Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022 11 08 Conservation Futures Meeting Agenda Packet final 4:00 – 4:10 Welcome and Introductions Acceptance of the April 26, 2022 and October 4, 2022 Minutes 4:10 – 4:15 Public Comment Period – All Topics 4:15 – 4:15 Old Business Bylaws – Staff Update 4:15 – 4:15 Sub-Committee Reports Program Materials 4:15 – 5:50 New Business New Perspectives – Presentations/Discussion (30 min.) Equity & Underserved Communities – Cameron Jones Climate Change & the Future of Conservation – Jessica Randall Legacy Forests – Jessica Randall Application Process – Discussion/Potential Action ` Manual, Application & Scoresheet – Discussion/Potential Action Funding Round Calendar – Discussion/Potential Action Implications of Resolution 50-22 – Discussion/Potential Action https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/DocView.aspx?id=4113019&dbid=0&repo=Jefferson. 5:50– 5:55 Announcements/Administrative Staff Update Next Meeting: Potential Action 5:55 – 6:00 Public Comment Period – All Topics 6:00 Adjourn Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee Special Meeting Agenda Tuesday, November 8th, 2021 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM JCPH Pacific Room; 615 Sheridan St., Port Townsend (This is a healthcare facility, and masks are required.) THIS IS A HYBRID MEETING: Virtual and In-Person Attendance You may submit comments/correspondence to tpokorny@co.jefferson.wa.u up to 11:59 p.m. the day before the meeting. Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83327276355 Meeting ID: 833 2727 6355 +12532158782,,83327276355# US (Tacoma) +16694449171,,83327276355# US Officers: Chair - vacant Vice Chair Guy Dobbins, District 3 Members: Phil Andrus, District 2 Mary Biskup, District 1 Rob Harbour, Interest – Working Lands Richard Jahnke, Interest – Coastal Areas Cameron Jones, Interest—Equity Kalyn Marab, District 3 Joanne Pontrello, District 2 Ron Rempel, Interest – Wildlife Conservation Biology Craig Schrader, Interest – Climate Change Jessica Randall, Interest – Ecosystem Services David Wilkinson, District 1 Staff: Tami Pokorny, Natural Resources Program Coordinator http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us October 4, 2022 * Decisions and action items are indicated in bold font. Members Present: Mary Biskup, District 1; Guy Dobyns, Vice Chair, District 3; Rob Harbour, Interest – Working Lands; Richard Jahnke, Interest – Coastal Areas; Cameron Jones, Interest – Equity; Kalyn Marab, District 3; Joanne Pontrello, Jessica Randall, Interest – Ecosystem Services; District 2; Ron Rempel, Interest – Wildlife Conservation Biology; Craig Schrader, Interest – Climate Change; Dave Seabrook, Chair, Interest – Food Security; Dave Wilkinson, District 1 Members Absent: Phil Andrus, District 2 County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Environmental Public Health Others Present: Rebekah Brooks, Recorder (Rebekah Brooks Contracting), Gus Johnson (Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group [HCSEG]) I. Call to Order Chair David Seabrook called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. II. Welcome and Introductions III. Approval of Minutes Joanne Pontrello moved to preliminarily approve the April 29, 2022 draft minutes; Guy Dobyns seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Guy Dobyns moved to accept the April 5, 2022 draft minutes; Richard Jahnke seconded. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Guest Observer Comments None V. Old Business A. Final 2022 Cycle Funding Awards Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee (CFCOC) Special Meeting: Hybrid between Jefferson County Public Health Pacific Room and Zoom Connection October 4, 2022 from 4:00 to 6:00 PM Draft Summary Tami Pokorny announced that the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) approved the CFCOC recommendations for the Ruck Salmon Creek and Quimper Wildlife Corridor projects. Mary Biskup pointed out that there was about $20,000 in leftover funds. VI. Sub-committee Reports There were no reports. VI. New Business A. Big Quilcene River: Moon Valley Acquisitions Project: Request for Acreage Reduction Tami Pokorny explained that Jefferson County is not eligible to sponsor this project because part of the project is in Mason County. In order to move forward with this funding request, the HCSEG is sponsoring the project through the County. Tami reminded the Committee that it was important to be mindful of the project resolution, which did not specify acreage, although the application does. Gus Johnson expounded on the project changes. The property is in escrow now, and as the paperwork was being reviewed, Tami noticed there was a discrepancy between the acreage on the application and the acreage that is actually being acquired. Originally, the landowners did not want to sell their entire parcel, so three options were drawn up. The landowners selected option 3, which included 45 acres. However, the landowners changed their minds and ultimately decided on moving forward with option 2, which is 24 acres. The HCSEG is now seeking permission from the CFCOC to continue forward with the acquisition at the reduced acreage. The group discussed the ramifications of the change and Gus clarified questions about the map, restoration plans, and funding. The landowners will receive less compensation for the smaller sale, and the balance of between $40,000 to $60,000 will go into replanting, fencing, and stewardship of the property. The full riparian zone is still contained in the acquisition, and all of the future processes and all design and restoration plans, including the ability to meander the channel, will continue in place. The agreement with the landowners includes their consent to any restoration or flooding effects to the rest of the property. The Committee agreed to approve the new contract with the reduced acreage. Mary Biskup moved to let it be known that the CFCOC was aware of the acreage reduction and still felt that the project had full conservation value. The CFCOC recommended approval of fully funding the new contract. Ron Rempel seconded. Discussion on the motion included a question from David Seabrook about whether the difference in the purchase amount could be retained with the CFCOC fund. Gus explained that the entire amount provided by the CFCOC was needed to meet match requirements for the State Salmon Recovery Funding Board and Department of Ecology Floodplains by Design grants. The motion passed unanimously. Gus thanked the Committee for seeing the value in the acquisition and allowing the HCSEG to proceed with the project. B. Bylaws Update David Seabrook reminded the group that recommendations for changes to the Bylaws had been made by the Committee and forwarded to the County attorney, but they had not heard back yet. Tami Pokorny said she still has not heard back from the attorney. She has requested a meeting prior to the next CFCOC meeting, but received no commitment from the attorney. She intends to continue asking for a meeting. She clarified that the Bylaws are required to be reviewed by the Committee every two years and need approval by the County attorney. David Seabrook suggested writing a letter to the County administrator detailing the process and asking for direction so that the Committee can meet its administration requirements. *Tami will seek direction from the County administrator on this issue and follow up with the CFCOC at their next meeting. C. Application Process Tami Pokorny opened discussion on the annual opportunity to review the application process, adjusting how projects are seen and what applicants focus on, while making sure the associated documents reflect the priorities of the CFCOC. She gave an overview of the schedule, which starts with project applications and site visits in March; followed by presentations, scoring and ranking, and final recommendations for funding to the BoCC from April to June; and any program changes submitted in December. The documents need to align so that applicants can address everything in their project presentations. D. Manual, Application and Scoresheet Mary Biskup pointed out that the alignment between the application and scoresheet seemed to work well last year, but requested removing the reference to “on the farm” in section 10.b. of the Application. Jessica Randall brought up her work with the Bocc and State and federal offices to develop a new measurement system for valuating different types of lands. A current rubric is from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and integrates issues like climate change, species decline, culture, and social justice to evaluate ecosystem services. She suggested revising CFCOC documents with these priorities in mind, making use of some of these new tools. Cameron Jones echoed Jessica’s ideas, adding that it would be nice to go over the documents with fresh eyes in regard to equity and culture; there might be time in the schedule to at least make some small changes this round. Ron Rempel proposed building on the three top objectives that were added to the application last year. A subcommittee was formed with Cameron Jones, Jessica Randall, and Ron Rempel. The group discussed ideas including expanding on open-ended questions in the application, short-term and long-term approaches to document revision, new resources available, and considering project scale. A second subcommittee with Cameron Jones, Kalyn Marab, Tami Pokorny, and Jessica Randall was formed for the new members to review the application and scoring process. The new member subcommittee will meet on 10/12/22 from 3:00 to 5:00 PM; the document revision subcommittee will be scheduled after that. Dave Wilkinson went over some changes he had for the manual on pages 11 and 12 regarding conservation values in section 5.d. He recommended changing the reference about conservation values in the Project Changes paragraph to “changes to conservation or protection goals,” to be consistent with the application. Discussion followed on language in the documents regarding “goals,” “objectives,” and “measures.” Dave proposed changing the word “goals” to “measures” in the section 16.e. of the application, and to change the word “objectives” to “measures” in the corresponding section of the manual. E. Funding Round Calendar Tami Pokorny went over the Draft 2023 Round Calendar. The next CFCOC meeting is scheduled for 11/8/22 at 4:00 PM. Presentations to the BoCC will be made in December. Site visits will be on 3/28/23, project presentations on 4/4/23, and the scoring and ranking meeting on 4/25/23. The group discussed hybrid meetings; the limit is six people, 50% capacity, in the Jefferson County Public Health Pacific Room until Covid requirements are lifted. VII. Announcements/Administrative A. Staff Update David Seabrook announced his resignation from the CFCOC due to overcommitment. Despite greatly enjoying the Committee, he has decided to resign before the next funding round. David expressed excitement for the future of the CFCOC. His resignation will be effective at the end of the month. Tami Pokorny thanked the interview committee for their help bringing in the new CFCOC members. B. Next Meeting The next CFCOC meeting will be held on 11/8/22 at 4:00 PM. VIII. Guest Observer Comments The group thanked David Seabrook for his service with the CFCOC. IX. Adjournment Chair David Seabrook welcomed the new CFCOC members and adjourned the meeting at 6:00 PM. Action Items: *Tami Pokorny will seek direction from the County administrator on the Bylaw revision process and follow up with the CFCOC at their next meeting. Meeting summary prepared by Rebekah Brooks. 1 2022 CF Program Application FINAL Please complete the following application in its entirety. Be sure to answer “N/A” for questions that don’t apply to the project. Incomplete applications will not be accepted for consideration. Unless directed otherwise, use as much space as needed to answer each question. Contact program staff at 379-4498 or tpokorny@co.jefferson.wa.us with questions. Background and Eligibility Information 1. Project Title_______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Conservation Futures Acquisition Request: ______________________________________________________ Conservation Futures O&M Request: __________________________________________________________ 3. Total Conservation Futures Request: ___________________________________________________________ 4. Please indicate the type of interest contemplated in the acquisition process. __ Warranty Deed __ Easement __ Other (Please describe below.) In whose name will the property title be held after acquisition? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Applicant Information Name of Applicant or Organization: ______________________________________________________________ Contact: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Phone: (_____) _____-________, ext. ____ _______________________ Fax: (_____) _____-________, ext. ____ Email: _____________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Sponsor Information: (if different than applicant) _________________________________________________ Organization Name:___________________________________________________________________________ Contact: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Title: ______________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Phone: (_____) _____-________, ext. ____ _______________________ Fax: (_____) _____-________, ext. ____ Email: _____________________________________________________________________________________ This application was approved by the sponsor’s legally responsible body (e.g., board, council, etc.) on ________________________ , 20___. 7. Project Location Street Address or Description of Location: 20232 Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program Property Acquisition Project and/or Operations and Maintenance Project Application 2 2022 CF Program Application FINAL Driving Directions from Port Townsend: Section: Township: Range: Assessor’s Parcel Number(s):__________________________________________________________ Please differentiate current and proposed ownership of each APN and indicate if the parcel is to be acquired with CF funds or used as match. Please list the assessed values for each property or APN, as applicable. 8. Existing Conditions New Site: Yes No __________________________ Number of Parcels: _______________________ Addition to Existing Site: Yes No ______________ Acres to Be Acquired: _____________________ Total Project Acreage (if different):______________ Current Zoning: ________________________________ Existing Structures/Facilities: __________________________________________________________ Any current covenants, easements or restrictions on land use:_______________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Current Use: ________________________________________________________________________________ Waterfront (name of body of water): ______________________________________________________________ Shoreline (linear feet): _________________________________________________________________________ Owner Tidelands/Shorelands: ___________________________________________________________________ 9. Current Property Owner __ is __is not a willing seller. Project Description 10. In 1,000 words or less, provide a summary description of the project, the match, overarching goal, and three top objectives. For each objective identify the metric(s) that will be measured to determine if the objective is being achieved and the time frame for meeting the identified metric. Include information about the physical characteristics of the site that is proposed for acquisition with Conservation Futures Program funds including: vegetation, topography, surrounding land use, and relationship to parks, trails, and open space. Describe the use planned for the site, any development plans after acquisition (including passive development), characteristics of the site which demonstrate that it is well-suited to the proposed use, and plans for any structures currently on the site. If applicable, describe how the site project relates to a larger conservation program (please identify), and whether the project has a plan, schedule and funding dedicated to its completion. Please also list any important milestones for the project or critical dates, e.g. grant deadlines. List the dates and explain their importance. Please attach a spreadsheet of the budget. Commented [TP1]: Provide a list of example objectives. Link to documents? Ron might find link from USFWS. 3 2022 CF Program Application FINAL 11. Estimate costs below, including the estimated or appraised value of the propert(ies) or property right(s) to be acquired, even if Conservation Futures funds will only cover a portion of the total project cost. In the case of projects involving multiple acquisitions, please break out appraisals and estimated acquisition costs by parcel. Estimated or Appraised Value of Propert(ies) to be Acquired: Total Estimated Acquisition-related Cost (see Conservation Futures Manual for eligible costs): Total Operation and Maintenance Cost: Total Project Cost: Basis for Estimates (include information about how the property value(s) was determined, anticipated acquisition- related costs, general description of operation and maintenance work to be performed, task list with itemized budget, and anticipated schedule for completion of work): O & M only go to question #15: Scored Questions 1. To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisition from groups, agencies or individuals? 1 a. Sponsor or other organizations __will __will not contribute to acquisition of proposed site and/or operation and maintenance activities. 1 b. If applicable, please describe below how contributions from groups or agencies will reduce the need to use Conservation Futures program funds. 1 c. Matching Fund Estimate Acquisition O&M % Conservation Futures Funds Requested ____________ ____________ ___% Matching Funds/Resources* ____________ ____________ ___% Total Project Acquisition Cost ____________ ____________ 100% * If a prior acquisition is being proposed as match, please describe and provide documentation of value, location, date of acquisition and other information that would directly link the match to the property being considered for acquisition. 1 d. Source of matching Amount of Contribution If not, Contribution If not, funds/resources contribution approved? when? available now? when? ______________________ $_________ Yes No _________ Yes No ________ ______________________ $_________ Yes No _________ Yes No ________ ______________________ $_________ Yes No _________ Yes No ________ ______________________ $_________ Yes No _________ Yes No ________ NOTE: Matching funds are strongly recommended and a higher rating will be assigned to those projects that guarantee additional resources for acquisition. Donation of property or a property right will be considered as 4 2022 CF Program Application FINAL a matching resource. Donation of resources for on-going maintenance or stewardship (“in-kind” contributions) are not eligible as a match. 2. To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the proposed project? 2 a. Sponsoring agency __is __is not prepared to provide long-term stewardship (easement monitoring, maintenance, up-keep, etc.) for the proposed project. 2 b. Describe any existing programs or future plans for stewardship of the property, including the nature and extent of the commitment of resources to carry out the stewardship plan. 3. To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a similar project? 3 a. Describe the sponsoring agency’s previous or on-going stewardship experience. 3 b. Has the project sponsor and/or applicant been involved in other projects previously approved for Conservation Futures funding? _____No, neither the sponsor nor applicant has been involved in a project previously approved for Conservation Futures funds. _____Yes, the sponsor and/or applicant for this project has been involved in a project previously approved for Conservation Futures funds. Please provide details: 4. To what degree is the acquisition feasible? 4 a. Property __can __cannot feasibly be acquired in a timely fashion with available resources. 4 b. Necessary commitments and agreements __are __are not in place. 4 c. All parties __are __are not in agreement on the cost of acquisition. If “not” to any of the above, please explain below. 5. To what degree is the project a part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or identified in a community conservation effort? The proposed acquisition __is specifically identified in an adopted publically available open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan, or community conservation effort, that is publicly available. Please describe below, including this project’s importance to the plan. Please also reference the website of the plan if available or include the plan with this application. __complements an adopted open space or conservation plan, but is not specifically identified. Please describe below, and describe how the proposed acquisition is consistent with the plan. __is a stand-alone project. 6. To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened? 6 a. The proposed acquisition site __does __does not provide a conservation or preservation opportunity which would otherwise be lost or threatened. 6 b. If applicable, please carefully describe the nature and immediacy of the opportunity or threat, and any unique qualities about the site. 5 2022 CF Program Application FINAL 7. Are the conservation values of the project commensurate with or greater than the amount of CF funds requested and will both the timeframe for meeting project objectives and associated metrics demonstrate achievement of the conservation values? 7 a. Summarize the project’s conservation values and how the CF funds requested support these values. 7b. Summarize how the project’s conservation values are related to the project’s objectives. 8. To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna other than habitat for anadromous fish species? 8 a.____ provides habitat for State of Washington Priority Habitat specific to the project and/or State or Federal (NOAA and USFWS) Candidate, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species (provide list and references). 8 b.____ provides habitat for a variety of native flora or fauna species. 8 c.____ contributes to an existing or future wildlife corridor or migration route. If affirmative in any of the above, please describe and list the Priority Habitat(s) and Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive species below, and cite or provide documentation of species’ use.1 8 d. Does the current owner participate in conservation programs that enhance wildlife habitat? If so, please provide details. 9. To what degree does the project protect habitat for anadromous fish species? 9 a. Describe to what degree the project protects habitat for anadromous fish species (for example: marine shorelines, stream or river corridors including meander zones, and riparian buffers). Please provide documentation and maps that demonstrate the location, quality and extent of the existing buffer and adjoining habitat. 10. To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use OR forestland for silvicultural use? 10 a. Describe the extent and nature of current and planned agricultural or silviculture use of the proposed acquisition, including any anticipated changes to that use once the property, or property right, is acquired with Conservation Futures funds. 10 b. Describe the current owner’s record of implementing management practices that preserves and/or enhances soil, water quality, watershed function and wildlife habitat on the farm. 10 c. Describe how the acquisition or proposed easement will likely preserve and/or enhance soil, water quality, watershed function and wildlife habitat. 10 d. Does this project preserve a mix of quality farmland and forestland? 11. Climate change: 1 See, for example, http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/naturalheritage/pages/amp_nh.aspx http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/plants.html http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/pubs/wa_ecological_systems.pdf Commented [TP2]: Link to resource for conservation values examples. 6 2022 CF Program Application FINAL 11 a. To what degree does this project increase resiliency to and/or mitigate climate change and is the project’s scale significant in regards to increasing climate resiliency?? 12. What area does the project serve? 12 a. Describe how the proposed acquisition benefits primarily a __local area __broad county area injcluding the area served, the nature of the benefit, the jurisdictions involved, and the populations served. 12 b. Is the project located in an area that is under-represented by CF funded Projects? Areas that Conservation Futures has not been able to support to date include Marrowstone Island, Toandos Peninsula, Dosewallips Valley, Bolton Peninsula, and the West End. 13. To what degree will the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource? 13 a. Describe the educational or interpretive opportunities that exist for providing public access, educational or interpretive displays (signage, kiosks, etc.) on the proposed site, including any plans to provide those improvements and any plans for public accessibility.2 14. To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources3? 14 a. The proposed acquisition __ includes historic or culturally significant resources4 and __ is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program. __ is recognized locally has having historic or cultural resources. __ is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site. __ none of the above. If affirmative in any of the above, please describe below, and cite or provide documentation of the historical cultural resources. O & M Stand Alone Projects 15. Applications for Operation and Maintenance funding only to be scored on a scale of 1-100 based on information provided. Consider the CF Manual and the topics below, for example: 15 a. Please describe in detail, the reason O & M funds are needed, proposed O & M activities, and how they protect resources cited in the original acquisition project. Attach additional information such as up-to-date stewardship plan, maps, field reports, work plan, budget, timeline, etc., to support the application, if appropriate. O & M projects must address a compelling, immediate need. Specifically include whether the project has an up-to-date stewardship plan. If there is such a plan, is it being implemented and is the proposed O & M work specifically included in the plan? Also, describe any unforeseen or urgent threats to the resource conservation values of the site and whether the proposed O & M activities will mitigate those threats and/or prevent potential future threats. Verification 2 The words “education” and “interpretation” are interpreted broadly by the CF Committee. 3 Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious ceremonial and social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of resources under chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW. Commented [TP3]: Jess has links for this. Incremental vs. significant benefit. Commented [TP4R3]: Or could resources fro use of committee and integrated into score sheet. 7 2022 CF Program Application FINAL 16. Sponsor commitments: 16 a. Sponsors of projects that are approved for funding by the Board of County Commissioners are required to submit a brief progress report by October 30 every year for three years after the award is approved, or three years after the acquisition funds are disbursed to the applicant, whichever is later. The progress report must address any changes in the project focus or purpose, progress in obtaining matching funding, and stewardship and maintenance. Sponsors receiving O & M funds will also submit an annual report for each year that O&M funds are expended. The Committee will use the information to develop a project “report card” that will be submitted annually to the Board of County Commissioners. 16 b. If this project is approved for funding, I understand the sponsor is required to submit progress reports for three years and for any year in which O & M funds are expended. _____________Initials____________Date 16 c. If, three years after the date funding is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the project sponsor has not obtained the required matching funds, the Committee may request the Board of County Commissioners to nullify their approval of funds, and may require the project to re-apply. If this project is approved for funding, I understand that we may be required to re-submit the application if the project sponsor does not obtain the necessary matching funding within three years. _________Initials_______Date 16 d. The applicant has reviewed all project requirements and all information in the application is accurate to the best of their knowledge. _________Initials_______Date 16 e. The sponsor commits to providing long-term stewardship to achieve the conservation and protection goals of the project as proposed in this application or as may be modified with recommendation of the CF Committee and approval of the BoCC. _________Initials_______Date 1 2022 CF Program Score Sheet FINAL Please note: if none of the answers provided describe the project, answer “N/A” or “0”. ADJUSTED CRITERIA SCORE X WEIGHT = SCORE 1. To what degree does the project leverage contributions for acquisition from groups, agencies or individuals? ______ X 5 = _______ (Points awarded based on the following level of contribution) • Leverages significantly = 3 points • Leverages moderately = 2 points • Meets requirement = 1 point 2. To what degree does the project sponsor commit to provide long-term stewardship for the proposed project? ______ X 5 = _______ 0-3 points 3. To what degree has the project sponsor demonstrated effective long-term stewardship of a similar project? ______ X 1 = _______ • Highly demonstrated = 5 points • Moderately demonstrated = 3 points • Slightly demonstrated = 1 point • Effectiveness not demonstrated = 0 points 4. To what degree is the acquisition feasible? ______ X 5 = _______ • Highly feasible = 5 points • Moderately feasible = 3 points • Slightly feasible = 1 point 5. To what degree is the project part of an adopted open space, conservation, or resource preservation program or plan that was open to public review and comment, or identified in a community conservation effort that provided opportunities for public input? Public input opportunities 3-5 points and plan/program is directly related) Public input but plan is general in nature does not specifically apply to this project (2-4 points) Plan/Program was developed without public input (1-2 points) Sliding scale: 1-5 points ______ X 4 = _______ 6. To what degree does the project conserve opportunities which are otherwise lost or threatened? ______ X 6 = _______ Sliding scale: 1-5 points 7. Are the conservation values of the project commensurate with or greater than the amount of CF funds requested? ______ X 10 = _______ Sliding scale: 0-5 points 20232 Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program Score Sheet Name______________________ Project_____________________ 2 2022 CF Program Score Sheet FINAL 8. To what degree does the project preserve habitat for flora and fauna other than habitat for anadromous fish species? (Points awarded in part based on level of documentation.) a. State of Washington Priority Habitat specific to the project and/or State or Federal (NOAA and USFWS) Candidate, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species (provide list and references) = 0–3 points ______ X 3 =_______ b. Variety of native flora & fauna = 0–3 points ______ X 3 =_______ c. Provides wildlife corridor or migration route = 0–3 points ______ X 3 =_______ d. Current owner participates in conservation programs that enhance wildlife habitat = 0–3 points ______ X 3 =_______ 9. To what degree does the project protect habitat for anadromous fish species? = 0–5 points ______ X 3 = ______ 10. To what degree does the project preserve farmland for agricultural use OR forestland for silvicultural use? a. Likely will maintain active agricultural or silvicultural use = 0–3 points ______ X 4 =________ b. Current owner has a record of implementing management practices that preserves and/or enhances soil, water quality, watershed function and wildlife habitat = 0–3 points ______ X 4 =________ c. Property acquisition or proposed easement will likely preserve and/or enhance soil, water quality, watershed function and wildlife habitat = 0–3 points ______ X 4 = _______ d. Does this project preserve a mix of quality farmland and forestland? = 0-3 points ______ X 2 = _______ 11. To what degree does this project increase resiliency to and/or mitigate climate change? = 0-3 points (direct benefit and significant in scale 2-3 points) ______ X 5 = _______ indirect benefits and minor impact based on scale (0-2 points) 12. To what degree does the project serve: a. A significant benefit area? Sliding scale: 1-3 points ______ X 4 = _______ b. Is the project located in an area that is under-represented by CF funded projects? Sliding scale: 0-3 points ______ X 4 =_______ 13. To what degree will the acquisition provide educational opportunities, interpretive opportunities, and/or serve as a general community resource that does not reduce the conservation value(s) of the project? _______ X 4 = _______ • Public access, with planned or educational/interpretive displays and materials, events or activities = 5 points • Limited public access, available space for signage and educational materials = 3 points • Remote location = 1 point • No opportunity = 0 points 3 2022 CF Program Score Sheet FINAL 14. To what degree does the project preserve historic or culturally significant resources1? ______ X 3 = _______ • Project is registered with the National Register of Historic Places, or an equivalent program = 3 points • Project is recognized locally as having historic or cultural resources = 2 points • Project is adjacent to and provides a buffer for a historic or cultural site = 1 point • None of the above = 0 points 15. For standalone O & M projects only (Sliding scale 0-100): Please describe in detail, the reason O & M funds are needed, proposed O & M activities, and how they protect resources cited in the original acquisition project. Attach additional information such as up-to-date stewardship plan, maps, field reports, work plan, budget, timeline, etc., to support the application, if appropriate. O & M projects must address a compelling, immediate need. Specifically include whether the project has an up-to-date stewardship plan. If there is such a plan, is it being implemented and is the proposed O & M work specifically included in the plan? Also, describe any unforeseen or urgent threats to the resource conservation values of the site and whether the proposed O & M activities will mitigate those threats and/or prevent potential future threats. • Is the proposed O & M work specifically described in the applicable stewardship plan? • Do the O & M funds address a compelling, immediate need? • Is the proposed O & M work specifically included in the stewardship plan? • Application addresses an unforeseen or urgent threat to the resource conservation values of the site? • Proposed activity mitigates or prevents potential future threats to the resource conservation goals of the project? 1 Cultural resources means archeological and historic sites and artifacts, and traditional religious ceremonial and social uses and activities of affected Indian Tribes and mandatory protections of resources under chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW. Letter to the Conservation Futures Committee From: Jessica Randall, Community Oversight Member 10-31-2022 I thought it might be a good idea to write out my thoughts regarding bringing Climate Change issues more specifically into our conservation efforts. In many ways, the weather events we have been experiencing are waking folks up to the reality of Global Warming, and thankfully, the need for conservation as well. On the other hand, we’re experiencing a strong argument by our conventional industries to continue “business as usual”. Conservation Futures is in a good position to help with this tug-of-war, and to bring to light why we need to conserve the natural world, and especially now. As the rain pours down in torrents this afternoon, I am reminded of the flooding in Whatcom County and other areas last winter. We should be preparing for that here in Jefferson County. In the last few years, each season has presented us with a new record-breaking climate event. Last year, at my house in the Eaglemount neighborhood, the temperatures reached 110º F in the summer and 10º F that winter, both historically unprecedented. According to climate projections, the Olympic Peninsula will experience an increase in fall and winter precipitation and summer drought conditions, in turn altering stream flow patterns and increasing forest wildfire risk. Sea level rise may impact the coastal built environment by directly damaging homes and public utilities, such as our sewer treatment plants and outflows, and accelerating erosion and redistributing sediment. Public expenses required to mitigate these climate change-related events have been significant, and will continue to increase in the next decades. And as we’ve seen, often these changes aren’t smooth or gradual, but come in weather events that we, and the natural world in general, are unprepared for. Human demand for natural resources and ecosystem services has grown to the point where it is now seriously out of balance with what the planet is able to provide sustainably. Due to this imbalance, we experience social and political conflict and growing economic inequity. Conservationists and ecologists are looking at which resources are the most important for conservation, and what changes we can make in the usage and manufacture of materials we use on a daily basis, such as paper and wood products, fuel, and food. Industry, which has always put its foot in the door of change, is once again at the critical point of necessary evolution for the greatest of reasons: for the perpetuity of Nature, which includes us. While our immediate salaries may be dependent on the industry we have in place now, our focus should be on the new, sustainable materials we can produce for a healthier environment and lifestyle. This is perhaps close to a 180 degree change in direction, which is difficult for many people to fathom, and which will mean a reorganization that is going to affect everyone at all economic levels. Conservation Futures is one organization which can hold this larger picture in mind, with each choice it makes to fund projects which may help to protect us from the potentially disastrous effects of climate change. My contribution to CF at this time, is to bring CF’s rating system of natural areas up to speed with current climate change issues and predictions. I’ve done a certain amount of research on this, especially with regard to forestry, but I do not claim to be an authority. I hope my presentation of these issues provides a decent starting point for a discussion. How climate change effects the natural environment in East Jefferson County: • Increases native species decline (marine species, plant species (including tree die-off), amphibians, mammals, insects, mycelial loss, etc.) (1) • Increases winter flooding and heavy rainfall events (2) • Increases summer drought and the potential for wildfire (3) • Increases glacial melt (4) • Creates earlier spring peak stream flow (5) and lower stream flow in summer (6) • Accelerates Puget Sound and Pacific Ocean warming, salinification, deoxygenation and acidification (7) • Increases invasive plant, animal, insect and microbial species, which may be more adaptable to warmer temperatures. Our native species’ vulnerability from drought and other issues makes them susceptible to other diseases and infestations. There are several examples of this. One example is the fir beetle infestation of Douglas Fir trees. (8) • Aquifer recharge will decrease with higher temperatures and more surface runoff from development, clearcut timber harvests and flooding Some factors to consider with conservation due to climate change I believe climate change issues should influence our conservation choices. These are a few suggestions for how we may update our points of focus for project assessment: Legacy Forests. Legacy Forests are undisturbed, natively-regenerated forests, with a diversity of tree age and species, usually containing some trees which are 80+ years old or older. Approximately 9.3 % of our county’s DNR-managed forests are Legacy Forests. These forests are cooler in temperature, more resilient to wildfire, and provide habitat for a multitude of diverse species. Older forests such as Legacy Forests are also much more efficient at regulating and sequestering atmospheric CO2. (9)(10) Upland and mid-level streams, which feed lower steams and insure salmon reproduction. These upland streams are important to all waterways which make up our local watersheds, and eventually empty into our many coves, bays and canals. For adequate salmon reproduction, they should have large buffer zones, with no adjacent clearcuts, to keep the streams cool enough and free of silt runoff and non-source point pollution from logging and development. Research is showing that in order for stream temperatures to stay cool, we should preserve as much of the adjacent land as possible in these higher elevation streams. (11) Wetland, shoreline and riparian ecosystems which contain underground water resources, where shading and non-contamination are important elements. These riparian areas are already mentioned in the Critical Areas ordinances and acknowledged by Conservation Futures. However, smaller, seasonal streams and ponds, which on the surface appear to dry up during the summer, still provide moisture underground. They are often overlooked or unacknowledged in FPAs (forest practice applications), EISs (Environmental Impact Statements) and SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) reports. These seasonal wetlands play an important role in mitigating the harsh effects of high summer temperatures and drought, even though on the surface they may disappear for a few months during the summer. In conservation efforts, it would be important to protect them from commercial logging practices, which may have ignored them during the permitting process, and allowed clearcutting to occur right over them. Thank you for reading this! And I’ll see you at the next Conservation Futures meeting. – Jessica References 1. Multiple references: https://www.endangered.org/pacific-northwest/; and https://www.science.org/content/article/pacific-northwest-salmon-are-big-genetic-trouble; and https://rco.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/BiodiversityStatusThreats.pdf; and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320721002202 2. Projected increase in precipitation extremes for Puget Sound. Heavy rainfall events are projected to become more severe by mid-century. Specifically, the yearly maximum 24-hour rainfall is projected to increase by +4% to +30% for the 2050s (relative to 1970-1999), based on results from 10 global models and a low (RCP 4.5) and high (RCP 8.5) greenhouse gas scenario (Mote et al., 2015). [Projection based on regional climate model simulations, from the North American Regional Climate Change Program (NARCCAP) multi-model ensemble (http://www.narccap.ucar.edu).] 3. “Carbon implications of current and future effects of drought, fire and management on Pacific Northwest forests” found online at: https://coastrange.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/10/36_Law_Carbon-implications-current-future-effects-of-drought-fire- mgt.pdf 4. “Olympic National Park's glaciers could be gone by 2070” found online at: https://phys.org/news/2022-04-olympic-national-glaciers.html 5. Projected shift to earlier peak streamflow timing in Puget Sound. Peak streamflow is projected to occur 4 to 9 weeks earlier by the 2080s (2070-2099, relative to 1970-1999 Elsner et al., 2010) in four Puget Sound watersheds (Sultan, Cedar, Green, Tolt). 6. Projected decreases in minimum flows for Washington State. Low summer streamflow conditions are projected to become more severe in about 80% of watersheds across Washington State. Projected decreases for a selection of 17 streamflow sites across Puget Sound range from a decrease of −9 to −51% for the magnitude of the 10-year in average 7-day flows (Tohver et al., 2013).[GM3] [JR4] Changes depend on the location and specific characteristics of each watershed, such as the amount of winter snow accumulation within the basin. Projections for specific locations can be found here: http://warm.atmos.washington.edu/2860/products/sites/. 7. “Salinity Variability Modes in the Pacific Ocean from the Perspectives of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and Global Warming” found online at: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JC018092; and “Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate” found online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/ 8. “Features predisposing forest to bark beetle outbreaks and their dynamics during drought“ found online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112722004741 9. “Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co-benefits of preserving forests in the western United States” https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/eap.2039 10. “Large Trees Dominate Carbon Storage in Forests East of the Cascade Crest in the United States Pacific Northwest” found online at: https://sites.tufts.edu/gdae/files/2020/11/Mildrexler-Large-Trees- Dominate-2020.pdf 11. “Watershed Restoration: The Rest of the Story - Bringing Land Use and Upper Watershed Processes into Focus” found online at: https://cenv.wwu.edu/speaker-series/grah