolution), and drains the water from the range area. This technique may not completely prevent lead from entering the subsurface, since lead bullets, fragments and large particles may still remain on the range. Filter beds should be established at the base of the backstop (see Figure 3-2). In addition to mitigating off-site migration, the filter beds work to raise the pH of the rainwater, which has fallen on the target range, to reduce lead dissolution, and to strain small lead particles out of the rainwater. The filters typically consist of two layers: a fine-grained sand bed underlain by limestone gravel or other neutralization material. By design, the backstops and berms direct the runoff so that it drains from the range to the filters. The collected water then soaks through the top sand layer into the neutralization material, Chapter III - Page III -9 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Berm/Backstop of containment traps and ponds by further Vegetative Ground Cover Runoff Direction sand, while the pH -adjusted water drains r-- through the filter to a perforated drainage pipe is important to regularly collect the lead and send located within the limestone gravel. this lead to a recycler. y^'.. Sand Layer "' ° e Perforated "e . Pipe Umestonal •- Gravel Layer `, •` • , e Figure 3-2 — Sample Filter Bed System (Adapted from Proceedings for National Shooting, Range Symposium, October 17-19, 1993, North American Hunting Club and Wildlife Forever) which raises the pH of the filtrate. The lead of containment traps and ponds by further particles in the rainwater are collected on the reducing the velocity of runoff and allowing for sand, while the pH -adjusted water drains more lead fragments to settle from the runoff. It through the filter to a perforated drainage pipe is important to regularly collect the lead and send located within the limestone gravel. this lead to a recycler. Filter beds are designed to capture fine particles of lead transported in surface water runoff. They are not designed to capture bullets. The operation and maintenance requirements of filter beds are minimal. Maintenance activity is limited to periodic removal of debris (such as litter, leaves, etc.) and occasional replenishment of the limestone. The use of filter beds is most effective on sites with open, rolling terrain where surface water runoff is directed to them. At existing rifle and pistol ranges, a limited system of trenches and filters can be installed at the base of natural soil backstops or at natural drainage depressions. Containment Traps and Detention Ponds Containment traps and detention ponds are designed to settle out lead particles during heavy rainfall. Typically, they are depressions or holes in the range's drainage paths. Here, the lead -containing runoff passes through the trap or pond, allowing the lead bullet fragments to settle out. Vegetative cover can be placed in the drainage path to increase the effectiveness Dams and Dikes At shotgun ranges, dams and dikes can also be used to reduce the velocity of surface water runoff. Dams and dikes must be positioned perpendicular to the direction of runoff to slow the flow of surface water runoff. To accomplish this, determine the direction of the range's surface water runoff. This will be particularly obvious at ranges with sloped terrain. The dams or dikes should be constructed using mounds of dirt that are approximately a foot high. These mounds should transect the entire range perpendicular to the stormwater runoff direction. These runoff controls are most important at ranges at which off-site runoff is a potential problem, such as ranges where the lead accumulation areas are located upgradient of a surface water body or an adjacent property. Since lead particles are heavier than most other suspended particles, slowing the velocity of surface water runoff can reduce the amount of lead transported in runoff. Chapter III - Page III -10 Ground Contouring Another mechanism to slow runoff and prevent lead from being transported off site is ground contouring. By altering drainage patterns, the velocity of the runoff can be reduced. Furthermore, in areas where pH is high (resulting in a lower potential for lead dissolution), the soil can be graded or aerated to increase the infiltration rate of precipitation, so that rainwater is more easily absorbed into the soil. This slows down or prevents surface water runoff and off-site migration. It should be pointed out that this design, in effect, collects lead in the surface soils. Therefore, range operation and maintenance plans should include lead reclamation as well as adjusting the pH, and adding phosphate. 3.3 Lead Removal and Recycling (Step 3) To successfully minimize lead migration, the most important BMP for lead management is lead reclamation. Implementing a regular BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges reclamation program will allow you to avoid expensive remediation and potential litigation costs. Ranges in regions with high precipitation and/or with acidic soil conditions may require more frequent lead recovery since the potential for lead migration is greater. In regions with little precipitation and/or where the soil is somewhat alkaline, spent bullets may be allowed to accumulate on the soil for a longer time between reclamation events. It should be noted that to ensure that lead is not considered "discarded" or "abandoned" on your range within the meaning of the RCRA statute (i.e., a hazardous waste), periodic lead removal activities should be planned for and conducted. This typically requires one or more of the following: Hand Raking and Sifting / Screening / Vacuuming / Soil Washing (Wet Screening, Gravity Separation, Pneumatic Separation) These methods are discussed in detail below. Figure 3-3 provides examples of common lead reclamation equipment. Figure 3-3 — Examples of Common Lead Reclamation Equipment Example of shaker system. Courtesy of National Range Recovery Example of final separation device ' (Patented Pneumatic Separation Unit) used with a Shaker System. Courtesy of MARCOR. Chapter III - Page III -11 Also, it is important to be aware that state regulations may require that the material being sent for recycling have a minimum lead content in order to qualify as a scrap metal that can be shipped under a bill of lading (i.e., exempt from RCRA). 3.3.1 Hand Raking and Sifting A simple BMP that can be done by club members, particularly at small ranges, is raking and/or sifting bullet fragments from the soil. Sifting and raking activities should be concentrated at the surface layer. This is a low - technology and low-cost management alternative for lead reclamation. Once collected, the lead must be taken to a recycler or reused. Arrangement with a recycler should be made prior to collecting any spent lead to avoid having to store the lead and avoid potential health, safety and regulatory concerns associated with storing lead. At trap and skeet ranges, conducting sifting and raking activities in the shot fall zone (approximately 125 - 150 yards from the shooting stations) will yield the most lead. For sporting clay ranges, these activities should be conducted around tree bases, where lead shot tends to collect. Basically, the process consists of raking with a yard rake the topsoil in the shot fall areas into piles, as if you were raking leaves, removing any large debris (e.g., rocks, twigs, leaves, etc.), and then sifting the soil using screens. Once the soil has been raked and collected, pass it through a standard 3/16 inch screen to remove the large particles. This process will allow the lead shot sized particles to pass through the screen. The sifted material (those not captured by the 3/16 inch screen) should be passed through a 5/100 inch screen to capture the lead and lead fragments. This process will also allow sand and other small sediment to pass through the screen. Screens can be purchased at many local hardware stores. The screens should be mounted on a frame for support. The frame size will vary based on the technique used by each range. For example, if BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges one person is holding the framed screen, it may be better to use a smaller frame (2 feet by 2 feet) whereas, if several people are holding the framed screen, it can be larger. Raking and sifting can be performed by club members on a volunteer basis. Some clubs provide incentives, such as reduced fees, to members who assist with the lead removal process. Other clubs have hired college students during the summer. A number of small clubs have found that reloaders will volunteer to rake in exchange for collected shot. Hand sifting and raking are cost effective lead removal techniques for small ranges, or low shooting volume ranges. However, these techniques may not be appropriate for situations in which there is a large volume of lead on the range. In this instance, reclamation machinery may be more appropriate. Note: Those conducting the hand raking and sifting reclamation at ranges should protect themselves from exposure to lead. Proper protective gear and breathing apparatus should be worn. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or an appropriate health professional should be contacted to learn about proper protection. 3.3.2 Purchasing/Renting Mechanical Separation Machinery Reclamation equipment may be rented from local equipment rental services. One type of machine that it may be possible to rent for lead shot reclamation is known as a screening machine (also referred to as a mobile shaker, gravel sizer, or potato sizer). This device uses a series of stacked vibrating screens (usually two screens) of different mesh sizes and allows the user to sift the lead shot -containing soil [gathered by hand raking, sweeping, or vacuuming (discussed above)]. The uppermost screen (approximately 3/16 inch mesh) collects larger than lead shot particles, and allows the smaller particles to pass through to the second screen. The second screen (approximately 5/ 100 inch mesh) captures lead shot, while allowing smaller particles to pass through to the ground. The lead shot is then conveyed to a Chapter III - Page III -12 container such as a five gallon bucket. In the Northeastern United States, the typical rental cost for this equipment is between $500 and $4,500 a week, depending on the size shaker desired. It may be possible to get more information on rentals for this type of equipment from heavy equipment rental companies. Another possible option is to rent a vacuum system that will collect the lead shot -containing soil from the range. Here, vacuuming takes the place of hand raking or sweeping. A vacuum machine is used to collect the lead shot - containing soil. Once collected, the lead shot - containing soil must be sifted through a screening system (either a rental screening machine, or a series of home made framed screen sets). You may be able to obtain more information about renting vacuums or vacuuming services (e.g., it may include a person to operate the machinery) from heavy equipment rental companies. Some clubs have found that performing their own lead reclamation to be very time consuming. Part of the reason these reclamations took so long is that the soils were wet. Reclamation is much easier under dry soil conditions. For example, one club reclaimed lead from their range using equipment they modified themselves. Twenty-five tons of lead were collected but the reclamation took over two years. Another club took a year to reclaim 10 tons of lead. A more preferable option may be to hire a reclamation company. 3.3.3 Hiring a Professional Reclamation Company Another option for lead removal is to hire a professional reclaimer. Lead reclamation companies claim to recover 75%-95% of the lead in the soils. Generally, with reclamation companies there is no minimum range size requirement for lead reclamation. Concentration of lead is more important than quantity spread over a field, especially if it is a difficult range for reclamation (e.g., hilly, rocky, a lot of clay in the soil). BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Please note that reclamation companies tend to be in high demand — it may take over a year for the company to start at your club. Therefore, it is wise to plan ahead and make the call to the reclamation company as early as possible. Some reclamation companies require a site visit to view the topography, the soil composition, and amount of lead observed on the ground. During the visit, some companies may even do a site analysis to determine whether or not it is feasible to reclaim. This analysis identifies the location of lead, the expected recovery amount, and the depth lead reaches into the soils. 3.3.4 Reclamation Activities Using machinery to reclaim lead usually requires that the area be clear of scrub vegetation. Grass, mulch, or compost is generally removed or destroyed during the reclamation process. Some reclamation companies have no problem beginning reclamation on a grassy field. Other reclamation companies will remove grass before or during reclamation (by burning it, if allowed locally, leaving behind the lead shot), and still others require that all vegetation be removed before they arrive at the range. Some companies will re -seed the area once the reclamation is completed. Since sporting clay ranges generally have many trees, removal of vegetation as discussed above may not directly apply to existing sporting clay ranges. At these ranges, the focus is on removing vegetative debris (i.e., fallen limbs, tree bark, etc.) prior to reclamation. This may include removing some trees to gain better access with the reclamation machinery. Of course, when designing a new sporting clay range, steps to facilitate lead reclamation should be taken into account. For example, less and more widely spaced trees will facilitate lead reclamation. Reclamation companies use several types of machinery to reclaim lead. Some companies drive their separation machinery over the site. The lead -laden soil is picked up, processed and then returned to the ground after most of the lead Chapter III - Page III -13 is removed. Other companies scrape off the top several inches of soil from the ground, using a front-end loader to bring the soil/lead to stationary reclamation machines, and then return the soil to the field after reclamation. Many companies till the top two to five inches of soil and grass immediately prior to reclamation to facilitate the process (some companies may require this to be done prior to arrival on the range). Regardless of how it is collected, the actual reclamation of the lead follows the same general pattern. Most often, it is sifted through a series of shaking screens. The lead and soil pass through shaking screens (usually at least two screens) of decreasing mesh (hole) size, with the topmost screen having the largest mesh. This part of the reclamation machinery is usually adapted from machinery used for potato or gravel sizing. Any soil/debris automatically screened out as being too big or too small is either returned to the field or re -screened to ensure no lead is caught in the debris. This procedure is why moist, clay soils are more difficult to reclaim. The moist, clay soils can bind together into shot - sized pellets producing more "product" for the second part of the reclamation. The wet soils can also clog the screens. For some reclamation companies, their process ends after sifting the soil and returning it to the ground. However, some companies take reclamation one step further. After screening, the resulting lead, soil, and other lead -sized particles enter a blowing system. Here the lead shot is easily separated from the soil and other debris by the blowing air. The lead is much more dense than the soil and other lead -sized debris so that it falls out first. Figure 3-3 depict examples of actual lead reclamation machinery. Some lead reclamation companies will perform the reclamation during club off -hours so that club activities are not interrupted. Additionally, some perform the reclamation on a field -by -field basis, to minimize any disruptions to club activities. However, others companies require the club to shut down during the reclamation. BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranqes Reclamation time varies depending on weather, site accessibility, range size, and number of personnel assigned to perform the reclamation. Reclamation activities may generate dust, especially in drier western locations. To prevent or minimize dust from traveling off the range and causing complaints from neighbors, reclamation activities generating dust should only be conducted during periods of no wind. In addition, such activities should be completed as quickly as possible. Vacuuming For ranges that are located on hilly, rocky, and/or densely vegetated terrain, several reclamation companies employ a vacuum system that collects the lead shot (and soil and other detritus). The resulting mix is then placed into the reclamation machinery discussed above. This method is especially effective for sporting clay ranges where lead shot tends to pile up around tree bases. Vacuuming has traditionally been used for removal of lead shot from trap, skeet and sporting clay ranges. Another way to apply this method involves removing the top layer of an earthen backstop or sand trap with shovels. It is then spread thinly over an impermeable material such as plywood. A vacuuming device is then used to collect the materials that are lighter than lead (e.g., sand or soil), while leaving behind the heavier materials (i.e., lead bullets/shots and fragments). The soil can then be returned to the range. This process is most efficient for dry, sandy soils without a lot of organic material. A more recent innovation is the use of a high suction vacuum. This vacuum itself does not have to be moved about, since a very long hose (up to 600 feet) is used to move in and around trees during the collection of lead shot at trap and skeet ranges. Soil Washing (Physical and Gravity Separation) Soil washing is a proven technology and another lead reclamation method used by some reclaimers to separate the lead particles from Chapter III - Page III -14 the soils. Soil washing is the separation of soils into its constituent particles of gravel, sand, silt and clay. Because of the much higher surface area and surface binding properties of clay, most lead contaminants tend to adhere to the clay particles. Soil washing, therefore, attempts to generate a clean sand and gravel fraction by removing any fines adhering to the larger soil particles and, if necessary, to transfer contaminants bound to the surface of the larger particles to the smaller soil particles. Typically, the soils are first excavated from the range and then mixed into a water-based wash solution. The wet soil is then separated using either wet screening or gravity separation techniques. One benefit of this system of reclamation is that it does not require that soils be dry. In addition, soil washing may be able to recover all or almost all lead particles through a combination of wet screen sizing and density separation. This technique is an option for remediation of a range being closed and may compare favorably from an economic standpoint with the disposal option. Soils treated using this method have been shown to be below 5 mg/L TCLP and to have up to 99% of particulate lead removed. Treatment costs are site specific, but can range from less then $40 per ton (1999 levels) for simple physical/gravity separation up to about $100 per ton for processes involving leaching. Credits for recycled lead help offset the treatment cost and the cost of recycling any treatment sludges and concentrated soil fines. Water used in soil washing is from a closed loop system and should only be disposed at completion of cleanup. Experience shows the water to not be a RCRA regulated hazardous waste, therefore probably allowing disposal to a local wastewater treatment plant. Wet Screenina With this method, particles larger and smaller than the surrounding soils are passed through a series of large -mesh to small -mesh screens. Each time the mixture passes through a screen, BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootina Ranaes the volume of the soil mixture is reduced. Large particles such as lead shot/bullets and fragments are screened out of the soil/wash mixture early in the process and can be taken off-site for recycling - allowing the soil to be placed back on-site. Gravity Separation This technique can be used in cases where the lead particles are the same size as surrounding soil particles. The wet soil/wash mixture is passed through equipment, which allows the more dense materials (i.e., lead materials) to settle to the bottom of unit and separate out of the soil/wash mixture. Pneumatic Separation Pneumatic separation (see figure 3-3) is an effective means to enhance the traditional screening results. Traditional screening cannot separate shot and bullets from other shot and bullet sized material, i.e., rocks, stones, roots, and various debris. A recycling facility considers non -lead items as "contaminants" which drastically reduces the value of the recycled lead. Pneumatic separation utilizes an air stream, and specific density analysis, to effectively separate the shot/bullets from the other shot/bullet sized material. 3.3.5 BMPs to Assist Lead Reclamation and Recycling There are several operational activities that should be conducted throughout the year to facilitate reclamation. The following is a discussion of these activities. Frequency of Lead Removal It is important to perform lead removal at a frequency appropriate for your site. The frequency is dependent on several factors. These include: ► Number of rounds fired ► Soil pH ► Annual precipitation ► Soil Type ► Depth to groundwater. Chapter III - Page III -15 Lead quantity, as estimated by the number of rounds fired, is a factor in determining the appropriate frequency of reclamation at ranges. It also assists in determining the cost of reclamation. One reclamation company indicated that reclamation was most cost effective when it contains at least 20 pounds of lead per square foot of backstop. Another source indicated that a minimum of 100,000 rounds per firing lane should be allowed before lead reclamation occurs. This would ensure good range operation and maintenance, while minimizing the cost per quantity of lead recovered. For shotgun ranges, tracking the number of targets thrown can help indicate when the lead shot should be reclaimed. For example, considering environmental issues, the market for scrap lead and common cleanup methods, one source indicated that when a range has thrown at least 250,000 to 1,000,000 targets, depending on the shooting area, reclamation of the lead shot is encouraged. Another reclaimer indicated that if at least two pounds of lead per square foot have accumulated on the range, reclamation is recommended. Because the number of rounds fired is important to know, establishing record keeping procedures to monitor the number of rounds fired is recommended. This can be accomplished by maintaining logbooks and asking shooters to list the number of rounds shot and the type/size of shot/bullets they use. This should be done by lane and by stand. There are many ranges at which lead removal has not occurred for many years. Many of these ranges are used extensively. Such ranges are especially good candidates for lead removal and recycling. Subsequent removal frequency depends on range use and environmental factors. The NRA recommends a frequency of one to five years for lead cleanup, even on ranges with minimal use 4. One possible approach to reducing the cost of reclamation 4. National Rifle Association, "Metallic `Bullets" lead BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges more cost effective is for a number of ranges in the same geographical area to work together in organizing coordinated removals at their ranges. This will reduce the reclaimer travel and mobilization cost for each range. Minimization of Vegetation As discussed previously, vegetation is useful both for controlling the amount of runoff and erosion from the range and inhibiting lead mobility. However, excessive or unmaintained vegetative cover can interfere with reclamation activities. For example, large amounts of vegetation impedes the screening and sifting processes used by many reclamation companies. Therefore, prior to reclamation activities, it is best to remove, reduce, or mow excessive vegetation from the area. Once the reclamation has been conducted, quick -growing vegetation such as a rye/fescue grass mix should be replanted. This process should be repeated for each reclamation event. In addition, heavily wooded areas may inhibit lead reclamation because they are less accessible by heavy reclamation machinery. For ranges that are heavily wooded, it is recommended that you minimize the vegetation or modify the range design to allow lead reclamation equipment access to the range. Access to the impact area should be developed to facilitate reclamation. Make sure that the pathways do not present a safety risk. Innovative Landscaping Some new ranges are landscaping their ranges to include a sand track (an area the size of the shotfall zone that is only sand) located behind some aesthetically pleasing shrubs. This allows the spent shot to concentrate on the sand, making it very easy to perform reclamation because there is no interference by vegetation. Selecting a Lead Reclaimer In ensuring that the reclamation is conducted appropriately, selecting a reclaimer that is right for your range is extremely important. Some lead reclamation companies will travel to your range and assess the range prior to conducting Deposits on Outdoor and Indoor Firing Ranges" 1991 Chapter III - Page III -16 lead collection activities. This assessment trip allows the reclamation company to confirm information gained during initial discussions, as well as to assist in appropriately estimating costs, time required, and the estimated volume of lead at the range. Conducting this pre- assessment also allows you to determine which reclaimer is right for your situation. Questions Commonly asked by the Reclaimer When you contact a reclamation company, it is likely that the reclaimer will ask several general questions. Typical questions include: / When was the last reclamation conducted? / How many rounds have been shot since that last reclamation? ► What is the use frequency of the range? / What are the site characteristics and soil types? ► What type of bullet containment device is used at the range? Answering these questions will be a lot easier if you have maintained good records, as is suggested above. Questions to ask the reclaimer When choosing a reclaimer be sure to ask the general questions about prior cleanups (past projects), insurance to cover company and cleanup (general liability insurance, pollution insurance, bonding, etc.), and site plans to ensure health and safety of workers and range personnel. Other questions you may want to ask the reclaimer include: / Can the reclamation take place outside normal hours of range operation? ► What costs are involved? / How long will the reclamation take? / Does vegetation at the range need to be removed? Economic Considerations Lead removal costs may vary dramatically depending upon the type and volume of soil or sediments, topography, amount of lead, location, BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranqes and reclamation company and technique used. Because the economics vary due to many factors, this manual does not provide specific estimates. However, it is important to understand that lead reclamation will generally require an expenditure by the range, even when considering any monetary returns from selling reclaimed lead. By tracking the range use and using the criteria discussed earlier (see Frequency of Lead Removal), the reclamation costs per quantity of lead can be optimized. For long term range management, routine lead removal will help future cost avoidance by minimizing the need for costly site remediation Some reclaimers bid the lowest flat fee with all the lead provided to the range for selling. The range owners/operators must then consider the transportation costs and recycling fee associated with sending the reclaimed shot and bullets to a recycling company. Alternatively, the reclaimer will use the economic return of lead sold for recycling, based on the volume reclaimed and the current value of lead, to reduce the total cost of reclamation and recycling. Although the value of lead varies, the scrap value of reclaimed lead typically falls between $.06 and $.25 per pound, excluding transportation cost. See the appendix for contact information regarding lead reclamation companies that specialize in lead removal at outdoor ranges. 3.4 Documenting Activities and Record Keeping (Step 4) Documenting activities and keeping good records is of paramount importance for an effective lead management program at a range. Owners/operators should document all activities done at the range with respect to BMPs and recycling of lead. Records should be kept on when services were provided and who provided them. Owners/operators may want to document what type of BMP(s) were implemented to control lead migration, the date of service, and who did the services. The records should be kept for the life of the range. Records may be used to show that owners/operators are doing their part to Chapter III - Page III -17 help prevent lead migration off-site and show that they are doing their part to be stewards of the environment. 3.5 Additional Economic Considerations Not all BMPs need to be implemented at once. Many can be phased in over time. However, it is important to begin implementing BMPs, especially lead reclamation and recycling, as soon as possible. Implementing the most appropriate BMPs for your range requires consideration of your range characteristics and costs associated with implementing the BMPs. This manual provides a large selection of BMPs that vary in both cost and sophistication. In selecting BMPs for your range, it is important to look at all costs and all the benefits (or potential problems) associated with each BMP. 3.6 Summary of Key BMPs for Shooting Ranges There are several BMPs that are highly recommended to be implemented, if applicable to your range. Table 3-1 identifies the advantages and disadvantages of all BMPs discussed in this chapter. This table serves as a quick reference guide for potential BMPs. Readers should refer back to the detailed discussions above for further information regarding these BMPs. 3.7 Certificate of Recognition EPA has established a voluntary process whereby a shooting range may apply for a "Certificate of Recognition." The Certificate is intended to be awarded to ranges that have certified that they have prepared and intend to implement, or have implemented, a written Environmental Stewardship Plan that is consistent with the EPA Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges manual. To assist in this process, Appendix E contains a template for an Environmental Stewardship Plan, an electronic copy of which is available on EPA's shooting range website (http://www.epa.gov/region2/leadshot) in several BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges formats. This template, combined with information provided throughout this manual, other resources and guidance, and site- specific factors, will help in guiding the process of evaluating relevant information about your facility and determining which BMP(s) might be appropriate for your ranges. EPA's template was adapted from Appendix C of the National Shooting Sports Foundation's manual, Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges (the NSSF manual.) Accordingly, use of that template would also be acceptable for use in EPA's Certificate of Recognition program. In order to request this certificate, a range must submit a notice to the Lead Shot Coordinator in EPA Region 2 stating that they have completed an Environmental Stewardship Plan as indicated above and are intending to implement it within six months. The certificate is intended to convey, to all that may see it, that the range has declared its intention to properly manage lead shot and bullets. However, it must be noted that a certificate is not a permit to operate and provides no additional operational approval, implied or otherwise. Chapter III - Page III -18 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table 3-1 — Summary of Key BMPs BMPs for Preventing Lead Migration Monitoring and Adjusting pH BMP Option Advantages Disadvantages Lime Spreading 1. Easy 1. Does not offer a 2. Inexpensive permanent solution 3. Effective 2. Will not work in extremely acidic conditions Immobilizing Lead BMP Option Advantages Disadvantages Phosphate Spreading 1. Easy 1. Does not offer a 2. Inexpensive permanent solution 3. Effective Controlling Runoff BMP Option Vegetative Ground Cover (e.g., grass, etc.) Organic Surface Cover (e.g., mulch and compost) Filter Beds Advantages 1. Easy 2. Aesthetically pleasing 3. Relatively inexpensive 4. Effectively slows and can redirect runoff 5. Some may "bioabsorb" lead 1. Easy 2. Aesthetically pleasing 3. Relatively inexpensive 4. Effectively slows and can redirect runoff 1. Diverts and treats lead contaminated runoff 2. Low maintenance 3. Assists with range drainage Disadvantages 1. Requires periodic maintenance 2. Must be removed or reduced prior to reclamation 3. Excessive vegetation will interfere with reclamation 1. Requires periodic maintenance 2. Must be removed prior to reclamation 3. May not be suitable at ranges with acidic soil conditions 1. May require hiring a licensed engineer 2. Higher initial setup cost Chapter III - Page III -19 Table 3-1 — Continued BMP Option Water/Sediment Traps Dams and Dikes Ground Contouring 6 BMP Option Earthen Backstop Sand Trap Pit and Plate Trap (Sand) BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Controlling Runoff (cont.) Advantages 1. Low maintenance 2. Assists with range drainage 1. Low maintenance 2. Assists with range drainage 1. Lower initial setup cost 2. Assists with range drainage Bullet Containment Devices Advantages 1. Minimal (if any) initial setup cost 2. Accepts firing from various guns and directions 1. Low initial setup cost 2. Ease of maintenance 3. Accepts firing from various guns and directions 1. Low initial setup cost 2. Simple installation 3. Lead removal and recycling requires less extensive mining Disadvantages 1. May require hiring a licensed engineer 2. Higher initial setup cost 2. Higher initial setup cost 1. May require hiring a licensed engineer Disadvantages 1. Build up of bullets increases chances of ricochet and fragmentation problems 2. Lead removal requires mining 3. Potential decreased value of lead because it is less clean than lead reclaimed from other trap systems 4. Does not eliminate lead's introduction into the environment 1. Build up of bullets increases chances of ricochet and fragmentation problems 2. Lead removal requires mining 1. Lead builds up on top layer of sand causing ricochet problems 2. Increased bullet fragmentation 3. Higher level of maintenance than sand traps Much of this information was obtained from Action Target's Bullet Containment Trap Technologies video. Reference to various pros and cons of individual bullet containment devices is included in this manual for informational purposes only. The USEPA does not endorse any particular bullet containment device, design, or product. Chapter III - Page III -20 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootina Ranaes Table 3-1 — Continued i ul Bullet Containment Devices cont. BMP Option Advantages Disadvantages Escalator Trap (Steel) 1. Can be used indoors and 1. Deflection plates require outdoors regular oiling. The oil used is hazardous and can easily migrate at outdoor ranges 2. Relatively high maintenance 3. Poor lead collection because the bullets may become clogged at the spiral collection area at the top of the deflection plate 4. Increased bullet fragmentation 5. May require rubber curtains to be placed in front of the trap to slow bullets 6. More noise 7. Possible creation of lead dust Vertical Swirl (Steel) 1. Can be used indoors or 1. Does not accept shooting outdoors from all directions 2. Bullets are captured in 2. Corners where each unit pure form in containers, meet can cause ricochet thus removal and recycling and fragmentation problems is easy 3. More noise 4. May create lead dust Wet Passive Bullet Trap (Steel) 1. Can be used indoors and 1. Expensive outdoors 2. Oil and water mixture is 2. Excellent results (i.e., low hazardous ricochet, low fragmentation, 3. More noise ease of removal) 3. Bullets are captured in containers, thus removal and recycling is easy Lamella Trap 1. Can be used indoors or 1. Rubber strips quickly outdoors become destroyed and must 2. Reduction of lead dust be replaced 2. Potential fire hazard 3. High maintenance 4. Scattered lead fragments mixed with rubber can migrate; lead contaminated granules are hazardous and re uire s ecial h ...n Chapter III - Page III -21 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table 3-1 — Continued Bullet Containment Devices (cont.) BMP Option Rubber Granule Shock Absorbing Concrete Removal and _R yclina of Lead Hand Raking and Sifting Screening Vacuuming Soil Washing Advantages 1. Can be used indoors or outdoors 2. Reduction of lead dust 3. Minimizes fragementation, compared with some backstops 1. Adaptable/can be formed in any shape 2. Can be used to reduce erosion in soil berms/target emplacements 3. Crushed concrete can potentially be recast after fragments removed 1. Easily done by club members 2. Inexpensive 3. Can be done outside operating hours 4. Relatively effective 1. Effective 2. Potential economic returns 1. Effective 2. Can be used at least accessible ranges 3. Less vegetation needs to be removed 1. Effective at cleaning the soil to remove the lead particles so one is left with non -lead soil Disadvantages 1. Rubber strips can quickly become destroyed and must be replaced 2. Some pose potential fire hazard, although fire - retard ant/resistant materials are available in some designs 3. High maintenance 4. Scattered lead fragments mixed with rubber can migrate; lead contaminated granules are hazardous and require special handling 1. Mechanical lifting and handling equipment must be used during installation and maintenance 2. High maintenance (replacement) costs 1. May be more time consuming at large ranges 2. Weather sensitive (i.e., works best under dry conditions) 3. Exposure to lead and lead dust possible 1. Vegetation must be removed 2. Weather sensitive (i.e., works best under dry conditions) 1. Weather sensitive (i.e., works best under dry conditions) 1. Vegetation must be removed BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges References Battelle Memorial Institute, Field Demonstration of a Sieving and Stabilization Technology on Lead -Contaminated Soils at a Small Arms Range at Mayport Naval Air Station, Colum- bus, Ohio, February 1991 Brister, B. The Speed Factor, Field and Stream, January 1995 Connecticut Coastal Fisherman's Ass'n v. Remington Arms Co., Inc., 989 F.2d 1305 (2d Cir. 1993) George, C.J., Joachim, A., and Le, Phu Trong, Long -Buried Lead Shot. Its Stability, Possible Transport by Waterfowl and Reexposure by Hydraulic Dredging at Collins Lake, Department of Biological Sciences, Union College, Schenectady, NY, June 1991 Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, Inc. v. New York Athletic Club of the City of New York, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3383 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Magdits, Louis J., Recycling Regulations, Proceeding from the Third National Shooting Range Symposium, June 23-25,1996, Orlando, Florida Middleton, J.R., Development of Toxic Free Ammunition, U.S. Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center National Rifle Association of America, Lead Article, Risk Issues in Health and Safety - Volume I, Pages 6-8, Winter 1990 National Rifle Association of America, Metallic "Bullets" Lead Deposits on Outdoor and Indoor Firing Ranges, 1991 National Rifle Association, The NRA Range Source Book: A Guide to Planning and Construction, June 1998 National Shooting Sports Foundation, Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges, June 1998 Ordija, Victor, Lessons from Lordship, Proceedings from the National Shooting Range Symposium, October 17-19, 1993, Salt Lake City, Utah Peddicord, Richard K., Lead Mobility in Soils, Proceedings from the Third National Shooting Range Symposium, June 23-25,1996, Orlando, Florida References - 1 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Sever, C.W., Lead and Outdoor Ranges, Proceedings from the National Range Symposium, October 17-19, 1993, Salt Lake City, Utah Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, Inc., Lead Mobility at Shooting Ranges, Newtown, CT, 1996 Stansley, W., Widjeskog, L., and Roscoe, D.E., Lead Contamination and Mobility in Surface Water Trap and Skeet Ranges, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology, Springer -Verlag, New York, NY, 1992 U.S. Department of the Interior, Pollution Prevention Handbook -- Firing Ranges, Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Affairs, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C., Directive 9355.4-12, Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities, July 14 1994 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington D.C., A Citizen's Guide to Soil Washing, EPA 542-F-96-002., April 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. Physical/Chemical Treatment Technology Resource Guide, EPA 542-6- 94-008. September 1994. References - 2 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranqes Appendix A: Resources This manual provides contacts for lead reclamation companies, lead recycling companies, bullet trap manufacturers, and organizations that provide prevention and/or remediation techniques to assist clubs and firing ranges in implementing Best Management Practices for shooting ranges. The list was updated for the June 2005 printing. Vendors who are interested in being added to the list of lead reclaimers or remediation contractors should contact: Lead Shot Coordinator RCRA Compliance Branch US EPA Region 2 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-1866 Telephone: (212)637-4145 E-mail: Lead shot. Region2@epa.gov Appendix A - Page A-1 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Lead Recycling Companies Below is a list of recycling companies for lead in soils and spent lead shot/bullets that were contacted during the writing of this manual. Lead recycling companies smelt lead. It is not inclusive and is included for informational purposes only. Local scrap metal recyclers may also accept spent lead shot or spent bullets. Mention of these companies does not serve as an endorsement by the E PA. The Doe Run Company East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc. Resource Recycling Divsion P.O. Box 147 HC1 Box 1395 Lyon Station, PA 19536 Boss, MO 65440 610-682-6361 Rick Leiby 800-633-8566 573-626-3476 Web Site: http://www.eastpenn-deka.com Lou Magdits I.magdits@doerun.com Exide Gopher Smelting and Refining Spring Valley & Nolan Streets 3385 Highway 149 South Reading, PA 19612 Eagan, MN 55121 800-437-8495 651-454-3310 Robert Jordan, Maritza Rojas -Suarez 800-354-7451 Mark Kutoff Web site: http://www.exide.com Web Site: http://www.gopherresource.com/ Gulf Coast Recycling Kinsbursky Brothers, Inc. 1901 N. 66th St 1314 N. Anaheim Blvd Tampa, FL 33619 Anaheim, CA 92801 813-626-6151 714-738-8516 William Weston Paul Schneider Web Site: http://www.kinsbursky.com Reserve Trading Corp. P.O. Box 302 Medina, OH 44258 330-723-3228 Appendix A - Page A-2 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Lead Reclamation Companies Below is a list of reclamation companies for lead in soils and spent lead shot/bullets that were contacted during the writing of this manual. Lead reclamation companies reclaim lead from ranges. It is not inclusive and is included for informational purposes only. Mention of these companies does not serve as an endorsement by the EPA. Brice Environmental En -Range, Inc. Entact 3200 Shell St, 3326 NW 29th St. 1010 Executive Court P.O. Box 73520, Miami, FL 33142-6310 Suite 280 Fairbanks, AK 99707 Thomas M. Taylor Westmont, IL 60559 Craig Jones 305-999-9965 630-986-2900 907-456-1955 Fax 305-635-8645 www.entact.com www.briceinc.com Email: enrange1@yahoo.com www.en-range.com Performs physical removal of Reclaims primarily from the lead from backstops, earthen backstops and sand Provides lead reclamation and chemical treatment of soils traps. other environmental and and returns soil to the maintenance services. backstop. Karl & Associates, Inc. MARCOR Metals Treatment 20 Lauck Road 246 Cockeysville Road Technologies, LLC (MT 2) Mohnton, PA 19540 Hunt Valley, MD 21030 12441 West 49th Avenue Edmund Karl III Dave Jungers Suite 3 610-856-7700 410-785-0001 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 www.marcor.com Jim Barthel Works primarily in the the mid- 303-456-6977 Atlantic area. Lead -containing Uses a pneumatic separation www.metaIstt.com soil is physically removed and unit to remove lead from sent to licensed disposal sites contaminated soil and treats Removes lead from soil and or licensed recycling facilities. soil to pass TCLP. treats soils at all types of ranges. Sears Trucking Company Solucorp Industries, Ltd. Southern Lead Removal P.O. Box 38 250 West Nyack Road P.O. Box 2645 EI Reno, OK 73036 West Nyack, NY 10994 Daytona Beach, FL 32115 Garland Sears Mike DeLuca Kevin Gilchrist 800-522-3314 845-623-2333 386-763-0115 Fax 405-262-2811 Fax 845-623-4987 Fax 386-761-6991 Email: solucorpmbs@aol.com Physically removes lead from www.solucorpltd.com Removes lead from indoor and soils at trap and skeet ranges. outdoor pistol ranges only. Removes and treats soil using their Molecular Bonding System (MBS) soil stabilization technology. Sport Shooting Services Terra Resources, Ltd. Waste Recycling Solutions, P.O. Box 667 HC4 Box 9311 Inc. Crawfordville, FL 32326 Palmer, AK 99645 1850 Route 112 Ed Tyer Larry Wood Medford, NY 11763 850-926-7375 907-746-4981 Tommy Arabia, President Cellphone 850-294-0132 Cellphone: (907) 232-5059 631-654-3811 Email: envirorange@aol.com Fax: 907-746-4980 www.terrawash.com Uses a vacuum system to Removes lead from earthen remove lead from trap and berms, uses a shaker and Uses gravimetric process to skeet ranges. screen system to separate separate lead and lead from soils, rents TerraWashTM soil washing screening equipment, and technology. consults on range design, primarily in Florida. Appendix A - Page A-3 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Other Resources Below is a list of additional phone numbers that may be of use if you have general questions includ- ing questions on range construction, design, and implementing BMPs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Institute of Scrap Recycling Industies, Inc. 4401 North Fairfax 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 1000 Arlington, VA 22203 Washington, DC 20005-3104 703/358-2156 202/737-1770 Web site: http://www.fws.gov/ Web site: http://www.isri.org/ Lead Industries Association, Inc. National Rifle Association of America 13 Main Street 11250 Waples Mills Road Sparta, NJ 07871 Fairfax, VA 22030 973/726 -LEAD (973/726-5323) 800/NRA-3888 fax: 973/726-4484 Web site: http://www.nra.org Web site: http://www.leadinfo.com National Shooting Sports Foundation and Sporting Arms and Ammunition National Association of Shooting Ranges Manufacturers' Institute, Inc. 11 Mile Hill Road Flintlock Ridge Office Center Newtown, CT 06470 11 Mile Hill Road 203/426-1320 Newtown, CT 06470-2359 203/426-4358 NSSF web site: http://www.nssf.org NASR web site: http://www.rangeinfo.org Web site: http://www.saami.org Wildlife Management Institute 1101 14th Street, N.W. Suite 801 Washington, DC 20005 202/371-1808 Web site: http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org Appendix A - Page A-4 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Web Resources - Usefa't Wob'SlItes Desor"on Web Address Federal Government Sites U.S. EPA's Outdoor Shooting Range http://www.epa.gov/region2/waste/leadshot/ Home Page U.S. EPA — Military Munitions Rule http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/military/ hftp://www.epa.gov/tribalmsw/thirds/remunition.htm U.S. Occupational Safety and Health http://www.osha.gov/ Administration (OSHA) National Institute for Occupational http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ Safety and Health (NIOSH) State Government Sites Florida: BMPs for Shooting Ranges http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/shooting_range/ Massachusetts : Lead Shot in the http://www.state.ma.us/dep/files/pbshot/pb_shot.htm Environment Minnesota: Poster for "Firing Range http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mnables.html Hazards" Ohio: Lead Shot Reclaimers list http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dhwm/leadrecy.htm Wyoming: Lead Recyclers List http://deq.state.wy.us/outreach/lead.htm Court Decisions Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's http://www.duedall.fit.edu/summer/rcra.htm Association v. Remington Arms Long Island Soundkeeper Fund and NY http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/leadshot/lisfnyac.htm Coastal Fishermen's Assoc. v. New York Athletic Club Articles and Research USAF - Lead Contamination in Soils at http://www.afcee.brooks.atmil/pro-act/fact/june98a.asp Military Small Arms Firing Ranges U.S. Army Env. Center (AEC) — Small http://aec.army.mil/usaec/range/operations03.htmI Arms Range Technology http://aec.army.mil/usaec/technology/rangexxiO3.html http://aec.armymil/usaec/publicaffairs/update/win97/range.htm AEC — Green Bullets http://aec.army.mil/usaec/publicaffairs/publicity02.html http://aec.army.mil/usaec/technology/rangexxi00a.htmi hftp://aec.armymil/usaec/publicaffairs/update/spr97/buIlets.htm AEC - Recycling of Firing Range Scrap http://aec.army.mil/usaec/publicaffairs/update/spr99/spr9911.htm Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous http://www.floridacenter.org/ Waste Management National Association of Shooting http://www.rangeinfo.org/resource_library/facility_mngmnt/ Ranges' Reference Library Appendix A - Page A-5 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Bullet Trap Manufacturers' a) c` -o O N Y y Co a) E O fn C E > o p O a U cc N � •� 7 c � C 0 E E E C U U E O N o m rn c U 'a ++ C a5 a3 a in C � aS C a) O O ca N C C 0) a) rn Appendix A - Page A-6 N a) r N O � � O N Ln Eo, o E t rn C T o `n E 3 Cm o 'CA !E E cv �' m O in 'O ... .�--� t ca w cA -D 7 d N N C j C w .... cc C v� >, mo . wvi aTa C,3 V) INo .=mE cc C U m Ca Ca .0d O EO" LA :3 n Cm W cai cSo CDcay c wv o"_ °cal oC2 a o CDLn r -L M m .rnE .N aJ c0 O O C C o_ o a) Co O O O ca L T y O w E O E cv w rn o, int v, o cC r N C C d N E O 'a r CD a ._.+ d O O N .L--� a) M Un w CL Co E CD v .92 n N w E d o c . o E - dd E o W- L a iv °> >o c o E .w . w- r' O a °� rn 7E32 N as c> L a ¢ .3 y a N ca n .E E C o m ao c C C m 'ca E V "O" c O E .cc a' m C C C O O_ E L f� 07 V1 N O N fn Q) f.7 O d .� a) Q) y U U y O L 0C d C= '= 0 0 0 cC L ce a cca a 3 o w w> o w L C O S O O C H w E w Y m c o d N O T a� Q CY yam•, G �O p C C C -Np k` CL (Dy E o a E `m C N E d o w y �a< EL .o m-= Q'n U.S o ID � .-W C m m o o .CD _ V N N E O -0 Ca @ Q.. .00 Cm > •d a Cr S CU cm S 0 O CU CO C w o O .a:. R a9 c d c d E o � � CL o o w, CD Co CD E co c E CDo rnU U ~ CO Co iv m a 0 F- E w O CD R r+ y M U O cep cco C C-) c c o0 c c o 0 y m ate' a) c` -o O N Y y Co a) E O fn C E > o p O a U cc N � •� 7 c � C 0 E E E C U U E O N o m rn c U 'a ++ C a5 a3 a in C � aS C a) O O ca N C C 0) a) rn Appendix A - Page A-6 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Bullet Trap Manufacturers Con't.' N C O N .; CO ca E a 0 to . C -O C w N U N 7 ,O a 0 0 o m d � "O j c � � c O E O C U U E N O 7 N O cc rn c U 0 MC M CD CL to Appendix A - Page A-7 Ln CD s c C0L-.. N � O O N '� cC 'O "O d 0 Z m c0 C C H O 0 U GCL CD C iC 1 O_ E ca 1T V m 0 C "" V C -O cp C O ` n. H N CD 0 -O y — GJ OJ E .a N V .= 0 C d O O C O h H O .- O O ;. •y 0 C E .0 d a O C T '00 0 U C "' C 'O .0. 0 O cp O 'y O G 0> O) cu> 2 `�+ ` C O E O E O_ cC UCm C .E d N 0 Q 0 H J .T. L E X N C �O L 1Q O 01 m E O� d W 0 O) U N O 07 a cp f/7 V O d C O- V) O N M .0.. �i a "00 O 1Li7 cC0 fn O W c0 U d 'O d 1Q E Z 0 E C C N -0 O> -O O7 V 0 0 T N 1C .y 'a O ca N N O � O 0- 2 .O .0 N C O N_ 0 0 0 C — V7 y f0 0 E a� O N 1a `° a a G G d o GJ rn a ca f° E d d m iC 0 v) N C O N H f0 .O O O Z.0 -0 E c d E Y 11 L)o, Co 3 3= c 0 U>p Q Lm y N ._E N W .0 cQ C3 i 0CI3V .N U Cm 0 N 0 "O .0 0 0 0 L Co «.. 4J m CD CO V 0 0 0 E T to S E O E .�+ O N c a'O �.� O N 'O ip C c` T.7 fA c77 y .0 C U C W S) C y> s C I— N "O m L fC 1T O 1017 OU cam. E N c0 0 O Cr C Y H c v G w a ' rn O) N C d C O 07 L 47 70 O U N C N 1C �a�cn N 1C ¢N�� CL C 15.5 d z N 0 o c ID E m E m •= m rnD > .0 V O 7S V •7 O O 7S H 0 aw aw S oma. G v�gt±i GG N p 0 O T CA a _ o 3 c d o c E o O cQ w 0 C c0 � 69 0 O) 00 0 .0 C.7 t.7 C) 0 MCD CD a n ami a)ca y d4 b9 N N b9 2 Z ... N � C N . E T Gd m C° @- `° ' E 5 °' a cv N G - a m v � V)CL 2 1a 7V c Co L=n Ln r Co .. O 3 r u U N O o, V E� o Q7 6i c0 g. d C l0 C Cb y� y N O O O E d N C O N .; CO ca E a 0 to . C -O C w N U N 7 ,O a 0 0 o m d � "O j c � � c O E O C U U E N O 7 N O cc rn c U 0 MC M CD CL to Appendix A - Page A-7 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Bullet Trap Manufacturers Con't.' C o E o Mn c O C m c o O a 0 0 `O a N U N C (D c E 0E c E C U U N E 7 y O m m 75 C C (0 CO O. fA T N C O O C N O � 0 N C C N N O C O � O o `1 � N W Appendix A - Page A-8 C a T y O= O_ d C N O .... GJ O 01 C Co C O N d y 0 C H m G 'D C N =� U o C O CO - 1. o E O Z O C U '(--D E> o _ ca N j CD o c`o f0 Ln d C d S N C N C O Cc, O C N U C E C3 O O —.22 —_ O).� N_ O C N O c0 O X U C N O O u _OO cC O U- -a U E U CD «: o U m -o U om J E 0 CD CU CU E =E = � c rn= a`� .o d N {n C E E a� c U E a� c o d.= s .c C -75 _ •o a a� h o v O v <a E � a`� cCv N _ U °n 3~ Ln a O_ C N O CD w — N f� O N w 0 0 0 3 0 N N .-+ O C O O C O O J 075 � 0 3 0 T N U E C Q O 3 t 21 d 115 N O- E o NN U U a� c ao 0 0 L E a� c"o o y c�Ov OU ,p y 2 � H 3 � .�--� U m N m m n. O L U U CL .N O {p ry1M C 2 O)N 4 U O dCL d 0-0 cs c o L`—° c a .Z'' U- c N — V) O C O C CU O Ln d d mE is = G= E CL 2's t..) . s N a w c Cr a w G co 'y `m 'p ayUi CD o c`c co �`a {.r F N - O O V N N yCD T_ b4 w c U OO— T O O O Q O OM V .Cn = O N d VO' d O Niii W O o 69 'O d _ _ N N .� N "" N O N � D. 69 O_ b9 � 69 � 69 .S 75N Q vciH- in V J U O- O- MN O E2 W m O E E O N v _ O E @ N N- O d oU �.. rn E E N Y N O U N �QQ{iii N L ) ~ T O LfU U y O, E l2') U im f` N fC 3. C00 to C i0 Cza�UN fO NNEn C o E o Mn c O C m c o O a 0 0 `O a N U N C (D c E 0E c E C U U N E 7 y O m m 75 C C (0 CO O. fA T N C O O C N O � 0 N C C N N O C O � O o `1 � N W Appendix A - Page A-8 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranqes Bullet Trap Manufacturers Con't.' N w f`0 � N N � O Y V f0 N E 40 O w c w > 0 0 C O y C5 0 C cu N C -O C w � U y C O C1. Q O O C U N 'O j C M N O f0 E c 8 U N O 3 � O cu Cm C 5 a - c CL in Cu c `O C c N N rn C c° H 0 O O Ln N U W Appendix A - Page A-9 E y as d C O O d a N @j fC m y LU C E O UiCn d N m m B o Q N E U E wcu O O y O N p Uy> C U O m _d U ' wc 0 -- t L L x - UU U N ~ _ O O O C - Sn d C d V in E-0 O CO U L •Q E O D7 C= O .0.. U..�0.. C O ._ T ti .O+ y fo d O y O o a`� N f`C y cp c_ an d o c E °� v� a E cOa 4= H •� rn? .S H c ` ca E u v a4t: Ln E y H O O yr2Y0 E O C d O d 4 v O c- cu"O U=O` Cm C f17 . - a il.. N U 47 C O Ln D - ^� 0. C m C d j 0 O O' y a W E d 0 w- O c.7 73 N GJ U CL a ' o ;'p c0: 0? y d E ATE co E y C7 N . Cr W as d c Z, m o a as m cn U d QO �"� M N Y y "O C E 00 N � ~ V 2 3 .2 m A Call) W N Y UfQ H 07 L O N c:) N i0 L G. EL -L! N V m2 a uo 0 cower�Q _ m V) EZ^ cxa� U2aoo�> tiC a N w f`0 � N N � O Y V f0 N E 40 O w c w > 0 0 C O y C5 0 C cu N C -O C w � U y C O C1. Q O O C U N 'O j C M N O f0 E c 8 U N O 3 � O cu Cm C 5 a - c CL in Cu c `O C c N N rn C c° H 0 O O Ln N U W Appendix A - Page A-9 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Bullet Trap Manufacturers Con't.' Appendix A - Page A-10 Ln E CU aj y •2 O' O N O EC C N O O O EO E U 'O -O ` N T ,N -p N C U E O C d O N C N N O Ea O. 'U f� "i T O C > U O U .N.. d Ea 't 'm Ea N 2 Q) .... y CL Ea EaCU U a C Z' J C E 5 d 'O c0 O7 O Ea •C.) O U U 01 =' Ea C O 'O O U �' C C O .-.. 07 "" N 7n U U E>1 C E••) U E� C O En Ea O~ W .0 0-0 N 2 O �5O U O 0 0 > 0 U En y O v y U U := EEi, p E y y O N tC E_ O E p f�9 O CL... y N O CGt m c0 .� a. O C 'O V E x O E 0 E'7 O T E 'O ET ">'' ` fn O V O O p 0 V) �C .r J ED U CL CD y' O Ea 0 >1C 'O G U Co d T N U O d O ` O U H d i N F- ~ (n a) E M U d M Ea tc0 N > U C O o Co v E = E O ._ E to > fn Ea �_ O O C O .N.vi U an Ea Ea Ea U O v :C y U U E6 U O Or dE 'YOO — U T d O Cm C U m O L O Ea d O O V N O U O U V Ea O -2 Ea O D7 07 C ^ C ~ fa .� d d N O N T CU = -C,3 p) EO N t..7 y 'p O U U •` U P .�... •` O N C C Ea U U O .L-. O O V U O) y .U+ O N ?i 'O U 'C U O O N Ea Ea V O C� O Ea C Vf O O V EC i Vf O EU v U E Ea Ea Ea y U 0 O "� U O U U Ea .) C -O U U Q) ', y m C O V Gn O-.� C T Ea A O) d Q C O Ea O O) C 2K Z U C O O A 07 N .O c c d .U-. Ea .U. N E ,E C _ O) L OD M d En "O Y 5 `O amt= a Q c c ~ En L U .n a-0 cc U c .� a) t- .y L) c O m O Co a N 0.-- N Ea U EC° 3 a) 07 E Fi`C O O o2S .r O C7 CD .a a_ T .� .c U C C Cm o2S � o a o � 'O � C � 2 o N Ea .c v v E v O c ET o o )a t FEo_ — ca aS.S v ¢ E c¢ E� QU- HF EYE -N d U C C CD +ASF E3. • V O.. V) .z....; N d -UO -UO to c c C a) E io c EL..7 . CL � C 7 O" y O a- w S O r� _O Gi O C N N a) C a1. HLno O p if. O'O C :. a� . > > CLEO C .E O ?i Q 6R 'l V) O N a y La U � N O — �. g N H O Z U .LD N 5 m ca Co ca Co wP- a cram cnn.wm in 0 00 Et C NO O cO.o E�pf i. " N U o. Q C Q Eca O rn 6 N -J E U v O- C) G J O 'EC Ud U C 7 0 t: N o O m LO E 2 j NaUQ� —U U— Appendix A - Page A-10 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranqes Appendix B: Lead Shot Alternatives Another method of preventing lead contamination at pistol, rifle, trap, skeet, or sporting clays ranges is to use less toxic or non -lead ammunition. Much progress has been made in the development of alternatives to lead shot for hunting uses. Information gathered since 1976 on lead poisoning of endangered and non - endangered migratory birds due to lead shot ingestion led the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to consider several alternatives to eliminate lead poisoning among migratory waterfowl birds. A ban on lead shot for water fowl hunting was phased in beginning in 1986 and finalized in 1991. Lead shot is also now banned for shotgun hunting occurring near wetlands in national wildlife refuges. Starting in the fall of 1998, the USFWS banned the use of lead shot in waterfowl production areas. Additionally, many state - managed hunting areas require non-toxic shot for upland/small game hunting. There are several alternatives to lead shot on the market today and still more alternatives are being developed. Before being used for waterfowl hunting, these alternatives must be approved by the USFWS. Bismuth, steel, tungsten/iron, and tungsten/polymer shots have been approved by the USFWS and additional alternative shot materials are in the USFWS approval process. Most of the ammunition manufacturers in the United States, as well as the military, have developed non-toxic alternatives to lead. Research in Europe may also result in additional non-toxic shot alternatives from which U.S. shooters may choose in the future. The following pages compare lead shot to non-toxic, alternative shot. Appendix B - Page B-1 BMP for Lead at Outdoor ShooingRang s . . -0 a . @ o e 7 0 ) E ... . m t § o § % 7 . e E c b m a cm k � & m � m k70£ co Eq k cz a m o = d a E 6 ? 2 % § f ecn . . >1 .2 -0 e c 2 - ƒ a� ° E 0 §M f /.& �U) E k k z E \g k§ .E.2 cc k 2k 2� o n . o.M U« .» ._ o e ± E 3 0 ¥ E 6 . e k \� a 7 kf co k cn . \ k . < . E k \ t�� z ^E ? k « : . �2 7 . �° �. .CL 2 C 0 2 2 % E . 7% e . io D .E R 0 7k « om % co 0 \ ` 0 k 2 7 . k / 0 kc 04 =2J C? E26 AV+ cn m/66 .cd ^ ? 2 E k. .. 5 CO . . '0 E2% CO) ..R 3%% ¢ \ \ / \ � cc / C/) 4 $ _ � \ CL < Appendix B -Pa e B- .i BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges C N E a- 0 4) •D 76 7 C Q7 a E W O E E +�O (D fD L 0 :3 — Fu C > 3 c O co 'C 3 O O c 3 U c Z c0 D O O Mn O Y E � O � L O .. (n N 3 3: E U U O d j > 3 U � -D O- N a Q v Appendix B - Page B-3 rn CD .T N civ N C C M O� d y N ,_ C M, cu > 5 3 cu t L> O`_0 U- N i cc O . C -32 0 r- cCC >S O y NU 0 N .O L 0 N co E E o •� L 'N a) � O cc N N C7 O M == �.•� D) O C M a) N CU N C fC0 'D c6 C N o Q) cu C y y .... N E a) O O E N O 'o y a) O� y d w a) N y C L 47 7 .0 d7 O N C U> C co 2 cu 3 .� H V .0 cu a) C° V —z, E N N C CM O -.y N d o N L a rn- E y N co Q) -O N 6 M E O O E a) O N N C co O � N V N 2 E d� C N fC .0 N CQ c0 N !� cm O O � E O v CU C N cu 0 :5 m j > N i j� E > .0 T� d Y O C3- Q M .E O C .O C N C cd .y y C O cu co ca O C7 N �' J O T 0 a) .0+ Vj CM N U •— U O V � C co � O c0 s y ca N ca .S > as a o aj a o m — CJ c w R c civ y = fn U a) C 0 1n Q D'1 Z - 0 0 a) N 0� sUV) Eng E V O aD X `- o C o - V K c � J. N_ O X b9 !C CD ta O O N O cu Z LO N — � � H � a 'C ego •d N N C N E a- 0 4) •D 76 7 C Q7 a E W O E E +�O (D fD L 0 :3 — Fu C > 3 c O co 'C 3 O O c 3 U c Z c0 D O O Mn O Y E � O � L O .. (n N 3 3: E U U O d j > 3 U � -D O- N a Q v Appendix B - Page B-3 � ■ / c 0 U I ■ ■ > � c � � 0 r U) '0 m @ � 2 ?_1 m E E 3 cn BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooung Range :m . 7 o aCU E a 01 & / § 16 »\ o k£\ o k § -0� / k k . .(.CAS_ S�0 CU a ee - : t 2 0-0-0-0 7 E w f o a o k 2 E§§ a G o 5 7 D£. o D2 S 0 . 8f G� 0 . a�-� k E£ o=£/ C6 t c a 2 7 6�0 m cDf/ �� a &f:2 n� §2k . �5� d m a 2 kƒ$ §� k� k/ ƒ k/ � / k 2 7 5 7 k m k 2R2\%- �/ /k§&J § £ 2 ? « @ G £ $� m f Cl) .« / E m a £ 7 7 2 2 2 2 8 ¢ 2 S . 2 S9 S .2�. m2»�m2 . » 2 § & E - - . _ t o a� m o �+2�\Fa . ¥a k f f \ § 2 § ' 7 < mn Q f 2 0 a) 0ca2 6 G C_ - co ƒ o § § �� f k' k k . / k a E � £ o 0 c c ¢ m �.- $ � \ a � e _ : � 2 9? V) A C) @03 W.� g cm : k \0 $ X 2 e b o b.2 7 2 -0-0 G � j \ � m ^k\ 27 CM k t� E 7 a . 0 0 .I co. � # Q .Zs- (.0- Appendix B -Page B-4 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootina Ranaes Appendix B - Page B-5 C N C y L y y cad Ln 0 d U T fC 0 0 N .� C a E O 'C C CD E 7 cD -O �7 _O m O O �L O_ E= T._ O -,Rn E c rn E v -.H a cm m m o T E O Och a� C .@ •� g a a co o 0 0 cv E > c '— m o f° - N N m E �' C U N d .2 N c0 o S U E Q 3 y_ V) 0 N> �' cu 0 O y O O O L �V7 'O C -O N c r d 'O E N = d O d N O_ �- C O C O d cD d cu p T N-0> cd O LO y O d N EL N d N L N 2 d Q. .�.. U O T C 3 O U _M mO d D7 N "O Vf N cutm=. V u .2 3 a LL 0 7 L y y t cp Q E N O O. Y =3L ••`. V) CO N L o m A N d m > co O C _T C `7 4 U c 0 c d N O) C t O O a Q E eg U m A- O a� T m d N Z V) N U- V) O C.) ` _Ir co N d Ua�.r c.T. 5 a N 122 > E O m jr- y E e6 vaU N � Y r H p� O O c0 C E p .Cp N > = = CL H H > m Appendix B - Page B-5 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges i CS3 10 C L 07 O O C N O Z U C N a C C9 E m C N 'O O E N N N CD 0 Cn N cc C CD N CC CD o -O N CD CD E c C" N X O C CAD` C yW+ OCDN >> Cn C L a) U 'O O O CO C N O yam+ N O L N O G? N CD > -C M O .N Appendix B -Page B-6 cu ca s _ — O_ O O U O O CC N N .�. CU V ZT ? I O > U d O O ~ � CZ > VcQ p c cis CD c6 N N Mn o o c -o c U3 n CO c c� cz N ....E GQ7 E H cn in CD N co c T .C9 � C N cc Q U cn a) CLS U U Cv ca *= E _ a) E Ona O N > `C = C a) cos Cn co -0 O_ N N E N A .. N ) C .�U-� aCo �O C N d 'C > CL)> .N c a _� _N C: - w cD aD U�Ea c 0 3 ca = C7) c .c d a> N yQ O CJ >. z fti 67d :j z c� c C) a o E p O N c cn M N cn N c 0) LT O cnU •L ` OCES U a' as N (/i cu > C C) .c 7 co C !n d 7 Cl)H Z:)cz s i CS3 10 C L 07 O O C N O Z U C N a C C9 E m C N 'O O E N N N CD 0 Cn N cc C CD N CC CD o -O N CD CD E c C" N X O C CAD` C yW+ OCDN >> Cn C L a) U 'O O O CO C N O yam+ N O L N O G? N CD > -C M O .N Appendix B -Page B-6 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Summary of Lead Shot Alternatives - Conclusions The table clearly illustrates that a number of non-toxic alternatives to lead shot exist such as steel and tungsten as well as alloys and synthetic polymers. As demand for shot from these metals increases from migratory waterfowl hunters, it is anticipated that the costs will come down. However, alternatives currently cost approximately two to twenty times more than lead shot. The ban on lead shot in hunting situations impacts target shooting. The alternatives to lead shot that are now being developed for or are already approved by the USFWS for migratory bird hunting could be considered for use by target shooters. Although alternatives to lead shot are now being used by hunters, it is rare that the alterna- tives are used by target shooters. The limiting factors appear to be the expense and perfor- mance. All the alternatives to lead are much more expensive, some prohibitively. Unfortu- nately, the least expensive alternative, steel, is also perceived to be less effective. To encourage use of lead shot alternatives, some ranges sponsor shooting competitions using lead-free ammunition, but these are rare. The use of steel or other alternative shot is a recommended BMP in established sporting clays areas at which reclamation of lead shot is difficult to impossible. Note: Switching to non-toxic shot may create additional issues. For instance, steel has an increased risk of ricochet. Switching to steel may require additional safety features and/or operating procedures. Appendix B - Page B-7 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges This page intentionally left blank Appendix B -Page B-8 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Appendix C: Sample Bullet Containment Devices The bullet containment designs in this appendix are sample designs for the containment systems mentioned in this manual. Design systems may vary from different manufacturers. Reference to various individual bullet containment devices is included in this manual for informational purposes only. EPA does not endorse any particular bullet containment device, design, or product. Builots impact and are contained in the sand Sand Sand Trap Target Direction r of Fre Target Area Frame System Elastic Facing Direction Granulated of Fre Rubber Back Ptate Elastic Facing Access for Recycling and Removal of lead Rubber Granule Trap (Adapted from: Bullet Trap Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan: Technology Identification Final Report, U.S. Army Environmental Center, March 1996) Appendix C - Page C-1 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Gel -Cor Bullet TrapTM (Provided by Super Trap, Inc.) Bullet Collection Area s Directi Bullet / of Fire Trajectory ffec�r Flamm Support / —Frames Escalator Trap (Adapted from: Bullet Trap Technologies, Action Target Educational Video Series) Appendix C - Page C-2 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Vertical Swirl Trap (Adapted from: Bullet Trap Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan: Technology Identification Final Report, U.S. Army Environmental Center, March 1996) Wet Passive Trap (Adapted from: Bullet Trap Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan: Technology Identification Final Report, U.S. Army Environmental Center, March 1996) Pitt and Plate (Adapted from: Bullet Trap Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan: Technology Identification Final Report, U.S. Army Environmental Center, March 1996) Appendix C - Page C-3 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Steel Bullet Trap (Adapted from: Bullet Trap Technologies, Action Target Educational Video Series) Steel Sacktr tlanpinp lRubl9ar Lamels (Stripa of Direction of Fire rubber) Frame Lamella Trap (Adapted from: Bullet Trap Feasibility Assessment and Implementation Plan: Technology Identification Final Report, U.S. Army Environmental Center, March 1996) Appendix C - Page C-4 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Appendix D: RCRA Regulatory Requirements and Interpretations Timely separation of lead shot and bullets from soil at active ranges, recycling of the lead, and subsequent redeposition of the soil on the active range is exempt from RCRA regula- tion. 1. Reclaiming and Recycling Lead Shot EPA's Office of Solid Waste issued guidance in 1997 indicating that lead shot, when recycled, is considered a scrap metal and is therefore exempt from RCRA regulation. A copy of the March 17, 1997 letter with this guidance is attached. Under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management regulations, lead shot would be considered scrap metal, which is exempt from hazardous waste regulations if it is recycled (see 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(ii)). Although storage of scrap metal being recycled is not affected by specific time limits such as the speculative accumulation provision (40 CFR 261.1(b)(8)), the scrap metal must legitimately be recycled to remain exempt under this provision. It should also be noted that lead shot may be subject to the authority of RCRA 7003, which addresses imminent hazards. However, use of best management practices is likely to prevent situations which would present an imminent hazard. Using such practices, together with following a clear, written policy governing the facility's recycling efforts, should also assist in assuring that the facility's practices can be demonstrated to be legitimate recycling. 2. Storage of Lead on Shooting Ranges Prior to Recycling Some ranges have indicated that it may be desirable to store recovered lead shot and bullets on the range property for some periods of time prior to sale for recycling. Provided that best management practices are followed in terms of storing and recycling the sorted lead, a range that follows such practices, and engages in legitimate recycling, should be able to store such material prior to recycling without RCRA regulatory controls (see discussion below). Best practices would suggest that the sorted lead, at a minimum, should not be exposed to the elements and should be managed so as to prevent releases to the environment. Best practices also indicate that the sorted lead should be stored in containers in good condition, regular inspections of the container condition should be conducted, and the records of inspections should be maintained and be readily available. Further, best practices also suggest that the sorted lead should be recycled in a timely manner and storage times should not exceed the time -frames or goals articulated in a clear, written policy. Appendix D - Page D-1 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges 3. Placement of Soil After Removal of Lead For soil placed back on an active range after a BMP has been applied to remove the lead, the following regulatory approach has been followed. On February 12, 1997, EPA published the RCRA Subtitle C Military Munitions Rule in the Federal Register (62 Fed. Reg. 6621). The Military Munitions Rule considers range management to be a necessary part of the safe use of munitions for their intended purpose. Thus, the range clearance activity (recovery of lead shot and bullets) is an intrinsic part of the range operation. Therefore, the rule excludes range clearance activities (including the placement of soil back on the range) from RCRA Subtitle C regulation. Although the Military Munitions Rule did not apply to non-military ranges, EPA, in its response to comments on the proposed rule, clearly stated that "it felt that the'range clearance' interpretation in the final Military Munitions Rule is consistent with the EPA's interpretations for non-military ranges" In addition, the EPA's Director of the Office of Solid Waste sent the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation a letter dated April 29,1997, confirming that the Military Munitions Rule range clearance principles apply equally to non-military ranges. A copy of the letter is attached. 4 Relocation of Backstop and Shotfall Zone Soil Some ranges have indicated to the EPA that it may be desirable to transport and/or relocate a backstop in order to reorient or modify their range. This may occur when there is a need to reorient the range due to environmental concerns (e.g., shooting over water (wetland, stream, pond) or excessive runoff), alter the layout to improve shooter safety, or redesign to modify shooting conditions (e.g., adjusting number of shooting positions, increasing or decreasing target distance.) In some cases backstop material would not be moved off the range property, but to another area on the range property. EPA's position is that range backstop materials are part of the range and are not wastes when they are moved or relocated, as long as the range continues to be used as a range and the backstop materials continue to be used as backstop materials. Hence, backstop materials that are still in use are not subject to the RCRA hazardous waste management regulations and need not be tested for hazardous waste characteristics. However, removal of lead from backstop materials that are to be relocated or moved is a normal practice of good range management in that it extends the usable life of the materials and reduces the possibility of releases of lead into the environment. If lead removal does not occur before moving the backstop material, the lead will become more dispersed throughout the material during movement and will thus be more difficult to recover in future reclamation events. As a range management practice, it is environmentally preferable to use soil that may already contain lead and is on an active portion of the range, which will therefore undergo regular lead reclamation in the future, than to leave such soil in place and construct a new backstop with lead-free soil. Records of all movements of berm and shotfall zone soils, along with corresponding site plans, should be maintained indefinitely, as they will be necessary in evaluating cleanup needs during subsequent construction or range closure. Appendix D - Page D-2 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 March 17, 1997 Mr. Duncan Campbell Environmental Protection Agency, Region V RCRA Enforcement 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507 Dear Mr. Campbell: Enclosed please find a memorandum on the regulatory status of lead shot, which includes a general discussion on the regulatory status of lead shot as scrap metal. I hope that this information is sufficient to address your specific concerns as they relate to the pile of lead shot at the Saxon Metals facility. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (703) 308-8826. Sincerely, Jeffery S. Hannapel Office of Solid Waste Enclosure To: Duncan Campbell, EPA Region V From: Jeff Hannapel, EPA Office of Solid Waste Date: March 13, 1997 Re: Regulatory Status of Lead Shot Based on our conversations, it is my understanding that Saxon Metals received for recycling a shipment of approximately 30,000 pounds of lead shot from a commercial indoor shooting range. Smokeless gun powder is, presumably, commingled with the lead shot. The mixture appears to exhibit the ignitability characteristic of hazardous waste (as evidenced by the incident in which the material ignited when Saxon Metals was attempting to load it into the furnace with a front-end loader). You have asked our office to provide you with guidance on the regulatory status of the lead shot portion of the mixture, specifically whether it is consid- ered a spent material or scrap metal. The Agency has taken the position that the discharge of ammunition or lead shot does not constitute hazardous waste disposal because the Agency does not consider the rounds from the weapons to be "discarded." As you know, discard is a necessary criterion to be met Appendix D - Page D-3 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges before a material can be considered a solid waste and subsequently a hazardous waste. (40 CFR §261.2(a).) The Agency's interpretation regarding discard is based on the fact that shooting is in the normal and expected use pattern of the manufactured product, i.e., the lead shot. Enclosed for your information is a September 6, 1988 letter from EPA to IDEM on this particular point. In the federal regulations, the term, "scrap metal," is defined as "bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g., bars, turnings, rods, sheets, wire) or metal pieces that may be combined together with bolts or soldering (e.g., radiators, scrap automobiles, railroad box cars), which when worn or superfluous can be recycled." (40 C.F.R. §261.1.) In the Federal Register preamble for the final regulations on the definition of solid waste, EPA indicated that "scrap metal is defined as products made of metal that become worn out (or are off -specification) and are recycled to recover their metal content, or metal pieces that are generated from machine operations (i.e., turnings, stampings, etc.) which are recycled to recover metal" (50 Fed. Reg. 614, 624 (1985).) The lead shot portion of the Saxon Metals pile would be considered scrap metal pursuant to the regulatory definition of scrap metal. EPA provided further clarification on the regulatory status of scrap metal in the Federal Register preamble to the definition of solid waste final regulations: [a]t proposal, scrap metal that was generated as a result of use by consumers (copper wire scrap, for example) was defined as a spent material. (This type of scrap is usually referred to as "obsolete scrap") Scrap from metal processing, on the other hand (such as turnings from machining operations) was defined as a by-product. (It is usually called "prompt scrap:') Yet the scrap metal in both cases is physically identical (i.e., the composition and hazard of both by-product and spent scrap is essentially the same) and, when recycled is recycled in the same way - by being utilized for metal recovery (generally in a secondary smelting operation). In light of the physical similarity and identical means of recycling of prompt scrap and obsolete scrap, the Agency has determined that all scrap metal should be classified the same way for regulatory purposes. Rather than squeeze scrap metal into either the spent material or by-product category, we have placed it in its own category. (50 Fed. Reg. at p. 624) Based on these regulatory passages, the lead shot portion of the pile would be considered scrap metal, and not a spent material. The lead shot is a product that is made of metal that can be recycled to recover metal content. Furthermore, the lead shot has not been "discarded" by virtue of its discharge at the shooting range, because the discharge is within the normal and expected use pattern of the manufactured product. Ac- cordingly, lead shot would be considered scrap metal for regulatory purposes. Scrap metal is a solid waste, but it is exempt from the regulatory requirements of Subtitle C when it is recycled. (40 C.F.R. §261.6(a)(3)(ii).) As part of the Phase IV land disposal restrictions supplemental rulemaking (which was proposed January 25, 1996 and is expected to be finalized in April 1997), processed scrap metal and two categories of unprocessed scrap metal that is being recycled would be excluded from RCRA jurisdiction. Appendix D - Page D-4 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Please note that this discussion of the regulatory status is limited to the lead shot portion of the pile as you requested. To the extent that the entire pile exhibits the ignitability or reactive characteristic of hazardous waste, the mixture of materials would be considered hazardous waste and not scrap metal. The scrap metal designation for the lead shot would be appli- cable only to the extent that the lead shot could be segregated from the other materials in the pile. I hope that this guidance on the regulatory status of lead shot recovered from shooting ranges provides you with the clarification that you needed. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me. Appendix D - Page D-5 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges This page intentionally left blank Appendix D - Page D-6 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 APR 29 1997 Mr. John RCahill Acting Commissioner State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Albany, New York 12233-1010 Dear Mr. Cahill: Thank you for your letter of April 3, 1997 to Administrator Browner requesting a clarification of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Final Military Munitions Rule regarding the extension of its range clearance principles to non-military ranges. Although the final rule addresses only military ranges, we agree with your view that the range clear- ance principles apply equally to non-military ranges [see comment no. 5 on page 36 of the enclosed excerpt from the Military Munitions Final Rule Response to Comments Back- ground Document]. We are aware of the State of New York's active leadership role in the clean-up of private firing ranges. We appreciate your writing in support of the range clearance aspects of the final Military Munitions Rule and we will consider your suggestions that we issue broader guidance on the applicability of its principles to non-military ranges. Enclosure Sincerely yours, Elizabeth Cotsworth, Acting Director Office of Solid Waste Appendix D - Page D-7 This page intentionally left blank BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Appendix E: Template for an Environmental Stewardship Plan for Management of Lead Shot/Bullets Instructions EPA encourages outdoor shooting ranges to adopt and implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) found in this manual. To this end, it is recommended that ranges first prepare an Environmental Stewardship Plan (ESP or Plan), which gathers information about, and guides evaluation of, site specific conditions of each range. As such, the ESP assists in selection of appropriate BMPs. This document serves as a template that may be used by sportsmen's clubs and shooting ranges in their preparation of an ESP. This template was adapted from Appendix C of the National Shooting Sports Foundation's manual, Environmental Aspects of Construction and Management of Outdoor Shooting Ranges (the NSSF manual.) This template is only a tool to assist in making ESP preparation easier and can, and in some cases should, be modified to incorporate specific information relative to your club and its ranges. It is intended to be used in conjunction with a full understanding of the NSSF, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and, for ranges in Florida, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) manuals for the safe management of lead at outdoor shooting ranges. This template is intended to encourage ranges to prepare ESPs and submit them to EPA or NSSF to obtain a Certificate of Recognition from EPA. In this regard, either the following template or the NSSF template is recommended for use in conjunction with EPA's Certificate of Recognition program. An electronic copy of this template is available on EPA's shooting range website (http://www.epa.gov/region2/leadshot) in several formats. Disclaimer: This template does not serve as a substitute for understanding the concepts and techniques discussed in the EPA manual or other manuals. This template is not to be used as a substitute for consultation with scientists, engineers, attorneys, other professionals, or U.S. EPA. Appendix E - Page E-1 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges This page intentionally left blank Appendix E - Page E-2 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Environmental Stewardship Plan for Management of Lead/Bullets at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Club Name Address City/Town, State & Zip Code Phone #: Date Appendix E - Page E-3 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table of Contents ❑ Introduction • Mission Statement • Purpose • Goal • Delete ❑ Site Assessment • Description of Ranges and Support Facilities • Existing Environmental Conditions - Trap and Skeet Fields - Sporting Clays Course - Rifle and Black Powder Range(s) - Outdoor Handgun Range(s) ❑ Trap and Skeet Fields • Action Plan - Potential Management Options - Selection of Management Options to be Implemented - Options Selected a) Management Actions b) Operational Actions c) Construction Actions • Plan Implementation - Schedule for Implementation - Responsibilities ❑ Rifle, Black Powder, and Outdoor Handgun Ranges • Action Plan - Potential Management Options ....................................... - Selection of Management Options to be Implemented............ - Options Selected....................................................... a) Management Actions .................................................. b) Operational Actions ................................................... c) Construction Actions .................................................. • Plan Implementation................................................................. - Schedule for Implementation .............................................. - Responsibilities.............................................................. Appendix E - Page E-4 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Table of Contents (continued) ❑ Sporting Clays Course...................................................................... • Action Plan............................................................................ - Potential Management Options ....................................... - Selection of Management Options to be Implemented............ - Options Selected....................................................... a) Management Actions ............................................. b) Operational Actions .............................................. c) Construction Actions ............................................. • Plan Implementation................................................................. - Schedule for Implementation .............................................. - Responsibilities.............................................................. ❑ Measuring Success........................................................................... • Vegetation............................................................................. • Soil and Runoff pH.................................................................. • Erosion................................................................................. ❑ Plan Review and Revisions............................................................... Figures Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Facilities Diagram (Additional figures, as appropriate) Tables Table 1: Table 2: Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: (Additional Appendices, as appropriate) Appendix E - Page E-5 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranqes Introduction The XYZ Club, Inc. is located at 123 X Road in Anytown, USA... Mission Statement The XYZ Club, Inc. is committed to... - Purpose: The Purpose of this Environmental Stewardship Plan (i.e., the Plan) is to: • Identify potential environmental concerns that may exist; • Identify, evaluate, and prioritize appropriate actions to manage lead shot and bullets safely, as well as identifying and addressing environmental concerns; • List short- and long-term steps needed for implementation; • Develop an implementation schedule; • Identify ways to measure the Plan's success; • Evaluate annual progress made towards achieving environmental stewardship goals; • etc. - Goal—To minimize the release of lead into the environment. Activities to Reach Goal: Examples include: D Avoid shooting over and into water and wetlands. D Prevent off-site migration of lead through groundwater and surface water runoff. D Conduct lead recovery. D Discourage ingestion of lead by wildlife. D Maintain soil pH between 6.5 and 8.5 in the shotfall zone. Site Assessment Description of Ranges and Support Facilities The XYZ Club has an x position Trap Range, a y position Skeet Range, a z position Sporting Clays Course, and a q position Small Arms Range. These ranges are located in a rural setting and are oriented away from residential areas and surface water bodies. [Briefly describe each range, its dimensions, orientation, vegetative cover, numbers of shooters and targets used per year, wildlife usage, etc.] Existing Environmental Conditions [Describe any known environmental conditions associated with the ranges. This might include type of soil, depth to groundwater, soil pH, drainage to surface water, unique animal or bird populations, etc. Refer to figures, tables, the results of surveys, inspections, professional opinions, etc.] Appendix E - Page E-6 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges - Trap and Skeet Fields - Sporting Clays Course - Rifle and Black Powder Range(s) - Outdoor Handgun Range(s) Trap and Skeet Fields Action Plan [Briefly describe the management options selected.] - Potentially Applicable Management Options [See EPA or NSSF guidance manual for full listing of options] Examples include: - Vegetate sparse grass area of trap/skeet field. - Reorient trap field to avoid lead shot entering wetlands. - Reorient sporting clays stations to maximize the overlap of falling shot into the open field where it can be more easily recovered for recycling. - Limit use of the trap/skeet range to only those stations that do not have wetland area within the shotfall zone. - Apply lime to shotfall zones if soil test results indicate this would be beneficial. - Prepare fields for lead reclamation. - Get bids for lead reclamation project. - Conduct lead reclamation within the trap/skeet shotfall zones. - Change mowing frequency to closely mow grass in shotfall zones. - Construct lean-tos at backstop berms. - Construct a lime lined drainage swale for stormwater management. - List additional Best Management Practices that may be appropriate to your club. In addition to appropriate site-specific management options, the list should always include conduct- ing lead reclamation within the berm for rifle and pistol ranges and conducting lead reclamation within the trap, skeet, and sporting clays shotfall zones. - Selection of Management Options to be Implemented Option x: Option y: Option z: [Describe why the above options were selected and the general roles of club officers, the member- ship, and outside consultants, as applicable, in implementation.] Appendix E - Page E-7 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges In order to implement the options selected, the following actions are necessary. a) Management Actions: [Examples include: assign personnel responsible for initiating, conducting, and completing the alternatives selected above.] b) Operational Actions: [Examples include: collect soil samples for pH analysis, consult with USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and/or the county Cooperative Extension Service regarding best suited vegetative management recommendations.] c) Construction Actions: [Examples include: do site preparation work, get bids, institute mowing and vegetative management recommendations, reorient shooting position as appropriate.] Plan Implementation - Schedule for Implementation Winter/Spring: [Examples include: pH survey, contact local officials for vegetation management recommendations, reorient shooting positions as appropriate, realign shooting positions as appropri- ate.] Summer/Fall: [Examples include: prepare site for reclamation project, apply lime/fertilizer/seed, get bids for berm lean-tos/reclamation. As a rule of thumb, 50 pounds of lime per 1,000 square feet should raise soil pH by 1 once the residual acidity is overcome.] - Responsibilities [Specific duties (i.e., the trap/skeet chairman/chairmen will.... The club treasurer will.... The mem- bership will provide the labor to...)] Rifle. Black Powder. and Outdoor Handaun Ranae(s Action Plan [Briefly describe the management options selected.] Potentially Applicable Management Options [See EPA or NSSF guidance manual for full listing of options] Examples include: - Culvert the stream through the shooting ranges. - Vegetate the backstop berm(s) to minimize erosion. - Construct a lime lined drainage swale for stormwater management. - Apply lime to the berm and foreground if pH test determines it is necessary. - Begin planning a lead reclamation project. - Construct lean-tos at berms. - List additional Best Management Practices that may be appropriate to your club. Appendix E - Page E-8 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shootinq Ranqes Selection of Management Options to be Implemented Option x: Option y: Option z: [Describe why the above options were selected and the general roles of club officers, the member- ship, and outside consultants, as applicable, in implementation.] In order to implement the options selected, the following actions are necessary. a) Management Actions: [examples include: assign personnel responsible for initiating, conducting, and completing the alternatives selected above.] b) Operational Actions: [examples include: collect soil samples for pH analysis, consult with USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and/or the county Service Forester regarding best suited vegetative management recommendations.] c) Construction Actions: [examples include: do site preparation work, get bids, institute mowing and vegetative management recommendations, reorient shooting position as appropriate.] Plan Implementation - Schedule for Implementation Winter/Spring: [examples include: pH survey, contact local officials for vegetation management recommendations, reorient shooting positions as appropriate, realign shooting positions as appropri- ate.] Summer/Fall: [examples include: prepare site for reclamation project, apply lime/fertilizer/seed, get bids for berm lean-tos/reclamation.] - Responsibilities [Specific duties (i.e.: the small arms range chairman/chairmen will .... The club treasurer will.... The membership will provide the labor to...)] Sporting Clays Course Action Plan - Potentially Applicable Management Options [See EPA or NSSF guidance manual for full listing of options] - Selection of Management Options to be Implemented - Options Selected Appendix E - Page E-9 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Plan Implementation - Schedule for Implementation - Responsibilities Measuring Success By monitoring the success of the Plan, the club is best prepared to make whatever changes may be necessary to reinforce success and make the most of environmental stewardship efforts. Below are some examples of areas to monitor: Lead Recovery [Document the quantity (pounds) of lead recovered and recycled, along with the cost of conducting the activities.] Vegetation [The density of vegetation growth should be measured throughout the growing season, especially in areas of sparse growth where steps have been taken to increase the vegetative cover. This is can be done by taking periodic photographs (e.g., once a month) from the same places to document the impact of the Plan.] Wildlife [Keep a log of visual observations made regarding the frequency of range usage by the variety of species in your area.] Soil and Runoff pH [Track soil and runoff pH through semiannual monitoring and adjust the amount of lime applied to different areas of the range to maintain a pH level that will prevent lead from dissolving (i.e., a pH of 6.5-8.5).] Erosion [Again, keeping a photographic record of problem areas best prepares your club to document achievements and adjust the Plan as appropriate.] Plan Review and Revisions Review the Plan on an annual basis. Update the Plan as needed and schedule activities for subse- quent years. Make recommendations for future club officers to consider when updating the Plan and designating future activities to be conducted (tell them what worked, what didn't work, and what still needs to be done.) Appendix E - Page E-10 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges FIGURES Figure 1 Facility diagrams Figure 2 Resource maps (USGS topographic map, wetlands maps, soil survey maps, FEMA floodplain map, etc.) Figure 3 (Optional) Site photographs Figure 4 (Optional) Aerial photo of range and surrounding area Appendix A (Optional) Appendix B (Optional) Appendix E - Page E-11 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges [Insert other figures as necessary to support the text] Other figures may include an aerial photograph, and sketches of the Club property in general and/or specific ranges in particular. Example: Skeet Field Layout 200 0 200 400 800 800 1000 Feet 3 Meter Contours Dropxones.shp SL SM TL ® TM aan002 OF. AN Oata Su Eject to Reasion •• '•• J2rc Hulq, Oggltnp� Agge�lqvsnq, Sect by Pos M.v-PpercYFMYy OM9emtnns ONy Appendix E - Page E-12 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges [Insert Site Location Map Here] Typically, a Site Location Map is cut from a USGS Topographic Map of you Club's area. The Club should be centered on the map. Indicate the property boundaries and layout of the range. Appendix E - Page E-13 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Appendix A Information from USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service [and/or county Cooperative Extension Service] [concerning soil and vegetation management recommendations] Appendix E - Page E-14 BMP for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges Appendix B (etc.) [For other supporting documentation as needed.] Appendix E - Page E-15 0 O m 0 CD a CD c a o m v 41 co m � C C, � D m CL c (D N tNA WC4 O O '0 O (D O 9 D m 0 -n �O cn� � r. -u "' 0 Z N D 0 5 O 0 0 C Dcn w 00 0 m D U' m r 0 O 0 4 X O O (o O- (D ::3 0 N p. 7 cc D CD 0 l< F (o E' O CL C— c CD N O O Ul c in m O 3 (u L" m D 0 N W 6 b O effbocc From: Wallycat Wallycat <wallycat57@msn.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 2:47 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Planning commission modifications to Title 18 JCC Shooting facilities Comments for the public record I am a resident, property owner, and voter in Jefferson county and a member of the Jefferson County Sportsman Association (JCSA). All of my comments concern the modified proposed ordinance to be discussed in the Dec 10 public meeting. Key Points l .Significant changes/expansions have occurred under the guise of harmonization. I believe many new stake holders do not realize this. 2. The rationale for excluding all local LEO firearm training from Jefferson county needs serious explanation and justification. It makes me question your entire respect for and support of our local law enforcement organizations. 3. If the members of JCSA lose their shooting facility they will not stop shooting. There is a lot of land in the county that you do not control and many more shooters will start to use this land. Commentary First: The proposed changes significantly impact the owners of rural property who may want to do some recreational target practice on their property. It would appear simply shooting some tin cans in their back yard could result in labeling the property a non-commercial shooting range thereby incurring a host of expenses and regulations. How has this been communicated to property owners? A shooting hours restriction ending at 5:00 pm has been added; I guess working people just don't count. Shooters that wish to make use of the long summer evening will have to find other land in the county to do their shooting. Second The prohibition of local LEO firearm training anywhere in the county begs explanation since there could be significant costs and service level impacts from policy. Is this training particularly dangerous or distasteful? Are you afraid allowing local LEO training would subject you to pressure to allow training of other agencies and if so why would this be bad? JCSA has hosted this training at no real cost for 50 years; why should it be moved to some other county? For these reasons I feel you should share your strategy/plan for providing this training in the future. Third The general feeling among the shooting community is that you consider us second class citizens and it would be better if we would find something else to do. It isn't going to happen. If our safe and managed facilities are removed we will still shoot and will do it in Jefferson county. Sincerely, Donald Weerts, 161 Maple Dr., PT From: Jarvis <alte2@mac.com> _ Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:01 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Ridge Gun Range proposal - additional comment from Linda Jarvis 12/10/18 Dear BOCC: Unfortunately my time is limited so I cannot attend the meeting tonight and I am borrowing a few words from a fellow objector, with whom I agree with, to get my point across. I'm reaching out to you once again to plead with you to very seriously consider your decisions extremely carefully with regard the Tarboo Ridge gun range proposal, which I personally, as do many others of our community, find to be outrageous in our pristine and vulnerable environment. It is no place for such an unsound scheme. I feel it would be prudent on the part of the DOCC to postpone this decision for another 6 months to permit the designated departments further time to do an ongoing research and analysis into the number of environmental and health damages already done and future destruction to our surroundings and wildlife habitat, and the consequential costs to the county (the taxpayers) resulting and incurring from this senseless project. I am VERY concerned about the lead poisoning that is so prevalent in these facilities throughout the country. I'm shocked to learn of the amount of lead debris left on the grounds, with the majority being nearby lakes, streams, residential wells, and homes. This is a HUGE and very, disturbing and troubling worry and we should all be hyper diligent to keep this facility out of our county, especially in it's proposed sight, thus the dangerous lead it would create. The majority of the taxpayers in Jefferson County opposed to such a facility believe the following: 1. Getting threats of a lawsuit is not sufficient reason for throwing the county residents under the bus. Simply because the threat (bordering on blackmail) is made does not mean a court of law would uphold its claims. 2. The costs of cleaning up sites with lead pollution are far bigger than a $100 million th reat. 3. The medical costs to the taxpayers of Jefferson County, particularly South County, are bound to increase due to risks from residual lead, which can poison humans, contaminate water in nearby wells, and damage protected wetlands, wildlife, and soil. 4. There are approximately 7000 gun ranges throughout the U.S. that produce a staggering amount of debris. 5. The US Geological Survey indicates that an individual range can go through between 1.5 to 20 tons of lead shot and bullets annually. Outdoor ranges as a whole may use more than 80,000 tons in that same period. 6. It is well known that whenever a gun range facility closes, the taxpayers are left with the enormous task of footing the cleanup bill. How can anyone argue against the validity of these facts? Are you willing to ask the taxpayers of our county to be prepared to cover all of these expenses for the benefit of a proposal that very few want or need, and which is located in a forestry zone? Forestry activities that expose and disturb bare soil can lead to contamination of water bodies with errant nutrients via soil erosion. It is, indeed, your fiscal responsibility to make certain the county does not fall through a dark hole of debt. However, it is also your fiscal responsibility to consider not only the financial burden in tax increases for all your constituents but also the health and environmental impact such a facility would create, to the detriment of all. In closing I ask that you, please, please do not denounce the trust and confidence we have all placed in each one of you to make the right decisions on our behalf. Respectfully and in gratitude for your decision to keep our county safe and healthy now and into the future, Linda Jarvis 343 Meridian Way Chimacum z Fwd: Tarboo Ridge Gun Range proposal - additional comment from Connie Gall... Page 2 of 3 Al%& E nD REG Vt: _ December DEC 10 2018 Dear BOCC: JEFFERSON COUf17.Y com[WISSu I am writing once again to urge you to c ���Hr decisions very carefully about the Tarboo Ridge gun range proposal. If you must decide on anything, at the very least postpone it for another 6 months to allow the designated departments more time to research further into the number of environmental damages, and the ultimate costs to the county (taxpayers), such a facility would incur. The majority of the taxpayers in Jefferson County opposed to such a facility believe that: 1. Getting threats of a lawsuit is not sufficient reason for throwing the county residents under the bus. Simply because the threat (bordering on blackmail) is made does not mean a court of law would uphold its claims. 2. The costs of cleaning up sites with lead pollution are far bigger than a $100 million threat. 3. The medical costs to the taxpayers of Jefferson County, particularly South County, are bound to increase due to risks from residual lead, which can poison humans, contaminate water in nearby wells, and damage protected wetlands, wildlife, and soil. 4. There are approximately 7000 gun ranges throughout the U.S. that produce a staggering amount of debris. 5. The US Geological Survey indicates that an individual range can go through between 1.5 to 20 tons of lead shot and bullets annually. Outdoor ranges as a whole may use more than 80,000 tons in that same period. 6. It is well known that whenever a gun range facility closes, the taxpayers are left with the enormous task of footing the cleanup bill. https://mail.offsitehost.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=1 PM. Note&id=RgAAAAAcgEO%2bs... 12/10/2018 Fwd: Tarboo Ridge Gun Range proposal - additional comment from Connie Gall... Page 3 of 3 How can anyone argue against the validity of these facts? Are you willing to ask the taxpayers of our county to be prepared to cover all of these expenses for the benefit of a proposal that very few want or need, and which is located in a forestry zone? Forestry activities that expose and disturb bare soil can lead to contamination of water bodies with errant nutrients via soil erosion. It is, indeed, your fiscal responsibility to make certain the county does not fall through a dark hole of debt. However, it is also your fiscal responsibility to consider not only the financial burden in tax increases for all your constituents but also the health and environmental impact such a facility would create, to the detriment of all. I urge you to review once again the research paper that I submitted to the BOCC and Planning Commission several weeks ago. Please do not betray the trust we have all placed in each one of you to make the right decisions on our behalf. Respectfully, Connie Gallant PO Box 490, Quilcene 4 * I Connected to Microsoft Exchange https://mai l.offsitehost.com/owa/?ae=Item&t=1 PM. Note&id=RgAAAAAcgEO%2bs... 12/10/2018 lkj�,���` CEIVED beo-f co a-\,� �o D�C 10 2 'Z al''1 1Lsl�N-'S --iib 6,vor+ ao� be, qAU7WL,4-) at.A r� ��rrtrt50(WCOUNTY �R§ 4�7. J Co�A, 0 uj k �L�j MMm Send j vtr5 I y Ky yo CA �2LarnA� aft o ✓1 S ? Bann; /1 �f- yon M 1,/J, z r�le�.5vr� 9 U v1 o w✓12-r- I plea6c 4L-,� By +ke Jt-4-J591� � C�•rnaut,4/n �v -0-45 Ba4ep o 6plt4 6M /-4 (95rD JVR5, DEC 10 2019 UvA147 WdDU9466- ik '�di � �Q� �� /�►t'+�N 5 � `� '7.�-1 E Com n�-M �z.Ai•�IVI IJG� o mo Iso oral I►- T "r-4bW mi Nor, -T)TL-t!..: g AtilD ) g l5v(Rey Srro2r S4oji,.,b y3a TAKQjtj Th MtN�MIz� ?HE C -C r► ziZN P,7 aw4 eNNIDe',J Mme- b"ess AG4J�j ) a>i Cbo RAL,- -04 15- AFPttt,-1 ba;7- -4k-, -FL..A"W't jcc C'O MM ►i<o l QJ utpM�TTS • �� l Co�N�'2-t �I o� ►�2 CaEIW Acorn � � � � � � '�10�' }�/i'�' • sit Public Testimony Re: The Ordinance to Amend Title 18 JCC Relati S fn Facilities December 9, 2018, 6:00 p.m., Commons at Fort Worden E 0 Commissioners Kier, Dean, and Sullivan: DEC 10 2010 I wish to make several requests regarding the Amendments > F. SON COUNTY OMMISSIONE 1. In December of 2017, TRC presented 1200+ petitions to the BOCC recommending ArMon of the Gun Facility Moratorium, for which we thank you. However, this petition also stated opposition to any kind of military or paramilitary training at`ip privately owned shooting facility in Jefferson County. People from all over east Jefferson County signed this petition, including at least 250 residing in Port Townsend, and many from Chimacum, Quilcene, and Brinnon. NONE want the possibility of future military training near them. Please adopt the Plannina Commission's recommendation prohibiting military/paramilitary training. 2. Veterans make up 17+ % of the population in zip code 98376, which covers Quilcene, Coyle, Dabob, Tarboo, Lake Leland, Snow Creek and Penny Creek. This is nearly twice as many as there are in any other zip code in the county, the state, or the nation! Why? It is fairly well known among the veterans' organizations and the helping professions that many are isolated, choosing to live off grid in the woods, but many more are among us in our neighborhoods. They choose to live here because the Olympic Peninsula is one of the quietest places in the country, and the noises of war, be it helicopters and planes, gunfire, bombs, or even heavy machinery, like tanks, commonly trigger PTSD flashbacks. They also have difficulty adjusting to civilian life --here, there are fewer people and none of the stress of urban life. Please adopt the Plannina Commission's recommendation for no military training. and their recommendation that no aircraft be allowed. 3. 1 have written before about the physiological health effects of noise on humans --I will include that as Appendix A. I talked about psychotherapies which use nature and/or quiet environments to heal depression, anxiety, PTSD, and other mental conditions. Mr. Gordon Hempton, Natural Sound Recordist, has documented areas in the Hoh forest as the quietist on earth --and he has been everywhere on the planet recording silence! In the book "Fast Moving Water," he states: "Sound does not hide behind a fallen tree or a bend in the trail. Our ears take us where our eyes cannot --and in a listening sanctuary like the Hoh, reward us again and again." He claims, "We need quiet places like this to bring us closer in touch with our planet --and also ourselves... natural notes that can be enjoyed only in the absence of man-made noise and only after quieting yourself emotionally as well." He noted being able to hear the "beep -beep" of a remote door lock a mile away from the parking lot! We believe that the south part of east Jefferson County has some of the most peaceful, quiet environments in the country, after only the Hoh River Valley. For our residents, for our veterans, and for our visitors who desire to experience peace and quiet available in few other precious places, please broaden the scope of the noise nuisance clauses Chapter 8 and 18 in the Jefferson County Code. One mile is not enough when it comes to gun or helicopter noise! AP 6-NNY, To: Jefferson County Commissioners From: Diane Johnson, 1521 Dabob Rd. Quilcene Re: Proposed Gun Range Ordinance Date: Oct. 1, 2018 Dear Commissioners Dean, Kler and Sullivan: My name is Diane Johnson and I was born and lived in Dabob my first 20 years, and have been a resident and home owner on the Dabob Road for the last 10 years. I am not opposed to the safe use of guns but am opposed to the Cedar Hills Recreational Facility. I am primarily interested in the siting of new ranges, but in no way wish for the existing range to be closed, much as it would be desirable to improve its mitigation of noise for its neighbors' benefit. I am going to specifically discuss the detrimental effects of sound, in the form of noise, on the health and well- being of human beings in the remainder of my comments, as the primary objectives of the new ordinance on the operation of gun ranges are "to protect health and safety" (Staff recommendations to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners). But first, I want to lay out a backdrop for my concern, and provide some science behind why I believe sound, and noise, in particular, need specific attention in the ordinance. PREAMBLE: Revitalization in Jefferson County and throughout America in last 10-20 years has focused on the rural economy and conservation and revitalization of productive soils, and clean air and water. Locally, I am involved in the revitalization of Chimacum Grange, and am aware of an increasing cadre of young farmers who are committed to permaculture and other regenerative farming techniques that seek to work with the land and nature's cycles of growth and fertility, rather than relying on chemicals, fertilizer or poisons, for nurturing their crops. "Local food" and "food security," including the sustainability and diversity of local agriculture are BIG topics in Jefferson County involving many people, e.g., Local 20/20. In addition, former city dwellers, retirees, and veterans have moved to our county in numbers significantly greater proportion to our census than to other areas, even other rural areas of Washington, according to census data. Why? To escape the hubbub and the noise of cities and war, valuing both the calm of living in our area's abundant natural beauty and its peaceful, quiet environment. (There are actually therapies for mental illness and stress based on contact with both exposure to nature and to extended periods of quiet.) Intensification of local conservation efforts in the last 20 year has led to creation of County Critical Areas, Shoreline, and water availability(WRIA) Ordinances and Rules to protect those resources that will only be more critical as our population grows and problems of pollution and scarcity occur. Our State and County have seen increasing attempts to guarantee the continued availability of farmland and to protect our water resources, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars locally. I doubt that more has been expended anywhere locally than in the Tarboo watershed and Tarboo and Dabob Bays. Both our local Chimacum Grange #681 and the Tarboo Ridge Coalition (TRC) are committed to preserving as much of the rural character and values of Jefferson County as still remain. We believe that Forests, Farms, Families, and clean water for Fish define the rural Jefferson County Character, not the unrelenting sounds of military helicopters and gunfire that come from large commercial shooting facilities. RURAL CHARACTER: What does rural character mean? When we think about driving, biking, or walking around Jefferson County, what do we see? Primarily little valleys with fields, cattle or other grazing animals, acreage with flowers and vegetables, grains or grass, and scattered houses, all surrounded by trees. Trees and underbrush, including our state flower, the rhododendron (some might believe it's scotch broom,) line our roadways for hundreds of miles. There are myriad wonderful seascapes. Essentially, as far as the eye can see, there are fields, water, or trees. A few small villages, quickly passed through, dot the landscape as well. These are our local viewscapes. Our soundscapes are what we can hear. In most areas of Jefferson County, it is generally quiet. Where I live, you can hear a coyote howling from at least a mile and a half away, traffic noise like loud trucks, motorcycles, and sirens, and dogs barking from a mile or more away, and voices, and even sometimes words, from a quarter mile away. There are occasionally low flying planes and helicopters that can be very loud. The sound of gunshots can be heard easily from as far away as two miles. At night, the sounds of cattle ruminating across the road, frogs croaking in the nearby pond and ditches, and chipmunks raiding the fruit on the porch can all be heard against the nearly absolute silence. The ecoscape is defined as the organizational shape or layout of an ecosystem. An ecoscape is a multidimensional landscape of a social -economic -natural complex ecosystem, combining geographical patterns, hydrological processes, biological vitality, anthropological dynamics and aesthetic contexts. Concepts used in understanding the ecoscape include: Restoration ecology, Applied ecology, Ecological design, Sustainable engineering, Ecoscaping, Environmental restoration, Precipitationshed, Conservation agriculture, Sustainable, Agroforestry, Erosion control, and Nonpoint source pollution, among others (U.S. Natural Resources Conservation). In Jefferson County, the most familiar ecoscape designations are our watersheds, including Tarboo, and regionally, Puget Sound. So, our ecoscape is the soils, water patterns, the diversity and health of animals and plants, native and otherwise, the people who live there and their values and health, the beauty, or lack thereof, of the area, the economy of the area, and all of the impacts from natural and human sources and activities. Tarboo Ridge Coalition addresses several of these ecoscape concerns in our requests for amendments and additions to the proposed regulations governing the establishment and operation of gun ranges in Jefferson County. RELEVANCE OF THE SOUNDSCAPE OF AN AREA TO THE OPERATION AND SITING OF GUN RANGES: I propose that the qualities of the soundscape of an area in which a shooting facility, especially an outdoor facility, are very important to the health of the people who are exposed to them. I will discuss scientific research on hearing and sound generally, and the effects of noise on health. Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section is drawn from a National Institute of Health -funded research article by Westman and Walters, 1981, and can be found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1568850/ (underlining is mine, for emphasis). HEARING The fundamental purposes of hearing are to alert and to warn. As a result sound directly evokes emotions and actions. The auditory orienting response, startle reflex and defensive response translate sound stimuli into action and sometimes into stress-induced bodily changes through the "fight or flight" neural mechanisms. Because of its defensive purpose, hearing cannot be turned off, and sound registers in the brain even during sleep. The auditory apparatus is connected to the entire central nervous system and the neuroendocrine system as well. Sound plays a vital role in maintaining arousal of the brain and thereby influences the basic physiological functioning of the body. The arousal level of the central nervous system depends upon the intensity, complexity, variability, predictability and meaning of sound stimuli. The brain first responds to any sound with the orienting response, simply, where and what it is. The second basic auditory response is the startle reflex which is evoked by sounds of sudden, intense, or frightening significance. The typical reflex is completed in less than one second. The startle reflex components involving the lower centers in the brainstem are not subject to habituation, i.e., you don't get used to it. The defensive response, number three, does not require sounds of high intensity. This response is produced by sounds of sufficient intensity, significance or duration to be perceived as threatening mobilizing the "fight or flight" reaction. This response can become the stress that leads to the General Adaptation Syndrome with its alarm, resistance, and exhaustion stages if the sound stressor is of sufficient duration, quantity, and quality. NOISE: The human auditory system was designed to process the frequencies and intensities relevant to survival in the sound environments of nature. The evolutionary process has not allowed humans enough time to adapt hearing to sounds generated by loud modern noise sources. This means that the auditory apparatus is not prepared to cope with commonly encountered urban and industrial noise. Consequently, we find ourselves exposed to sound environments that overload the auditory system. An analogous situation would occur in the visual system if we were forced to look at the sun and thereby damage the retina. Noise was identified as a national hazard by Congress as far back as 1972, in the form of the Noise Control Act, and in 1978 in the Quiet Communities Act. Noise essentially is unwanted sound. As such, subjectively experienced noise is any sound that produces annoyance or communication or task performance interference. The same sound stimulus may be perceived subjectively as noise by some and not by others. For this reason it is useful to define noise objectively as sound that produces harmful bodily effects which may or may not be subiectively perceived. This point is important because noise can be subjectively or objectively stressful, or both, i.e., can cause harmful arousal and physiological effects outside one's awareness of those effects. EFFECTS OF NOISE ON THE BODY AND HEALTH: The damaging effects of noise usually are regarded as limited to the structures of the ear through impairing one's ability to hear sounds such as speech and music. The fact that noise has more pervasive physiological effects has not received as much attention. The auditory orienting response, startle reflex and defensive response translate sound stimuli into action and sometimes into stress-induced bodily changes through "fight or flight" neural mechanisms. When this mechanism is activated, the hypothalamic -pituitary -adrenal axis is mobilized with resulting increase in adrenal cortisol and epinephrine levels. The first level of damage comes from noise overload, which results from an excess of the number or rate of sensory or symbolic stimuli or both. Human experiments have shown the disorganizing and psychotogenic effects of sensory overload, in the form of heightened and sustained arousal, mood changes, and in the extreme, illusions, hallucinations, and body image distortions. Low frequency noises have effects similar to the more familiar piercing high frequency sounds. Over time, one might manage to adapt to this noise routine, but not without changes in irritability and loss of effectiveness. If one becomes resigned to a lack of control over their noise environment, the resulting "learned helplessness" itself may become a stressor and contribute to additional symptoms of depression. Investigators found that an individual's ability to control the noise source, and even the belief that one could, reduced the adverse impact. An experimental study of humans performing mental arithmetic problems under noise exposure found that blood levels of cortisol were significantly higher in persons with no control over the noise source than in those with control. (This may explain why even a person with PTSD related to artillery fire in battle is not bothered by his own gun shots while hunting.) The second level of damage comes with the General Adaptation Syndrome, which is activated by intense and persistent stressors that produce a specific effect on the adrenal glands, thymus and stomach. Most prominent of the neuroendocrine reactions are the significantly higher plasma cortisol levels and increased activity of the sympathetic nervous system, including increased secretion of epinephrine by the adrenal medulla in persons with no control over the noise source than in those with control. The sustained effects of cortisol may appear in the form of gastric ulceration, inhibition of immune responses, hypertension, atherosclerosis, sterility and personality changes. In a separate study, Arhlin elaborated the concept of "annoyance." Annoyance can be experienced from the direct effects of noise, such as loss of hearing or sleep, or interference with task performance or speech, and/or from the indirect effects of noise, such as blood pressure elevation, headaches, fatigability, anxiety, depression and accident risk. In other words, the experience of annoyance serves to warn an individual of unpleasant or harmful environmental conditions, and thus serves a useful survival purpose as one of the variables in responding to a given sound. He says that annoyance is heightened when noise is perceived as unnecessary, when those responsible for the noise are perceived as unconcerned about the exposed population's welfare, when other aspects of the environment are disliked, when noise is believed to be harmful to health, and when noise is associated with fear. It can probably be safely inferred, in the light of all the forgoing information, that the more annoyed a person is, the greater the physiological reactions the person will experience. SUMMARY: SUMMARY: The Ordinance under consideration by the Jefferson County Commissioners regarding the operating conditions of shooting ranges in Jefferson County is supposed to protect the safety and health of those who use those ranges and that of the surrounding community members. The County is essentially rural in nature; the sounds of the country are more likely to be of a natural origin, animals calling or crashing through the brush , or the wind, or rain, the sound of waves, an occasional tree branch snapping off, those for which our hearing apparatus was adapted. Its residents are only intermittently exposed to the kinds of industrial sounds/noises, such as helicopters, heavy machinery, chain saws, sirens, explosions, banging and clanging, freeway sounds, or even loud music that residents of more urban environments must endure, either in their jobs or in their surroundings, and certainly, to the sounds of shooting that mimic war. These types of sound have been declared "noise pollution" and a national hazard by Congress as early as 1972 due to their negative effects on human health. The sense of hearing is our early warning system, it operates 24/7, and its purpose is to stimulate our bodies to get ready to defend ourselves or move rapidly away in avoidance. If the perceived sound is annoying or upsetting or causes fear, or causes damage to the body, whether or not the individual is aware of those effects, it is defined as "noise." Noise can be of any magnitude or duration, therefore, and the degree of upset is determined by its meaning to the individual and the individual's perceived ability to control the noise. Noise creates a stress response in the body, which leads to changes in the neuroendocrine system, including the release of cortisol. If the noise is extremely loud, unremitting or repeated over a long period of time, or interferes with task performance or speech, a chronic state of preparedness/stress can occur, eventually even when the stimulus is not present. Such a state leads to the General Adaptive Syndrome, where the neuroendocrine system NEVER returns to a calm state. Damage from such system overloads can eventually lead to medical conditions such as gastric ulceration, immune system disorders, hypertension, atherosclerosis, sterility, obesity, and personality changes, such as excessive irritability and anger responses. So, NOISE, as defined as any unwanted and uncontrollable sound CAN and DOES cause physiological changes and ultimately, damage, in the human body; The effects and their costs may not be, generally are not, immediately perceivable, but they undoubtedly account for a large percentage of the ever-increasing costs of medical care in this country. Researchers have also found that healing from the effects of noise can come through exposure to natural environments and sounds, and to total quiet. With respect to gun sounds/noise, one of my friends said it best: "Most normal people become upset, annoyed, or anxious at the sound of gunfire, and we never get used to it!" The compelling reasons for action are the facts that substantial groups of the population are vulnerable to adverse health effects from noise, that the quality of life is generally eroded by annoyance from noise, that sleep is disrupted, that productivity is reduced, and that the concentration required to learn is affected by noisy environments. A significant responsibility rests on the business or industry to actively reduce noise emission at the source. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCE: First, it is imperative that noise from a commercial gun range be addressed in the ordinance, not as a "nuisance," but as an extreme kind of the modern, industrial/urban sound proven to cause emotional and physiological harm to humans, especially children, and to wildlife. For this reason, Washington State WAC 173-60-030 and 173-60-050 should be applied. Further, testing for the noise pattern should be done at maximum utilization and weapon caliber, and with helicopter noise, not with a single or few random pistol shots. Given the geography of the area, the sound -carrying capacity of the atmosphere, and the extreme quiet of most county soundscapes, the distance of one mile for considering residential effects is a joke—the sound of the average hunting rifle can be heard at one mile. For example, due to the increased intensity at the existing shooting range, the Sheriff says complaints are coming from much farther away, 2 miles or more, in the city. The proposed new range has four communities within two miles, and one major business just over a mile away that would be destroyed by the noise. One mile is not adequate—three miles is a more realistic radius for consideration of the much more intense, persistent shooting of a shooting facility with multiple ranges and helicopter pads. These stipulations need to be made in the ordinance to bring them under control of the operating permit. The best solution from the point of view of the general public for whom the noise of a shooting facility would form a feature of their soundscape would be for all gun/shooting ranges to be indoors. I urge you to seriously consider that option for the future of gun ranges in Jefferson County. If outdoor shooting facilities are to be built, the regulations should require the proposing party demonstrate a clear plan to include sound -mitigating berms of adequate height to direct all or nearly all of the sound waves upward away from the range, rather than laterally, or other mitigations that would create the same kind of protections. An even better plan would be to place the facility in a deep ravine at a distance of no less than three miles from the nearest inhabitants. One local citizen told me he knows of such a place right now that would meet that criterion. Or perhaps the county could work with DNR to make an appropriate land swap to facilitate such a solution. Lastly, local shooting facilities should provide training in firearm operation, care, and safety, as well as personal self-defense to individuals, including groups of individuals, and hunter safety for children and adults, as well as providing a safe environment for the practice in and sport of shooting. However, given the greatly increased intensity of weaponry (calibers) and helicopters, and the increasing density of Jefferson County, I urge you to prohibit organized military training at shooting facilities in Jefferson County, and that organized police, sheriff, or other law enforcement training be limited to local law enforcement with a prohibition on explosions of any kind. Since these are brief in duration and only periodically required, their impact would be more tolerable to residents. SOME REFERENCES Borsky, PN. Review of Community Response to Noise. Proceedings, 3`d International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. American Speech and Hearing Association, Washington, DC, 1980. Cameron, P., Robertson, D., and Zaks, J. Sound Pollution, Noise Pollution, and Health: Community parameters. J. Appl. Psych., 56: 67-74 (1972). Kondo, MC, Jacoby, SF, and South, CS. Does Being Outdoors Reduce Stress? A review of real-time stress responses to outdoor environments. Health and Place. Vol 51, pp. 136-150, 2018. Lam, M, MD, MPH, Lam, J, ABAAHP, FMNM, and Lam, C, MD. Silence Therapy: The new wellness approach., 2017. www.drLam.com/silence -therapy-the-new-wellness-approach/ Langford, Kate (October 14, 2011). "New Study Finds 400,000 Farmers...* http://www.worldagroforestrVicentre.org/newsroom/press-releases/new-study-finds-400000-farmers- southern-africa-using-%E2%80%98fertilizer-trees%E2%80%99-dram Office of Noise Abatement, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460. Westman, JC and Walters, JR. Noise and Stress: A comprehensive approach. Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol 41, pp291-309, 1981. https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1568850/ �iai'it� 46 weeks have passed since Jefferson County agreed to medi K1oCh Frit Ybrt Discovery Inc., about a moratorium on new gun rad i complaints about Jefferson County land use rules. s opposes Mr. D'Amico's plans to build seven gun ran es at Tarboo L e as e g observe the mediation. State law allows citizen participation, but the County and Mr. D'Amico's attorney denied our request. A day after agreeing to "mediation", Fort Discovery's attorney and the County began regular weekly meetings. These meetings extended throughout the 16 weeks during which a committee helped the County create a new ordinance expanding the size, scope and intensity of allowed gun range activities. Mr. D'Amico was a member of this committee. If the County Commissioners approve this new ordinance, gun ranges could be permitted to train corporate security organizations, military units, paramilitary groups and soldiers of fortune. The owner of the Fort Discovery Corporation said of the ordinance, "I think it's fair." After nearly a year of meetings and communication between the County and Fort Discovery, they have not met with or appeared before a mediator. By definition no mediation has occurred. Nonetheless, whatever took place in those many meetings remains a secret because the County has redacted (blacked out) page after page of communications TRC obtained through public records requests. What went on in those meetings should not be hidden from the public. What influence those secret meetings had on the content of this "fair" ordinance is unknown. TRC believes the County Commissioners should not finalize the new shooting range ordinance without fully allowing the public to know what went on behind closed doors. Openness, transparency, and trust in government demand no less. Peter Newland, Board President Tarboo Ridge Coalition The County and Joe '-D'Amico's Fort Discovery Inc. agree tot mediation* Jan.16, 201* �zpl�nattonisi' ��m�rtio effsxscan� county € providing you with responsive re ive ds pertaining to<.our public records request dated September 12, 2ii18'{Re£ # C:t�t 333j. sone of tW" records have been redacted per` t V 42.56 and/or other statutes: Each redaction b-an uiphm=eric exemption code that; is indexed to the table C key") fisted below, The aletri redacted recce in this file and vides statutory citations and `brief expiaztatory, d tiow of exentptious as required by C'W 42.56.210(3): KATION �a �c (,�an'� dk�a.�: {ea ?rim �a. �a>a�✓(� /c� hp't%rH �rirvOw2 �2.. lha�1� Bae �3� TO: Tarboo Ridge Coalition Dec 10, 2(i8 FROM: Henry Fly DEC 10 2018 SUBJECT: Gun range concerns F .�, . Fk H S GI N C (Wil As a resident of Port Townsend, I am already concerned with thei less another potential gun range near Tarboo Ridge. My concern is root d in the prenrT"K9glah,euch to theonstitution, which states, "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves..." The gun noise in Jefferson County is already at what I would consider outside the promise of the US Constitution. When gun noise is routinely at unsafe levels, this indicates that the perceived rights of gun enthusiasts weigh more than those of us with no enthusiasm for gun use. My idea of domestic tranquility does not include gun noise in Jefferson County, nor does my general welfare or blessings of liberty. Gun noise from shooting clubs is contrary to all of these concepts. Fortunately we are blessed with National Parks near PT where I can escape the noise and feel the promise of the US Constitution. I have a deep understanding of hearing damage from guns. I have a hearing aid, necessary from damage to my hearing when the military exposed me to various gun fire. For reference, traffic noise is about 70 dB, and the threshold of pain is 120 dB (Sound/Ear Damage info 11/2011 Source: Willamette Ear, Nose, Throat Clinic, Salem, OR). Gun shots run well over 140 dB — louder than a jackhammer or siren. All common guns come out at over 150 dB, which is over 10 dB at the 140 dB level where immediate hearing damage occurs. Since this is a logarithmic scale, 143 dB is twice as loud as 140 dB. Or 10 dB is three times as loud. So 150 dB is three times as loud as where immediate hearing damage occurs. (https://www.guora.com/Are-gunshots-actually-that- deafening )This is why many miles from a gun range, the gunfire is still heard — my house is 2.7 miles from the sportsman's club where I often hear gunshots. The suggestions from the Tarboo Ridge Coalition are a good compromise between what I would prefer (total prohibition) and what the perceived wishes of gun owners. The only condition I would add are fines any trash left on the grounds of any shooting range or surrounding % mile of national forest land. Sincerely, Henry N Fly Port Townsend, Wa M. Freida Fenn t 1520 Jefferson St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dec. 10, 2018 RE: Jefferson County Planning Commission's AmendmentsV' rs (e Dear Commissioners, � � @@ I A ' I grew up in a rural, hunting, farming family in Washington State. I want you to protect Jefferson County's rural life. I ask you to please consider the following additions to Title 18: 1) No military or law enforcement training at new commercial shooting facilities. We are a rural county. Many combat vets live in our county. I am a mental health therapist. These vets need peace and quiet to help recover from combat trauma, not constant triggers for PTSD. 2) Restrict firing hours from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays. Nearby people deserve a break from the intrusive noise of gunfire. 3) No drones or landing aircraft discharging fire. 4) Protect our lakes and waterways with commercial ranges required to have 500 yard setbacks. 5) 1 would prefer indoor, highly sound proofed commercial range facilities. If that is not in your legal power to require, then please require 16 foot high noise berms around commercial ranges. On top, require an 8 foot fence around the facility. Respectfully Yours, Freida Fenn, MA, LMFT Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist Ladies, Gentleman, My name is Levi Ross. I've been a residentD0 �gf't son County for 44 years. JEFFERSONW41--- y My comments are NOT in support of the annn " QAABA additions to the currently adopted shooting range ordinance. My comments ore NOT in support of the currently adopted shooting ordinance. I believe it is flowed, was drafted, specifically, to keep Joe D'amico from establishing a shooting range in Jefferson County and will subject me and all Jefferson County taxpayers to a loss of our tax dollars due to the need for YOU to try to legally defend this ordinance. My comments are also to voice my opinion on what the effect of the ordinance and any proposed amendments or additions may have on the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association gun range. I believe the inclusion of any and all existing and newly proposed shooting ranges in the new ordinance and in the planning commission recommendations is a poorly disguised attempt to try to insulate Jefferson County from some of the legal challenges that may come about if the language was only directed at Mr. D'amico and his proposed facility. Let's face it. If it looks like this to me, it is going to look like this to any judge and jury who may have to evaluate this ordinance and any proposed additions or amendments. To further illustrate my opinion - According to Demographic Dato.org, in Washington State, one out of every three adults is a gun owner. According to US Census Data estimates for 2017, there are 27000 adults in Jefferson County. I can't give you specific gun ownership data for Jefferson County adults, but, a reasonable extrapolation is that there are over 9000 adult gun owners in our county. All of these individuals, or the large majority of them can benefit from having a safe place to become educated, trained and experienced in how to safely handle, store and participate In the shooting sports and personal protection scenarios with their firearms. As I've communicated to this body before - THE MOST EFFECTIVE ACTION THAT CAN BE TAKEN IN ANY COMMUNITY TO ENCOURAGE AND IMPLEMENT SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP AND USE I5 TO HAVE A PLACE TO BECOME EDUCATED, TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED IN FIREARMS SAFETY AND USE. For over 50 years the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association gun range, a non-profit, non-commercial, volunteer managed and operated facility has provided THAT PLACE in our county, with NO costs to the taxpayers. My opinion about the new ordinance and the proposed additions and amendments is, that the requirements are going to raise the cost of providing and implementing the requirements, probably to the point of making it uneconomical and impossible to continue to operate the JCSA gun range. At a minimum, the costs are going to increase the need for revenue, increase the membership and event participation fees and drive out a large number of shooters who might otherwise use this gun range. Many of those driven out will move into the private and public property areas of our county where they can shoot their guns without the added costs required, if they were to try to train and shoot at the JCSA range. However, the costs to the county taxpayers are likely to Increase due to reports of and incidents concerning unregulated shooting venues and costs associated with policing and clean up of these incidental shooting venues. It is well known that these sites turn into public garbage dumps, are not safe and increase the potential for personal and property damage from firearms use. If you really want to have the maximum market penetration to encourage safe and responsible firearms use in our community, you would work to reduce and remove all costs for participation in firearms education, training and competency experiences, not increase them. Since I don't really see that happening, in my lifetime. At least I can suggest that you exempt the JCSA range from all new costs associated with any new ordinance requirements. STATEMENT BY MICHAEL U&M Port Townsend DEC 10 2018 I am a member of the Jefferson County Sportsmen'" oi BACKGROUND 9S S 10 N"EUR"ST Bachelor of Science Police Science and Administration WSU Masters of Public Administration Northern Michigan University (NMU) 28 years law enforcement experience — Seattle P.D. and DEA SWAT Team Leader Detroit and Los Angeles Trained with top SWAT teams and military units Built first live -fire shooting house in DEA Trained military units Authored a book on SWAT Taught Criminal Justice for two years at NNW Member of the National Tactical Officers' Association (NTOA) Participated and commanded hundreds of high risks warrant services Participated and commanded three hostage rescues 1. Law enforcement agencies in the Olympic Peninsula from Neah Bay to Port Townsend train and qualify at JCSA. Each Monday is "Law Enforcement Day" exclusive for law enforcement. 2. Retired law enforcement officers qualified at JCSA this year conducted by PTPD/FOP. Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act/ HR -218 stipulate annual qualifications to be issued a LEOSA card. Concealed weapons permit for all U.S. states. 3. FBI sends bulletins to retired LEO organizations advising those with concealed carry permits to arm themselves because of intelligence regarding a terrorist attack or active shooter. 41 4. JSCA encourages and enforces safe weapons handling. Range Safety Officers. 5. Tactical training enhances surgical shooting which increases officer safety and public security. NEW POINTS 1. I agree that a noise abatement study should be conducted and the proposal provided subject to commission approval before implementation. JCSA will FA need to apply for a grant. 3. You previously approved law enforcement training at JCSA. Law enforcement must qualify to meet accreditation criteria from the state. If they have to travel, there will be per diem and overtime expenses. It will also interfere with availability to respond to an emergency (active shooter, hostage situation, barricaded gunman, armed robbery, officer down). They qualify at the JCSA range with their vehicles and in uniform and can respond immediately. Not being able to respond in a timely manner could result in life-threatening situations. 4. JCSA is prepared to conduct training as required by I -1639, the prerequisite for purchasing a semi- automatic rifle. George B. Yount;' y, 717 -25t" ,EIVED Port Townsend WA 98368 December 10, 2018 DEC 10 2018 JEFFERSON COUNTY Jefferson County Board of Commissioners COMMISSIONERS 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend WA 98368 Subject: Testimony on the Planning Commissions recommendations regarding the revised gun ordinance I support the following recommendations: Prohibiting military and law enforcement training at commercial shooting facilities. The U.S. government has adopted the largest military budget in the history of the United States. They have the money and land resources to do their own training. Why should their added nuisance noise be inflicted on quiet communities? This ordinance appears to allow commercial gun ranges of any size and scope to be adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Reducing the amount of firing is what these communities deserve. Local law enforcement can already practice at the Sportsman's Club. We were informed by the Jefferson County Undersheriff during the sub committees deliberations that that facility is adequate for Jefferson County 's law enforcement needs. I support their training at our non-profit facility. Restricting of shooting hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This has merit because it gives residents predictability. If there is no military training or law enforcement training, who else should get low light training? Prohibiting landing an aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or a drone at a commercial shooting facility. The likelihood of somehow incorporating aircraft or helicopters shooting from the air into a gun range would be absolutely the most dangerous activity one could imagine. But it does raise the issue of what ordinances does Jefferson County have regarding the sighting of a private runway or helipad. There are FAA guidelines regarding helipad construction and operations as well as airspace approaches and departures. What are the specifications needed for military exercises? Requiring a 500 -yard setback of shooting areas around any lake greater than 20 acres. Kitsap County already has this requirement in their code. What rationale did they use to support this element? The problem with lakes is that nuisance noise seems to echo and re-echo over bodies of water. These lakes are open to the public and the concerns for safety are real. Requiring a 16 -foot -high noise barrier above grade at shooting ranges This seems reasonable for noise abatement and shooting safety. Requiring all shooting areas to be fenced to a minimum height of eight feet. As I said at the planning commission hearing at Chimacum High School, this is a hearing within a hearing. We have the gun safety ordinance and we have an application process issue. They are entwined because a potential applicant for a commercial guan range is on hold as a moratorium plays out, but the applicant chooses not to wait and is actually plowing ahead without the appropriate permits. The gun safety ordinance is a county wide ordinance. The ordinance affects every community and every resident. It is not aimed at Fort Discovery's plans but given the fact that Mr. D'Amico jumped the gun with his commercial gun range vision, it is understandable why one could consider it to be the example for community action and responses. So the citizens of the county are in this shotgun weeding dance. The concept of the permit system process and conditional use process assumes no development can occur until the total project is assessed and addressed. Mr. D'Amico apparently has a different process in mind. Is it his play book is to harass the affected community and at the same time sue the county and individuals who challenge his project? Noted on Facebook are aerial photos of the private properties of some of the principals in the TRC and a threat that he said he is going to call out their property code violations. He made good his threat by submitting alleged code violations at the Monday, December 3rd Commission meeting. His attorney also announced another law suit against the County. On his Jefferson County Washington Facebook page also identified the names and portrait pictures of members of the Tarboo Ridge Coalition. Why? But the most disturbing thing that makes this Facebook scary and sinister is the post from Robyn Middleton: "When our voices and votes are suppressed by those few WE put into office they start suppressing us. Hopefully it won't turn to violence. It's a natural course of action. We tried the Democratic process and it isn't working people. Do we overthrow our local government!" Commissioners, words and deeds matter. Is intimidation and bullying how we do economic development in Jefferson County? I said before, this ordinance will allow commercial gun ranges of any scope and size to snuggle up to Port Ludlow, Marrowstone Island, Hadlock, Chimacum, Cape George, any place where there is a private woodlot large enough. Is the playbook Mr. D'Amico is using going to be the new norm for economic development in Jefferson County? I believe fencing and signs ever fifty feet posting the perimeter of a gun range is already proposed. If not, it seems it would be a good safety practice. Respect Submitte George B. You #6 lake R� Follow Share Joe ©'Amita TRC Board Members tailing the shots in Jefferson County, https i www facebook coml310175385699157!posts�21 16919165024761.` i7 Nit fivard of Birettitts , tsF z�ikvgr "+�f"tti.'ee:�c:'?.n Fort Discovery, Inc, 16 Uke Page 19 his Meet the Tarboo Ridge Coalition Board Members, who are against the new range planned at Cedar Hills and have been spying on us We even had a U S Border Patrol Agent report of a low flying aircraft over our property. Any information that you can provide on any of the Board members would be appreciated All supported site visits by law enforcement are welcome, observe and report. Please private message or call us with supporting information. We are compiling a list of suspected land use violations by TRC Board Members and supporters. l guess Cedar Hills can't plant grass. These people remind nye the the Toyota accelerator recall when the gas pedal grit stuck They dont know when to stop. They will likely take down and destroy the closest business to our property with no effects on us. Sad for Allen Like Reply 2h yrV;ite a rp,'y Charlie Brown What a bunch of fucking morons How are they goring to ;ban military and leo training? They writ the cops to be untrained when the armed asshole breaks in amd they say that nun is, hannAd rani the Saki intrirriar nitts it flown? GAA real Wtf 10 79 42 Ccn)ments 55 Snare-, G "' Like comment p::> Share -j # - Bob Sully Flagler Like I stated on the other thread, What a bunch of arrogant bureaucrats If BOCC folds to any of this overreach the whole process needs to be reevaluated Unbelievable Like Reolv 0 lip Mathew Shaftta Schaff So then where will they qualify the trainees when they need them? Is there an alternate range besides this one? This move is absolutely pointless 'Like Repki 5h 0, 1 Ret-& John Woodworth BS Like Reply Mariko Saum WHATIl So- now WE the tax payers will get to foot a huge bill to train our officers AWAY!! Get a grip folks! This isn't the bottomless money pit like Seaftlel Where do WE THE PEOPLE get to speak on this9l 'Like Reply 2,1, E Steve Vest StuDiditv on disolav once auainIIIIII A% Fort Discovery, Inc. 6 hrs 0 Jefferson County Washington Planning Commission votes to ban all law enforcement and military training in Jefferson County. The Jefferson County Planning Commission met Nov. 19 to review language county staff recommends to "harmonize" the land use code with the new Commercial Shooting Facilities "health and safety" Ordinance. The Planning Commission is an advisory body, While the 7 members did approve the "harmonizing" language which is good, it followed the Tarboo Ridge Coalition playbook to try and pile on restrictions which the SOCC did not previously approve. Six of the 12 Tarboo Ridge Coalition points were approved as recommendations. —Recommend the prohibition of organizational training of law enforcement, armed forces and paramilitary at a Commercial Shooting Facility. —Recommend to limit outdoor shooting to occur only between hours of 8 am and 5 pm at any CSF. (This implies no low -light training for law enforcement) —Recommend a 16 -foot high noise barrier/berm above grade at each firing range, instead of 8 -foot (with depression) which is in the new CSF ordinance. —Recommend all shooting ranges be fenced to minimum of 8 feet. (County code requires building permit for any fence higher than 7 feet. CSF ordinance just says ranges shall be fenced without a height requirement). —Recommend to prohibit landing of aircraft or firing of weapons from aircraft or drone at a CSF. —Recommend to prohibit shooting within 500 yards of a lake, larger than 20 acres, at a CSF. Planning Commission is advisory and makes recommendations which the BOCC can follow, adapt or ignore. We expect the Planning Commission recommendations to be discussed at the BOCCs Monday, Nov. 26 meeting at 0900. 0 Fort Discovery, Inc. �C, hrs 0 066 Meet the Tarboo Ridge Coalition Board Members, who are against the new range planned at Cedar Hills and have been spying on us. We even had a U.S Border Patrol Agent report of a low flying aircraft over our property. Any information that you can provide on any of the Board enforcement are welcome, observe and report. Please private message or call us with supporting information. We are compiling a list of suspected land use violations by TRC Board Members and supporters. I guess Cedar Hills can't plant grass. These people remind me the the Toyota accelerator recall when the gas pedal got stuck. They don't know when to stop. They Wit likely take down and destroy the closest business to our property with no effects on us. Sad for Alien. Ut Board of Directors 'Vis 0. I'll 01410 lilt 04411 S 0" Alto s*f "ACC i *"Pt" 10 'Vis 0. I'll 01410 lilt 04411 S 0" Alto s*f "ACC i *"Pt" Ott 4 'Vis 0. I'll 01410 lilt 04411 S 0" Alto s*f "ACC i *"Pt" Jefferson County Washington 0 Home About Photos Reviews Events Videos Posts Community Info and Ads lir Like 1 Follow A Share Allen Frank The wealthy PT trustfunders quietly have their hand firmly on the rudder Sullivan & the others are merely the Useful Idiots of the Wealthy who never had to work and fait to understand economic reality...CUZ THEY DONT HAVE TO. That's why I left 13 year..: S3ee More Like Reply 5h 0_„i 2 +i 1 Rep;a Phil DuPuy Bullshit Ili r Like Reply 5h Mark Swanson What about poin-ted sticks? s Like Reply 4h dr 2 Rephes = ;; Eric Clanton So stupid Like Regio », Kep Kepler You can't fix stupid or change the 2nd amendment... r�) Lake Reply 4h 0: w 2 Replies 111.—W - 110 s , - Kenneth Smith Jefferson County must not believe in the safety of their residents. How do you expect the police to protea the residents 9 they are not well trained for all; possible scenarios. If you force them to go outside the county to tram; then training cost will increase significantly. Usually, this also leads to reduced training. The current County Board are obviously not interested in public safety. Like Reply 4h ; Marti Hetrick Tarboo lake is still in Jefferson county so ??7?1W Like ReNy 4t, Y 1 ReOv Robyn Middleton When our voices and votes are suppressed by those few that WE put into office they start suppressing us Hopefully it won't tum to violence It's natural course of action We tried the Democratic process and it isn't working people. What is left now people . Do we over throw our local government 1 Like Reply 4h 03 Allen Frank We did Ain PT in 1999 That was the chancel! Yet our supporters failed to get involved or Posts ..qwbk� Cedar Hills Recreational Facility • 2 tars 0 Can't wait to have the same setbacks at Cedar Hills ... if not Jefferson County will have a fairness issue. D -M Cedar dar Hills Recreational Facility Noveniber 19 at 7:30 PNI Tarboo Ridge Coalition calls for land use investigations of Cedar Hills ... IeVs start with our closest outspoken neighbor and Board Member of the TRC. Someone keeping score on how many illegal structures might be here? ThanksPeterfor cracking the door. Been waiting for you to unravel the Land Trust Deal, #trc #tarbooridge #o1vinpicniusicfestival #jeffersoilcotinty#jeffersoiicotiiitN%vashington #2ndamendnie nt #fortdiscovery #r•al]vToint I Comment 2 Shares 55 Comments Leigh Hearou Joe, sorry you're so late getting the news. The Olympic Music Festival last performed on our property In 2015. Please correct your hashtag to reflect the series that now performs here every summer. Concerts in the Barn. The OMP now holds concerts at Ft Worden. P r(At 'ro El V E � i M 4 Ne �EC 1.10 20 8e CL Thi e t. -i q� Lk A (dud ?Ctccj� 0 4 6 es 1,� (fsc/� coc; �ee I 1' 0' -' �t -kL i io J � cL + :5e-U'tc e 5- 6 e) 6, �,el 5' a ( �5 Zed&&A PcAkly-e-5 Ct ,A le 4- h e -- c4 4- e- cL cl u c ^'— t `M £ , D is ` c` T` Lt,' 6,A Cl 6 vi f V, e,5 Q tA e_ �vn -C W +� l +Lt) J( L e r o f q I I C, 44-1 �6Q /Cl c ase .5 � s w C-- ( � 6c6QP CO - 5 ( q Ltl CC k /`q NY e5 E I V E V�o Jean Ball, Quilcene resident and gun owner, December,<1", 2018, comments on Planning Commission's proposed amendments to title 18. DEC 1©2018 JEFFERSON COUNTY Blackmail is a poor platform from which to expect our decisions with onerous implications for residents. That said, I think it is a moot point due to 2 simple facts, 1 -That although any developer may file an egregious lawsuit over the perceived harms they have suffered, the merits of any such suit may be invalidated in a court of law, and; 2 -That a class-action law suit may be counter filed by the residents impacted by an allowance of this proposed land use. Given the potential for suits from both directions and that property value damages and loss of peaceful enjoyment to land owners can be quite costly, I think it unwise to use that as incentive to act in one way or another. I think the wiser course of action is to ask yourselves: What is to be your legacy and what is your motive to serve in public office? Your decisions on this title 18 amendment should reflect the will of the citizens. You are OUR voice. We elected you to amplify and elevate our values, our needs and our rights. We elected you because we trusted you to protect and defend us. We elected you to do the right thing in the face of adversity. We are challenged by an ideological disability. This is not about taking away anyone's guns. That is a red herring. This is about citizens' rights. Your rights do not outweigh mine. You should not be allowed to impact me in an adverse manner, despite any rights you claim to be exerting. It is not reasonable to assert that your rights are greater than mine. I have rights, too. I have a right to protect the peaceful enjoyment of my rural land. I have a right to speak out against those impacting my rights without fear of retribution. I have a right to expect my government to protect and defend my rights. Please do not allow NEW OUTDOOR shooting facilities in Jefferson County. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. . Nobody is opposed to indoor shooting facilities. The trouble is with NEW OUTDOOR shooting facilities. Please do not allow NEW outdoor shooting facilities in Jefferson County! We currently have the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association which serves the needs of the residents and law enforcement. The JCSA has an exemplary record and should be supported. Funding should be found to help them improve their facilities and mitigate their impacts, since they are "a non -conforming use" which preceded all of us. If little 'ole Quilcene can throw this much of a fit, can you imagine what would happen if a developer tried to site an outdoor shooting facility on the forest lands surrounding Port Ludlow!? Hang onto your hats! You thought they got loud when the trees were cut, what do you think would happen with a shooting facility in the neighborhood? Half the electorate of District 3 is in Port Ludlow, I am sure you can read between the lines there. You do not need to implement every harebrained idea that comes across your desk. Some land uses are wholly incompatible in our county. Outdoor shooting facilities are one of those incompatible, harebrained ideas if they are near homes or critical areas. IF a location was found that was not within earshot of surrounding residences and not near a critical area, THAT might be something we could consider. Two 20 -acre parcels is nowhere near a reasonable size chunk of land for this proposed use and anywhere near a recreational lake is inexcusable. Hours of operation- Allowing outdoor shooting facilities to operate 365 days a year, 9-5:00, 7 days a week is insane. Even half of that (3-4 days per week) is wholly intolerable, and I am a life-long gun owner who grew up in a military family. Enduring a quarter of that (2 days per week) makes me suicidal and I am not exaggerating about this. There is a reason law enforcement and military employs tactics of audible disturbances on the enemy... prolonged and repetitive unwelcomed noises makes people lose their minds and do crazy things. This notion that we are striking some kind of balance by allowing the proponents and opponents to be heard and making a decision which lies somewhere in the middle is a fallacy. I looked it up. The definition of "striking a balance" is to achieve a state in which different things occur in equal or proper amounts or have an equal or proper amount of importance. Which begs the question: What is the definition of "equal"? So I looked that up, too. "Equal" is defined as being the same in quantity, size, degree or value. Now, I ask you, does anyone think this is equal?! Does anyone think that the voice of 1200 signatories/residents is EQUAL to the single voice of the developer who is trying to ram this down our throats? Does anyone think that the benefits to a single developer (or any of the other developers who shall follow) who shall seek to impose their wills upon the residents of our county is EQUAL to the benefits (or in this case the liabilities of) the residents? Does the good of the many not I the good of the one (or the few) in Jefferson County? You want equality? Let's put it to a vote of the people. Considering the fact that this developer does not even live in the county, and so many of the residents have expressed opposition to this proposed land use, I predict the outcome would not be a demonstration of equality, but it would be a demonstration of the will of the people. These 2 players are not equal and they do not deserve a striking of balance, they deserve a clear and decisive determination which unequivocally states that this is not compatible land use in Jefferson County. This single developer seeks to impose his rights at the expense of all the rest of us. His rights do not outweigh ours. Are we going to say that a single developer has the same heft as 1200 residents who signed a petition? God help us! Honorable Commissioners, w 4 4 �� My name is Chuck Ervin. I live in Port Hadlock. My wife and 'ara CC Nflthe Jefferson County Sportsman Association. r I will begin by summarizing my qualifications to address commercial shooting range cost issues. As the following information will show, I am well-qualified to comment on the probal t6uosl 02fflof these new ordinances on the JCSA range. JEFFERSONCLOUNTY I hold a degree in Engineering from the College of Civil Engineering 4`h ranked civil engineering program in the United States. To put this in perspective, to up engineering program ranks ahead of MIT and Stanford. My oldest son and my brother-in-law are both UT civil engineering graduates also, and both are currently registered professional engineers. Many of my friends and business colleagues are registered professional engineers. After college I worked for an engineering firm in Kitsap County where my duties included acting as a party chief for land and construction surveys in Jefferson and Kitsap Counties. Some of that work involved taking cross sections similar to those required by the amended ordinance to describe the containment berms. In the late seventies, I was the facilities engineering manager at Subase Bangor. My duties included approving construction cost estimates and specifications for some of the projects associated with the development of the Trident Submarine Base. Later, as the Public Works Manager, I oversaw roughly 700 engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel responsible for the equipment and facility operation and maintenance of most of the naval facilities in Jefferson County and northern Kitsap County. My areas of responsibility included Subase, The Strategic Nuclear Weapons Facility Pacific, the Trident Refit Facility, the Keyport Naval Torpedo Station, Indian Island, and the Naval Regional Hospital in Bremerton. I later co-founded and successfully operated a company that provided armed security guard services at Indian Island. I am also a former senior executive of two international, multi -billion -dollar corporations that provide armed security services to the U.S. Department of Defense and other governments. I am a former Executive Vice President of a subsidiary of G4S, the largest security services company in the world. I am also a former Vice President of the company that provides comprehensive military and weapons training for the Saudi Arabian National Guard. In that capacity I worked with senior Saudi Royal family members, including the current King of Saudi Arabia. I have personally owned and used firearms for over 50 years and I first fired a high-powered rifle on a Marine Corps range in 1966. After carefully reviewing all of the applicable ordinance provisions, I remain convinced that what has already been approved, and what is now being considered, will be so costly that it will result in the dissolution of the JCSA, forcing County citizens onto public lands for unsupervised and uncontrolled shooting with a predictable negative impact on public safety. In response to the changes previously approved by the Commissioners, JCSA has already doubled its annual membership dues but that won't be nearly enough to pay for all of the requirements of the ordinances. Preparation of the specified plans will be prohibitively expensive. For example, the facility design plan will require the professional services of at least a licensed land surveyor and a licensed professional engineer. The noise abatement plan is an unattainable goal for an outdoor range where shotguns and high- powered rifles are being used. To even slightly reduce only pistol and revolver noise would be so expensive on an outdoor range that it would simply not be economically feasible. The specified 8 foot high fence around the one -mile perimeter of the existing JCSA range will cost more than $100,000 even if it is only a basic chain link fence. To demonstrate that this is not overstated, Lowes Home Improvement stores sell 8 foot wide chain link fencing at $400 for a 50 foot roll. To enclose the current JCSA range would require 100 rolls at a cost of over $40,000 before fence, posts, top rails, gates, concrete, and labor are included. If the fence is constructed of wood or concrete, the costs will be dramatically higher. Also, such a fence or wall cannot be built without removing quite a few trees, bringing additional costs and a host of new issues and likely public opposition. Since the land on which the JCSA range operates is owned by the County, and will remain the property of the County even if the JCSA range ceases to operate, perhaps the County should pay for the fence. Construction of sixteen -foot -high berms around the ranges will cost a staggering amount of money. It's one thing to do this for a brand new, commercial facility prior to construction of the other range facilities and where the business plan contemplates those investments in its economic forecasts. But, doing so on an existing range operated by a non-profit, volunteer organization is not economically feasible. Hiring a land surveyor to perform the field work and office drawings to prepare cross-sections of the berms will cost tens of thousands of dollars more. Longitudinal cross-sections with elevations for all rifle and pistol ranges will also be prohibitively expensive. Again, this is a massively expensive undertaking that is being mandated by the County. Since the County owns the land, and the specified berms are envisioned as being beneficial to the safety of County residents, perhaps the County' Commissioners should fund these new requirements. It appears increasingly likely that the JCSA will be forced to disband due to the extraordinary cost of compliance with the new ordinances. If that happens, it seems plausible that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners might elect to continue to allow law enforcement agencies to use the existing facilities for training and qualification. If the County does continue to operate the range, even without maintenance, the County Commissioners will presumably require construction of the perimeter fence and new berms at County expense. After all, County officials are already on record as requiring these features as part of a comprehensive plan to make the range acceptably safe. Respectfully submitted, 4CharlesL. "Ervin! December 10, 2018 At wl 40 to C CL 0 m 0 E 0 CL u0 C: 0 V) LM w I W iZ tTfelsi VC-6Tit40 �i I(— DE -C (Of 201 6 Dear County Commissioners, #, Thank you for listening. I am speaking as someone who is both a supporter of the JCSA a a s "s ppo er of reasonable expectations for any new serereiel shooting facilities in Jefferson County. 1 think many of us chose a fife in Jefferson County because we enjoy! theee Eng oi`living in a small town surrounded by natural beauty. We enjoy being away re e e big city — and in Jefferson County you can find peace and quiet. date in a wide variety of recreation — and in Jefferson County that ins nY one here would wish for a regulation or a business development that would severely diminish or eliminate either of these enjoyments for their neighbors. So when I talk about "reasonable expectations" for neer ranges, I'm talking about staying true in scale, purpose and noise impact to our small town needs and generally peaceful rural character. For example, no one living near our local airport would' reasonably expect Boeing 737's to start landing there anytime soon. It's a small airport, with craft like Cessna 182s and the scale, purpose and noise impact of :the Cessna is suidable to our small ;town. o,k k"�4 D O s/ I believe that a"ser eFeieI shooting range has the potential to be like the Boeing 737 or like the Cessna 182. Please, `keep us true to the Cessna 182: - keep operational hours reasonable - cater to smaller arms, recreational uses, and local, needs (especially of our local law enforcement) - keep the loudest noises to ,predictable times of day and limited to certain days of the month -keep some daylight hours for peace - in short, look very carefully at what is working at the JCSA I recently became a member of the JCSA because I value having a weft' -run, community -oriented place where our local law enforcement can train for free, where I can find experts to help me stay a competent gun owner and where I feel comfortable lbringingm y sons to ]earn the basics of gun safety. I also live near a part of the county where a new gun range may locate. l know that with gun ranges comes gun noises, but let's also recognize that our rural areas have topography which tends to carry sounds longer distances and with fewer naturally occurring noises to masts the intensity of gunfire. We should be careful in how we intend to allow changes to these areas where, frankly, many of us have chosen to We because of the peace. I am standing in the rniddte, asking for a middle way. 'Please create reasonable expectations in our regulations to protect what we enjoy about the JCSA and to protect what we enjoy about our small- town rural character. With that in mind: 1) Is the JCSA 'legally "grandfathered" to provide for our local law enforcement's training? 2) Can we prioritize our local needs over those of other groups and say that "organizational training; for local law enforcement is allowed at commercial shooting ranges" but in a separate sentence place some limits on the organizational training of other groups? 3) If Jefferson County chooses to attract non -local groups to come here for their organizational firearms training, will it have the unintended consequence of enabling other jurisdictions to fail to develop their own ability to support firearms training? Does it push more noise into our County, saving other counties the trouble of taking responsibility for it themselves? 4) There are companies that specially design 40 foot shipping containers to be used as mobile shooting ranges... is this an option that could supplement outdoor shooting while reducing noise? Thank you. N i COLE f7l)X 3—,Ltg CAC;cuG O (0,Ji R -GAD R «m -� Berea ipify Farm Jefferso nt '� Board Of County Commissioners DEC 10 2010 Department of Community Development fr, ��� Dec.10,2018 :JEFFERSON �►O f noM Dear Commissioners & Department of Community Development, 47 I F OONERS I am writing to request that you extend the moratorium on a decision on the Proposed Paramilitary Training Center Located near Tarboo Lake for another 6 months. A decision of this magnitude must be considered very carefully as the impact on the region is immense. The language in the ordinance must be carefully studied and worded in a manner to protect all citizens, local businesses, traffic, taxes and the environment of this area. WE on the Olympic Peninsula are located between a large national Park and National Forest, a massive inland waterway with a growing and flourishing regenerative organic agricultural community and related products. This community can provide not only food security for this entire region, but a massive filtration system that sequesters carbon, and sends clean water flowing into Hood Canal and Puget sound. Our County has a conser- vation Futures Program that helps protect our clean air, water, habitat for wildlife, including our endangered salmon runs. One of the Conservation Futures Program's shining Stars is the watershed the Starts in Tarboo Lake and Flows into Quilcene Bay. Center Road that passes Tarboo Lake and the Proposed paramilitary Training Center is a main thoroughfare for cyclists and campers traveling to recreation sites in our parks and waterways. It is dotted by farms, retreat centers, conservation areas and families living off the grid trying to live sustainable life styles. Our growing community of people living low impact regenerative lifestyles enmeshes quite naturally with the National Parks, forests and waterways, We have thriving Bee keepers in the area as well as dairies and other business- es that are not compatible with loud noise and increased military traffic. Everyone in this community is supportive of hunting and fishing as they are activities that go along with sus- tainable living. Please, we ask that despite the fact that we are a small population county with a low budget that you not get swayed by the threat of a lawsuit and do what is in the best interest of the people of Jefferson County. We do not need more military style activity Please, we all ask that you extend the moratorium for another 6 months and take the time to write a proper, in-depth ordinance restricting commercial Paramilitary training centers. Your careful consideration is imperative on this issue. Sincerely, Chris Llewellyn Ser- endipity Farm, PO Box 97, 141 Cemetery Road, Quilcene, WA. 98376 206-708-5621, email: serendipityfarm@bigplanet.com, www.serendipityfarm.org itv Farm . I maintain that this is more than just a Jefferson County issue. This is a state , Regional and even National issue with the waterways and the National Park and Forests so close by. It concerns me that we are being bullied into any kind of a compromise due to threat of a lawsuit. With 150 mil- lion acres of military land in this country and large expanses of land even in Easter Washington. There are better places to site such a facility. In my way of thinking a facility like this should not degrade a single land owners property values or quiet rural way of life. It is a non -conforming use at best and in my experience a non- conforming use that has such a detrimental effect for miles around is almost never allowed or at the very least needs to okd by neighbors. A range of this magnitude, has substantial detrimental environmental and quality of life issues for the entire area. I feel very strongly that the entire county, region and state should stand up to this proposal, that a stop work order should be issued and a moratorium extension should be put into place — which is entirely legal and the county should revisit it's gun range ordinance. This is simply an unacceptable use of land at the site where is proposed and being built without a permit. From The vantage Point of all of the farmers I have interviewed on this topic: • The site is in far too populated an area • It is not consistent with rural farming ,forestry and sustainable living that prevails is in the area • A proposal of this sort should be at a minimum on several hundred acres preferably over 1,000 or more • The site adjoins a popular, newly restored Lake and watershed area and would render it unusable for anyone wanting a quiet swim or birdwatching day • It would cost the local taxpayers dearly in road improvement over the years due to heavy use of large equip- ment traveling to the site • Huge amounts of lead would be deposited in the land above the lake even if they provide lead catchment. • The noise level would displace wildlife and people from their rural homes • It sets a dangerous precedent and adds to the further militarization of the Olympic Peninsula which has been set aside as a special place of splendor • The air quality as well as sound will be affected • And refuge for wildlife, people and wild places- which are essential to our wellbeing, clean air, clean wa- ter. Wild places sustain our mental as well as physical health • This is the gateway to the National Park and Hood Canal where cyclists and campers travel to recreation And on and on......... He is not providing a service that is needed. There are plenty of hunting training ranges in the area and we are surrounded by places for the military to train. WE do not need more. Ser- nndi Farms 120 Rnv U7 1 Al CU=PrruBQarl� Cli1 �1A a- 98-176 /6 206-708-5621, email: serendipityfarm@bigplanet.com, www.serendipityfarm.org December 10, 2018 n�� P4 E DEC 10 2018 I am Michael Halve wn, Ouitcene Cw1c /K My wifeland I purchased property on Tarboo Creek in F to g Ty there in rural peace and quiet In 2001 �` 3 , w,: - County Commissioners: Thank you for all the work you have done on the Commercial Shooting Facility Ordinance. Unfortunately, the ordinance was passed "UNDER THREAT OF LAWSUITS" according to The Leader, 1117/2018 The Jefferson County Sportsman's Association is up in arms as they perceive a threat to their existence after decades of safely operating an essential shooting range with unpaid volunteers. The majority of voters are disappointed by this opening up of the county to commercial gun raWes on public takes with hardly any limitations to speak of. The president of Security Services Northwest has, according to The Leader, 112=018, "Indicated he plans to LOOK INTO possible land use violations of several Tarboo Ridge Coalition members". SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER THREATI According to the Leader, 121512018, Fart Discovery's facebook page added a post asking for "any Information that you can provide on any of the board members", referring to the TARROO RIDGE COALITION. TIME PRESIDENT OF A SECURITY {COMPANY IN SEQUIM IS INVESTIGATING JEFFERSON COUNTY RESIDENTS FOR CARRYING OUT TI4EIR FIRST AMENDMENT MONTS? Fortunately, a solution that should please an overwhelming majority of the voters involved has finally presented itself thanks to the fearless and public spirited Jefferson County planning Commission. They have UNANIMOUSLY passed six amendmerrts to harmonize Title 18 "land use" rules for gun ranges with the already adopted Tide 8 "safety" ordinance for gun ranges_ The Planning Commission urges the County Commissioners to add ALL SIX amendments to the proposed ordinance. KEEP THE PEACEIII THANK YOU, t����� �...f.a� 3���, S �►ter`• E, V December 10, 2018 DEC 10 7019 ECOUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dear Commissioners Sullivan, Kier and Dean, I support the amendments to the draft ordinance as recommended by the planning commission with one exception. In item #1, language must be clarified to allow the existing Operating and Licensing Agreement between Jefferson County and the Jefferson County Sportsman Association, to continue. L44 tq��� Sincerely, Cheryl Halverson Quilcene i w Clarification on TRC's position` , ,h,4 'ita =riflocal law enforcement Dec. 4, 2018 Posted on TRC website V "+ im There have been a lot of rumors about what TRRPWiM about the Jefferson County Sportsman's Association. JEFFERSON ( T Tarboo Ridge Coalition has never taken ed about JCSA at a public hearing. We respect their long held practice of training recreational shooters. The following statement is one of the Planning Commission's recommendations" 18. 20.430 Commercial and Non -Commercial Shooting Facilities 1) Organizational training for armed forces, law enforcement or paramilitary organizations is prohibited at any commercial shooting facility or any non-commercial shooting facility." We wish to clarify that the TRC supports the JCSA's stated purpose, which is to "Provide free use of the facility for training purposes to local law enforcement agencies." This unambiguous language comes directly from the existing Operating and License Agreement between Jefferson County and JCSA. The current agreement with Jefferson County does not include law enforcement training for other counties nor does it include training for military groups. Training for such groups adds a burden to the JCSA in that it takes away time for members to use the facility as well as creating additional noise above and beyond what is expected for "local" uses. It is the TRC's position that this recommendation either: a) assumes a "grandfathered" status for local law enforcement to continue training at the JCSA, or b) requires a modification in language to allow the JCSA to continue providing free use of the facility for local law enforcement ONLY. CW cj11�16i� 0 46 • r)6t VY\4� I -L- gl�� IL? IIr\ 0 JdFOHERS UN COUNTY Lo Clk A -,/ m. M" MMW,%$ IQN E19 S�> ft*,d,vr, 64-51&tn'l '-t� 6vvn � 6&?'M n, I S S) &,e,(3 *5 ) P&uvr- "� kl-,Ae, jl-,�- 4vUr\z4'-C Ovrsuaa'r- his Vubk\a� -6t6u-sl *0 aka. b r- ctk,k,,,c- 4-v w V\f,> Ci t>" +V U c,- 6LA— +V V --,e A, US , S -i Me 9,k -t- vo +v no m i A- 64 -Stn ven n_ O -v r- i �a4Z ,;. i> S - +�'S _ .�_�)N.i-� cmn m iq - Riley Parker _. �t Commercial Shooting Facilities in Jefferso Title 18 Dec 9, 2018 at 5:30:17 PM DEC 10 2010 Board Of County Commissioners Riley Parker JEFFERSUilCOUNTY I S8 10 N EWES Dear Commissioners, As you know I was a District 3 Representative on the Review Committee for drafting a Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance in Title 8. Now that I look at the Title 8 Ordinance I would like to provide you with my observations. The new Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance does not limit the number of facilities, the number of ranges on each facility, the number of active shooters at any given time, does not adequately protect the public, the environment or our aquatic and forest resource lands. This is a giant step backward from the existing Small Scale Recreation and Tourist regulation. The siting of unlimited Commercial Shooting Facilities on forest resource lands is incompatible with the Washington State Growth Management Act. This type of activity is simply not a forest practice. Skagit County found this out when it tried to site a shooting facility near lake Cavanaugh in the Cascade Foothills. We should learn from their mistake. Our forest lands are publicly subsidized by the taxpayers by providing forest owners with very low tax rates. We value the open space and the economic benefit they provide to the citizens of Jefferson County. We as taxpayers should not asked to subsidize a private commercial shooting facility on forest lands. Also as I look back I do not believe there was an out cry from the public stating that we needed more Private Military Training Facilities in Jefferson County. Quite the opposite is true. For some time now there has been opposition to the noise from the growing military training presence. From the Growler training flights from Whidbey Island, the electronic warfare training in the Olympic National Park to the training exercises on our shores. Do the majority of the citizens of this county want more military training noise or do they just want a little peace and quiet? Don't get me wrong I am a veteran as many of my neighbors are too. Many veterans went overseas to fight in battle so that the home front was secure and peace could prevail. There was a promise that should they come home there would be peace and quiet. Many suffer from the effects of Post Traumatic Stress. This Ordinance does not honor that promise. This Ordinance does not protect our Lakes from the effects of a nearby Commercial Shooting Facility. When Kitsap County created their Shooting Ordinance they added a 500 yard setback from their lakes. Why not Jefferson County? Are our lakes less important? Is it ok to sacrifice them for one persons personal gain? I have heard that the Commercial Shooting Facilities Ordinance was built under the influence of a pending litigation. 1 also keep hearing that we shouldn't worry because our concerns will be addressed under the State Environment Permit application, SEPA, and the Conditional Use Permit process. If this is the case then the Ordinance provides no useful public purpose. Ordinances are created to provide guidance to what can be built where and the specific requirements. They do not hide behind unspecified requirements! In closing I want to support the adoption of the recommendations from the Jefferson County Planning Commissioners by the Board of County Commissioner. Thanks in advance, G E I V DEC 10 2018 JEFFOISO.N WW"-JTY r"�--MhIIISSIONERS ---------- 4t 'Dc ',2,0 18 Fes- lDoy /HAAS E11,4 •4,-'Tus FaA %� -? 7010�8P`1�✓ /"s-77 f�r,s fie ��7�•�ec1 �s w � ✓e��-��i 1 1/ //�� / COM I S ll glow A S '4 5A e -fAc� L. f S W e/tfs GCS SOA � f y Y , Z, (2, �hP.Le � P,,,e. � 2oYaUn�•a {-C �(% s ,4,7d lQ-��s 2uc�iz r iA {�� A -i' /�e 1�i i►�.e 7� e WAS 10 Tn d /�, 1 z sz` ci P s to e -es 37 ye,4 J x y fl el;3, lefli9e / hT�e�e YA,,t 4,.) 4,e �Q C'd 0, 44s ��n� 14 5,�� e "�'. {1� how �`�7l`G� , is P �,Po wrc s ,T 10 s Ys .45 CCA4�WA Ca 44 _ ti7,,C _ � X -e A t B/Ls 7.. C� S s 44,r CIVA (e j,IPA 14 f le 414C-1-11,11� 7�1 jj �ca - ve - b o c --u wry ­ RA Ile BA Lf) JA X P f clA Loll -tf.2 0 'Oft '016 --$A're 'iarj ice' �� k Stephen Rankin 1366 West Sequim Bay Road Sequim, WA 98382 December 10, 2018 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Commercial Shooting Range Ordinance Planning Commission "Harmonizing" DEC 10 2010 The Planning Commission's job was to "harmonize" the new ordinance with existing ordinance. Instead, they chose to circumvent the Commercial Shooting Facility Review Committee process to make substantive additions to the ordinance. The proposed requirement for an 8 foot fence surrounding the range. For what purpose? Are we worried that someone might break into a shooting range and get shot at because we can't tell the difference between them and a cardboard target? Or that no one noticed them? What about wildlife? Some folks are afraid they we'd shoot deer on the range, and how scared deer are of gunfire. Frankly, anyone that believes that just doesn't know the people — or the deer - at ranges. Bambi and her friends visit JCSA daily. Her tracks are all over the range. It's not rare for deer to meander onto the top of a berm while we are shooting. What happens then is simple ... we stop shooting until Bambi wanders off on her own. The truth is that JCSA is 40 acres of valuable wildlife habitat. Perhaps even more importantly, JCSA is a wildlife corridor — safe passage for deer and other wildlife such as bobcats to move through. We've been told that JCSA would be "grandfathered" and not have to comply with zoning changes. Even if true, that would only be temporary. The doctrine of prior non -conforming use comes with several caveats. First, the doctrine assumes that the use will gradually come to an end. Any changes requiring a permit will terminate the grandfathered status. Since the new ordinance will require JCSA make changes requiring permits, the result would be an almost immediate loss of any grandfathered status. JCSA doesn't have the resources to spend over $100K for a fence, which means this single requirement could easily result in the forced closure of JCSA. Plus the opportunity cost of spending $100K on a fence means those funds wouldn't be available to fund worthwhile improvements that might actually benefit the community. Lose -lose. Our current license allows us to operate until dusk or 8 PM, whichever is earlier. That time between 5 PM and dusk is a popular and valuable opportunity for regular working stiffs stop by and get in a little practice on their way home from work. It might not seem like much, but it's a great way for many working/family types to squeeze in some important practice into their busy life. Law enforcement training. The vast majority of police firearm "training" is really mandated periodic qualification. Currently, officers train at JCSA and are available for emergency calls while training. No travel time. No overtime. Win-win. My estimate is that this change will easily cost over $100 grand a year just for Jefferson County Sheriff and Port Townsend Police. To quote the 2016 Five -Year Staffing Level/Forecast Study Jefferson County Sheriff's Office "The study concludes that the current Jefferson County Sheriff s Office staffing levels are inadequate to meet the needs of Jefferson County's citizens." How could prohibiting law enforcement training in Jefferson County benefit the citizens of Jefferson County when the County's own study concludes that staffing levels are already inadequate to meet the needs of the citizens? Why would the county want to prohibit or even inhibit law enforcement training in the county? Does the county want to have officers and deputies with LESS training, especially LESS skill with their firearm? We are in a time where the public wants more accountability from our law enforcement, and that means more training for the officers, AND more accountability for the political decisions that shape law enforcement. Prohibiting LE training in Jefferson County is a step backward from a solution. '0�"; Stephen S. Rankin i 1.4 1 j*jk % f,,3 "ice' s+tet �, �',_� r'L - F. v a acs a t r j � `• ,� ,.,,1u Good evening My name is Jim Smith and I live on Old Tarboo Road. I am as sick of coming to these meetings as you probably are. Especiati klri ptgxsue seems to be getting more and more complicated rather than I' ' dQ. ending, on who you listen to..... The people have spoken over and over an � '� overwhelmingly opposed to Commercial military training an c County. And the preservation of low land lakes as recreations resou ¢f -rA. You didn't listen to those voices when you voted for the ordinance and now you have an opportunity to show your constituents that in fact you will listen to the planning commission and their recommendations. This was supposed to be an open and transparent process but now it appears that there has been a private negotiation between an outside party and the County that has been hidden from view based on a "privileged" mediation relationship. There is no evidence of any Mediation ever having taken place and the redacted statements are not covered by that lie. We want the information that has been blacked out released. And we want it released now...... You have no business to establish such a basic ordinance that will affect the future of Jefferson County for many years to come unless you have the tools in place to insure that what you pass can and will be enforced. At the moment ti appears to be the wild west where an individual tells the county that he intends to do whatever he wants to do with or without a permit and with or without moratorium. This is unacceptable and outrageous and embarrassing for the County. I would suggest that you extend the moratorium for however long it takes to come up with structure that will lend some order to what appears to be a spiraling spin into chaos. We are on your watch. You are the elected officials. You will be held responsible for what transpires here not the County employees who seem to be dictating what Can arid cannot happen in Jefferson County. Listen to your constituents.... My name is Teri Hein. I live on Old Tarboo Road. I'm confused: At the recent meeting in which the commidbli4s were voting on Title 8 one commissioner said making policy based on a fear of litigation is no way to run a county. Then another commissioner said that "nobody likes Title 8". Then the ori c W S. What is wrong with this picture? I agreewith both of those commissioners: it is no way to run a county and nobody likes Title 8. A ough, I've heard one person you migI ,k�qw �'s gretty happy with it. 1, 0 tel But today's topic is Title 18: FI�COW14TY C'"MISSIONERS The Planning Commissioner recommendations should be accepted in some form by the Commissioners. First: 500 Yards set back is critical. As we all know, the Kitsap Ordinance has this and it was upheld in the courts. It is about protecting the lakes in our county. Next: No military and law enforcement training. The sportsmen's club should continue to provide local law enforcement a facility where they can train. The Club should be grandfathered in or the ordinance should read no NEW facility can train local law enforcement. Regarding military training: the intensity is simply too much for our rural county. Besides, the military already owns 942,457 military base acres. Surely they can find space for their own training outside of Jefferson County. To quote the TRC's attorney: "Nothing in Washington State or federal law prohibits the exclusion of organizational training for military and police at commercial shooting facilities." Lastly: No nighttime shooting. As a neighbor to the proposed Cedar Hills facility and well within hearing range. I believe I have rights to a tranquil life. I appreciate the Planning Commissioners attempt to limit shooting but I believe if there are people living within 3 - 5 miles, the ranges must go into a indoor facility or have very limited hours. According to our attorney counties are not prohibited from regulating the noise created by commercial shooting facilities to protect the quiet enjoyment of neighbors." Both issues (military and the noise) were already litigated in Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club, 184 Wn. App. 252 (2014), and the Court of Appeals unambiguously upheld the County's right to regulate military training and noise impacts. If the BoCC does not accept these recommendations the appearance is that this whole process of community involvement for both Title 8 and Title 18 is a sham. What is the point of having public input if you are going to ignore it? Thank you. 44, December 10, 2018 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Steve Blazina RE: Hours of Operation DEC 10 2018 ;;E�FEHSUN COWNTY N ERF; I understand you are considering limiting the hours of stfb I xrn to pm, so would you also limit road work on city and county roads to those hours as well? Dumb idea, right? Not all gun owners are retired and can use the range in the middle of the day. Some even have to work on weekends. The ranges need to open in t he evening hours to support those individuals. 8:00pm is a minimum amount of time to stay open for shooting. I think an 8:00pm time, year-round, with lighting systems for target illumination is a much-needed addition to all shooting facilities — nation wide — personal protection situations don't just occur during daylight hours. Low light or no light situations are literally day and night different. Why do you think law enforcement is required to do night operations? That need is magnified many times by our armed forces. Please don't force the good citizens of Jefferson County to go shoot in the woods because the shooting ranges are closed when they wish to practice. Respectfully, Steve Blazina occ 14 From: liz moore <glasstools@olympus.net> OVII 1 Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:22 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Comments on the Cedar Hills Recreation Facility Dear County Commissioners, I have lived in Jefferson County since zoos. 1 am against allowing for any new shooting facilities in Jefferson County. We should not encourage more gun use, more gun sales or more gun "recreation". I believe new commercial shooting facilities belong indoors. I also believe the owner of such facilities should be required to reside on the property. It is one thing to put on ear protection while practicing your shooting. It is quite another thing to be forced to listen to it, sometimes from miles away, day after day. We experienced the later for several years when Mr. D'Amico was located across Discovery Bay. We came very close to relocating. I would encourage you to adopt the recommended amendments suggested by the Jefferson County Planning commission at their public hearing on "harmonizing" Title 18, "land use" rules for gun ranges, with the already adopted Title 8 "safety" ordinances for gun ranges, including: 1. Prohibiting military and law enforcement training at commercial shooting facilities. 2. Restricting the hours of shooting ( and I would add require the owner to be present ) 3. Prohibit landing an aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or drone at a commercial shooting facility 4. Requiring ( at least ) a Soo yard setback of shooting areas around any lake greater than 20 acres. S. Requiring a 16 foot high noise barrier above grade at shooting ranges. 6. requiring all shooting areas to be fenced to a minimum height of 8 feet. In addition, I would like to encourage you to ensure the county has someone employed to monitor the facility. The county should agree to monitor the health of the lake and surrounding areas, and Mr. D'Amico should bear the cost of any monitoring and clean up. Lastly, I would like to ask you not to approve a facility that you and your family would not be willing to live next to. Thank you, Jim Moore 'effbocc {f From: J Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> 'bw Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:24 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Title 18 proposed amendments comments Attachments: imagel.jpeg; image2 jpeg; ATT00001.txt Hello Commissioners and Staff, My computer went on strike and refused to send these comments to you but I was able to print them and also able to take pics of the screen so here they are: Thank you for your consideration, Jean Ball 1B, 11, d F 1" p " A , A I R" h" OWN Ea 0 OCC From: John <jwrobleski@q.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:27 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: melanie reynolds Subject: comment period Dear County Board Commissioners, As the comment period to make recommendations for the shooting range ends today, here are some suggestions for your consideration: • Create indoor shooting ranges only and operate them only during the hours of 8 am to 8 pm. • Do not allow any outdoor shooting, including practice using drones. • Require the construction of noise barriers, 15 to 20 above the facility. • Require 8 feet high fencing around the perimeter of the entire facility. • Be good neighbors by listening to and responding to concerns and complaints by people living nearby and affected by the noise and other related issues. Thank you. John Wrobleski and Melanie Reynolds 1127 Adams Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-1801 1 jeffbocc From: Anthony De Leo <adeleo2200@msn.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:55 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Re proposed changes to gun range regulations Attachments: support letter fo JCSA gun range.docx Good Evening, I will not be able to attend the hearing this evening but have attached a letter expressing my thoughts on this subject. Thankyou Anthony F. De Leo Sent from Mail for Windows 10 i jeffbocc From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Board of County Commissioners, Justine Wagner <justine@ssnwhq.com> Monday, December 10, 2018 5:03 PM jeffbocc Harmonizing Ordinance Harmonizing letter.docx Please see attached letter and accept for public comment. Respectfully, Justine Wagner Executive Assistant "When seconds count, count on Shepherd Shield." Download the App! https://www.shepherdshieldapp.com/ December 10, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Dear BOCC, I write tonight to share comment on the proposed changes to the harmonizing ordinance on "gun ranges" and the moratorium. I believe that the new ordinance that was provided by the committee that gathered for weeks to propose should be accepted. I don't think that their suggestions were by any means more accommodating to parties on either side of this decision. The notion that neither were satisfied shows me that this was a well thought out and probably fair ordinance. I believe that the suggested changes to what the committee came up with by the Tarboo Ridge Collation, to include time restrictions, limitations on military and law enforcement training, no provisions for security training, limiting evening shooting times, and set backs of 500 feet are extreme and unnecessary and target a specific project they are trying to prevent from moving forward. I think there are better ways the TRC can request these things from their neighbor rather than trying to force the hand of the BOCC. I think the new ordinance should be in place by December 18, 2018 and the moratorium should be lifted. Thank you for your time and consideration on this. Respectfully, Justine Wagner effbocc From: stephanie@ssnwhq.com Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 5:17 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Ordinance December io, 2o18 Harmonizing Ordinance Dear BOCC, I want to officially submit my thoughts for public comment on the Harmonizing Ordinance and the Shooting Range Moratorium. I believe that the moratorium should be lifted, and businesses should be able to move forward with any development while following existing Jefferson County codes and ordinances. All suggestions made by the Tarboo Ridge Coalition to make the ordinance stricter should be denied. They have made these suggestions with the hope of stopping one project, not for the improvement of all gun ranges. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Stephanie Headrick jeffbocc From: Travis Albers <wakeyourselfup@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 5:57 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Proposed gun range To whom it may concern, My name is Travis Albers, I live here in Port Townsend. I am opposed to proposed gun range near Tarboo Lake. For, I have a meditation group that I attend week that would be within earshot of the proposed range. Furthermore, I have a hand full of friends that live in the area who purchased land in our beautiful county due to the peace and quite that exists. In the rural area it is not uncommon to hear occasional gun fire from hunters. This is acceptable due to the fact that people are providing food for their family's and also that it is not a continual occurrence. Though, with a outdoor gun range the sounds of gunfire would become a potential endless barrage of peace disturbing noise. This not only would disturb the local land owners and lower property values, it would also drive off local wildlife. Wildlife is a big part of the ecosystem and are also a major food source for members of our community who depend on it to feed their family's. I am all for gun rights but am not for disturbing the community. I believe an indoor non military range with no helicopter traffic would be a better alternative for all parties involved. For, guns and peace can coexist! Thank you for your time and consideration, Travis Albers jeffbocc From: Julia Wootten <Wooj99@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 6:27 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Tarboo Lake shooting facility Dear County Commissioners, I'd like to express my opposition to the proposed weapons training facility on Tarboo Lake. I can't see how this can be anything but detrimental to the inhabitants of the area, both human and non -human. How many families who have chosen to live here for the beauty and serenity of the area will be happy to feel like they are now living in a war zone? My guess is NONE. Please do the right thing and just say NO. Thank you, Julia Wootten jeffbocc From: Robin Purcell <rypurcell@seanet.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 6:45 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Drones Dear Board of County Commissioners, December 10, 2018 Below are my comments for your consideration: ALL shooting ranges should be required to be indoor shooting facilities. Prohibit military and law enforcement training. Require shooting hours to be restricted to 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Prohibit landing aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or drone. Require a 500 foot setback around any lake greater than 20 acres in area Require 16 foot high noise barriers above grade. Require a minimum of 8 foot high fences. Thank you. Robin Purcell 1190 2155 Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 208-390-5327 ;er° i� � 9 � t 'a � r • d jeffbocc From: Joe D'Amico <joe@ssnwhq.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 7:27 PM To: jeffbocc Cc: greg@ssnwhq.com; patrick@ssnwhq.com Subject: Joe D'Amico Dear BOCC, Please do not adopt any of the Jefferson County Planning Commission suggestions to CSF ordinance including but not limited to the following. i). Any shooting time restrictions between the hours of 0700-2200. 2). Any restrictions on the type of person that can discharge firearms. 3). Any restrictions on the flight of drones or helicopters landing zones. 4). Any additional setbacks not already addressed in the current code. 5). Fence heights no more then four feet. 6). The entire ordinance after learning no safety incidents occurred at the JCSA. 7). Any restrictions on the type of firearms to be discharged. 8). Downzoning any properties who have a pending application. g). Everything that the TRC recommends! Joey Joe D'Amico, President ([Pad) Fort Discovery, Inc - ieffboccs; From: A6na Moore <pickledogmouse@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 7:27 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Cedar Hills Dear County Commissioners, I grew up in Jefferson County and have lived here most my life. I am against allowing for any new shooting facilities in Jefferson County. We should not encourage more gun use, more gun sales or more gun recreation. I believe new commercial shooting facilities belong indoors. I also believe the owner of such facilities should be required to reside on the property. It is one thing to put on ear protection while practicing your shooting. It is quite another thing to be forced to listen to it, sometimes from miles away, day after day. We experienced the later for several years when Mr. D'Amico was located across Discovery Bay. I was younger at the time, but I absolutely remember the awful noise, and I know my parents considered moving because of it. It is unsafe and unjust to submit whole swaths of neighborhoods full of families, children, and animals to such stress and noise pollution. I would encourage you to adopt the recommended amendments suggested by the Jefferson County Planning commission at their public hearing on "harmonizing" Title 18, "land use" rules for gun ranges, with the already adopted Title 8 "safety" ordinances for gun ranges, including: 1. Prohibiting military and law enforcement training at commercial shooting facilities. 2. Restricting the hours of shooting ( and I would add require the owner to be present ) 3. Prohibit landing an aircraft or discharging firearms from an aircraft or drone at a commercial shooting facility 4. Requiring ( at least ) a 500 yard setback of shooting areas around any lake greater than 20 acres. 5. Requiring a 16 foot high noise barrier above grade at shooting ranges. 6. requiring all shooting areas to be fenced to a minimum height of 8 feet. In addition, I would like to encourage you to ensure the county has someone employed to monitor the facility. The county should agree to monitor the health of the lake and surrounding areas, and Mr. D'Amico should bear the cost of any monitoring and clean up. For him to destroy invaluable habitat that so many have worked tirelessly to protect is criminal. Please think about what sort of place you would like to have as your neighbor when you are considering these issues, and please don't approve a facility that you and your family would not be willing to live next to. Thank you, Anna Moore OCC From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners, Tim Green <timgreen1272@gmail.com> Monday, December 10, 2018 8:27 PM jeffbocc Shooting Ranges in Jefferson County Being residents of Jefferson County, we are writing to voice our concerns with new regulation of shooting facilities in this county. My wife and I are, along with the family of Jim & Nicole Fox, the residents living closest to the proposed range near Tarboo Lake. If we cut some trees we would have a direct line -of -sight to the area of the proposed ranges. Of course we are apprehensive about noise impact on us as we value the peaceful atmosphere here. Simultaneously, we are apprehensive about some of the regulatory approaches we have heard loosely tossed about on this topic. We would hate to see existing shooting opportunities such as on private land and at the JCSA strangled by rules intended to choke off the proposed new development. We made this our home partly because of these existing features. We have been told the State limits hours of operation of shooting ranges to 7 am. to 10 pm.. We agree a nearby range in full daily operation under that rule would utterly destroy the peaceful, rural residential nature of the area. On the other hand, the hours of use posted at JCSA are (in our minds) reasonable and within what we would find tolerable in a next-door city neighbor operating a loud power -tool. Range noise abatement design may possibly reduce the nuisance. Similarly, while very frequent helicopter flights would be extremely disturbing, helicopters fly by here on other business sometimes and we think we could tolerate a limited number of additional passes per month if during predictable, prescribed hours. We have seen extreme polarization and tension on this issue. We believe this is counter- productive. There needs to be room for mitigation and compromise with an over-riding view of the local atmosphere we are all here for and the needs and norms of this community. Best regards, Timothy R. & Suzanne M. Green 3744 Eaglemount Road Port Townsend timgreenl272ngmail.com