Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRAFT CFFCOC Special Meeting Minutes_20240402P a g e 1 | 8 http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us Members Present: Mary Biskup, District 1; Richard Jahnke, Interest – Coastal Areas; E. Ryan McMackin, Interest – Wetlands; Joanne Pontrello, District 2; Jessica Randall, Interest – Ecosystem Services; Ron Rempel, Interest – Wildlife Conservation Biology; Dave Wilkinson, District 1 Members Absent: Rob Harbour, Vice Chair, Interest – Working Lands County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Natural Resources Program Coordinator; Tressa Linquist, Clerk, Public Health Others Present: Sarah Spaeth and Blaise Sullivan, Jefferson Land Trust; Peter Balhs, Northwest Watershed Institute (joined mid-meeting); Tom Backman, guest observer I. Call to Order Chair Joanne Pontrello called the meeting to order at 2:05 PM. II. Welcome and Introductions Joanne welcomed everyone to the presentations. A Sub-Committee has been examining the CFFF materials (manual, application, scoring/ranking sheet) and process. Some changes are already in place such as the preapplication, and the requirement for a site visit prior to the presentation meeting. All will be fine-tuned and made smoother. Another change from last year was asking a different presentation format from the Sponsors. Originally the format was a 10- minute presentation with 20 minutes for questions from the Committee. Today we will just let the presentation take as long as it takes with questions allowed throughout. Having the site visits prior to the presentations allows us to ask good questions. Tom Backman was welcomed as a potential new committee member. Joanne asked for any questions now and confirmed that there will be an opportunity to submit written questions after today’s presentations. The deadline for those is next Tuesday. Joanne stressed that it is much better to ask those questions now. The group did a round of introductions. III. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Nov 7, 2023 • Feb 21, 2024 Approved by consensus. IV. Public Comments Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund (JCCFF) Special Meeting: Hybrid between JCPH and Zoom Connection April 2, 2024 from 2:00 to 4:40 PM Draft Minutes Summary P a g e 2 | 8 None. V. Old Business CFFFCOC Committee Vacancies There are currently four (4) vacancies: Two (2) District 3 and two (2) Open Interest VI. Sub-Committee Reports Materials Sub-Committee – DISCUSSION Rob, Tom, Mary and Rick. A three-person committee would be ideal, says Mary. Did not have any meetings, Rick comment that when we set the agenda for the ranking meeting it would be a good time to bring forward any comments on questions or other difficulties. It could be a five- minute listing of the questions, “What I had trouble with and why.” StoryMap Sub-Committee – DISCUSSION Rob, Ryan. GIS has created a story map with 20 projects and Tressa will be adding projects, there are greater than 50 funded CFF projects in Jefferson County. Tressa is drafting a letter to landowners requesting an opportunity to capture photos and she’s been writing 2-3 sentence descriptions as a place to start with the StoryMap. Land Trust brought up importance of addressing private land and access. Request to review StoryMap with Land Trust prior to publishing. Tom asked about the amount of available funds and Tami answered. VII. New Business Project Application Presentations (30 minutes each) Deerfoot Forest, Jefferson Land Trust Sarah Spaeth of Jefferson Land Trust began by appreciating the group and the CFF program. Most of the group was able to visit Deerfoot Forest, a two-parcel, forested property that is divided by Center Road. This project leverages a 53% match with Navy REPI and requests $100,000 (47%) from CFF toward the $214,000 total cost. Marlowe Moser has spoken to the Committee previously about the Land Trust’s record of stewardship. Sarah has been involved in the CFF program since its inception. Stewardship was identified by the BoCC as a key component and essential to preserving land forever and Sarah and the Land Trust have a long history of commitment to stewardship. She reviewed the Deerfoot Forest project objectives: Two conservation easements to reduce development rights, and protect forestland, wetlands and headwaters. They plan to work with landowners and DNR on a forest management plan to restore old growth characteristics, and continue to assess the area as a wildlife corridor. It was asked what would be allowed under the forest management plan? It’s less of a working forest and more of a habitat conservation easement. Some trees may be removed here and there, but no clear cuts or significant patch cuts. Primary purpose is not for forestry or economic income. Regarding feasibility, the Deerfoot Landowners have no heirs. They need to set money aside to P a g e 3 | 8 fund what’s needed or sell the property. They feel so strongly they want to make sure it’s protected by an easement before selling. This project was started years and years ago and the landowners and the JLT would like the funds now in case medical needs crop up. There is some urgency. The JLT assessed Tarboo and Dabob Bay areas for potential projects, it’s not in that area but it is near and also adjacent fast rotation timberlands. DFW has identified potential spotted owl habitat and Marbled Murrelet to the south on DNR land. That will now be moved by DNR from active forestry to the Dabob Bay Reserve which would remove it from regular rotation. Ron Rempel asked if there are any large trees on the Deerfoot property that could provide habitat for Murrelets? Land Trust has not walked the property well enough to answer that question. Another thing that is in the conservation criteria – this concept of connected landscapes. In this case Tarboo Bay natural area connectedness increased the importance of this project. Ron questioned the wildlife linkage due to busy Center Road barrier. Sarah is going by what the landowner has observed (animals crossing Center Rd at the property) and the results of the climate resiliency study. Analysis shows that portions of this property are high in climate resiliency and therefore provide opportunities for wildlife resiliency. Blaise asserted that there is data to support cougars and other animals crossing in the area. Ron said that cougar research does not indicate the presence of a corridor, that crossing the road makes the animals vulnerable. The road is the dangerous piece. Sarah agreed and added that the road creates genetic isolation. Ron said studies show that the Olympic Peninsula is less genetically diverse due to I-5 but connectivity in this area is not the reason. Sarah said this property isn’t more special than others in the area with this aspect, however, this land is providing an alternative to the properties next door that are managed for timber. Currently, the second parcel could be sold. The landowners are currently taking the forest stewardship class and updating their plan with a goal of creating a mature, diverse native forest. The project would protect forest and wetlands, and the property has connectivity with headwaters feeding Tarboo Creek, benefitting water quality. To the SW, the landowners believe there’s runoff to Donovan Creek. For fish, the project would protect upland habitat, but because of the greater implications for water quality there is of course an effect on fish. Forestry opportunities – the landowner’s forester is working with them to achieve their goal of old growth characteristics. The Land Trust has quite a few conservation easements that include similar forest management according to a stewardship plan. The landowners also desire to invite educational opportunities to share mature 2nd growth with the public by invitation. Ron asked how will Land Trust, as the easement holder, insure that the next landowner will carry the vision forward. Is there any obligation for future landowners to implement stewardship plan? How will it be paid for? Sarah said that the stewardship plan is in place for the next landowner to use, but they are not required to implement it. The goal is to sit down with next landowner to express that these are the current landowners’ goals. Ron asked if any positive actions are required? Sarah said yes for invasive species. The JLT stewardship director will help guide new landowners. Land Trust is a partner organization to bring resources from agencies that have funds for private properties. Land Trust brings expertise and advice to private owners. It’s different from when the Land Trust actually owns the land and is managing it. The Land Trust doesn’t have the same control over private landowners. Some landowners are foresters themselves and like to do the work. Other people need a lot more assistance. Ryan asked about how O&M funds would be used. The O & M fund request is for the first number of years. The program doesn’t allow more than 10 years. That helps in development of stewardship plan, getting to know the land further, P a g e 4 | 8 discussing with landowners. Can reapply for CFF O & M and Land Trust has thought about doing this. Land Trust asks every landowner to contribute to long-term stewardship. At JLT, O&M funds are pooled into a fund to help with long-term stewardship, monitoring, and defense of easements. David noted that the stewardship plan was not provided and asked about funds for monitoring. Blaise answered that historically the stewardship plan was not part of O&M, this is the first year in the CFFF manual for that. Normally the stewardship plan isn’t developed until it is known that funding is available and terms of conservation easement are known. Ron suggested that perhaps the JLT drop the O&M request until the stewardship plan is complete. Sarah answered that it would be difficult due to the matching funds for acquisition. May need to get additional match for O & M. Best practice to have stewardship plan prior to closing. Stewardship plan is complementary to easement and describes how they can better enhance conservation values. Conservation easements are 50-80 pages of legal language and the stewardship plan simplifies this. Tom E. said that the Committee is trying to evaluate competing proposals and evaluate the benefits that are going to flow from each proposal, so knowing what the easement parameters are is important. He asked if the Land Trust could sketch out what they want the landowner to commit to so the Committee can have sense of the target. Could Land Trust give more information on the parameters of the CE now? How would a future landowner be limited? Sarah answered that the easement would eliminate a development right and confine buildings into a building envelope. Exact acreage yet to be determined. No other impervious surfaces will be present. This easement will identify desired future conditions for forest such as preventing clear cuts but not completely no-cut. You might, for example, remove laminated root rot infected trees. All will be spelled out in the easement. Firewood okay but no commercial use or views. There are 2 residences now. Mary B asked about how REPI funds were obtained, and about a potential bargain sale. There’s no application for REPI – just a list on an annual basis. This property is on the list. It’s not a large ask for that source, and JLT feels confident they can obtain the match, but if not, the landowner will step forward. Joanne asked what match % REPI requires? REPI requires a similar match amount (50%). Humbleberry Farm, Jefferson Land Trust Blaise Sullivan of Jefferson Land Trust presented about Humbleberry Farm. The farm is a 51 acre property north of Quilcene Bay. Donovan Creek runs through the property and into Quilcene Bay. The Land Trust and Jefferson County own adjacent and nearby lands or easements. The property is currently 3 tax parcels. Primary focus of the conservation easement will be agricultural and soils protection and protection of the riparian buffer along Donovan Creek. This specific property has been a target for the Land Trust for many years. The new owners purchased 2.5 years ago to protect as a family farm forever. They are interested in restoring the land and connecting with partners for Donovan Creek. They will retain one development right, and likely sell 2 rights and restrict infrastructure and impervious surfaces to a specific area. Will protect agricultural soils. There’s a 5-acre forested patch to retain as is to protect native wildlife. Ron said the landowners expressed a desire to maintain access to Center road for a farm stand. Is this considered agricultural use? Blaise said there is an existing road and that a farm stand and vehicle access is consistent with agricultural production. A barn or fruit/farm stand would be allowable. Details of the impervious surface limits are in the application. The total cost of the project is $825,000 dollars and the ask of CFFF is $152,000 (18.2%). State farmland protection grant funds are already in hand and REPI match will be used P a g e 5 | 8 as well. Land Trust was awarded state funds in 2022 and there is a 3-year timeline to use these funds. Often easement development and due diligence (appraisals, surveys) can take longer than a year. This is the Land Trust’s priority project this year for funding and they are hopeful for the match. Ron asked (inaudible) about the budget. Blaise responded $340,000. Stewardship of similar projects: JLT has already protected 1400 acres of farmland across the county. JLT stewardship staff are also now being trained in is soil health analyses and presenting recommendations to landowners to improve soil health. They’re giving landowners advice on making their property more productive. Joanne asked, How do we make sure that the farmland continues to be farmed? Sarah said this is an important question that Land Trust is being asked at the State and National level. Monitoring and enforcing is tricky after the land changes owner. In some states, land trusts can purchase the farm if needed, but this is not possible in Washington State. With Landworks partnership, can seek a qualified buyer. Buy Protect Sell program. Also, there’s a “farm link” owner matching program for those who. Ron asked if there’s an option to negotiate a first right of refusal? Sarah replied that some land trusts are doing that. Possible that the Land Trust could consider this idea, similar to Buy Protect Sell. Ron asked for clarification on what the easement would allow. The landowners will retain one development and can develop consistent with current county code. It might be possible to have two smaller ADUs on the property (according to current county code). Project objectives will be protected by the 2 easements, conservation easement and the Navy easement. The objectives in review are to reduce development, protect agricultural soils, and protect the riparian area around Donovan Creek. JLT is not sure how wide the riparian zone will be. There is an opportunity for the landowners to receive an influx of other funding to get projects underway on the property such as liming lower pastures and other enhancements, and contributing to the local food economy. After protection, the landowners will be eligible to apply for restoration funding. The SRFB is not interested to fund projects on unprotected land. The Navy is also developing a new restoration program. In terms of feasibility, the landowners are very excited. Land Trust is experienced to get to “yes.” This project is supported by a comprehensive farmland protection program that prioritizes protection of agricultural soils. The American farmland trust is seeing that one of the biggest threats to farmland is conversion. This project reduces the likelihood of conversion. HCSEG in early 2000s did a restoration project on land to the south on Donovan Creek. These CFF funds are critical with a large matching. JLT has already protected 214 acres in the Quilcene Bay area. There are WDFW priority habitat species in the area. As far as wildlife, the landowners intend to preserve forest and hedge patches to help wildlife move around. There are multiple salmon species present. JLT is negotiating at least a 35’ buffer zone on each side of Donovan Creek, with possible little remeanders or other features in line with HCSEG and what the landowners want; the lower pastures are their best farmland and this needs to be recognized. There are multiple ag sheds and pumphouses related to their water rights to water livestock. They’ve been working with the JCCD for drip line irrigation and to reduce runoff from their slopes to provide agricultural opportunities. They care a lot about the protection and enhancement of their soils. They would like to host more and more animals, especially lambs right now. Their pastures have just been hayed the last many years. All soils are recognized as ag quality. In the face of projected climate chaos, a map shows that a certain area will be resilient farmland. There will be opportunities for this to remain good, working farmland. Talking about what the farmers would like to do: they’re raising lamb and strawberries. They’re trying to be smart to work with the local community. Working with P a g e 6 | 8 partners and the landowners, they are looking to enhance the stream corridor to protect water quality. The landowners are passionate about talking about what they’re doing. The Land Trust reserves the opportunity to provide a public benefit through science/education in partnership with landowners. There were no questions. Tarboo Wildlife Preserve West Slope Forest Addition, Northwest Watershed Institute Peter Bahls joined after the start but prior to this presentation. Sarah and Blaise departed [First part of presentation missing due to short Zoom drop]. This project is a part of a larger landscape-scale project, beginning with the removal of culvert barriers and replacing other barriers with bridges, creating remeanderings and restoration of floodplains and streams. The project area was historically a cedar spruce forest. NWI the runs largest environmental service project in the county. The CFFF has been critical to buying important additions. E.g. Leopold Freeman (200 acres) and NWI additions (230 acres are in FSC certification). The subject property is the base of NWI operations, a long hillside east of the NWI barn. A couple miles from Tarboo/Dabob Bay, the land is steeply sloped with a couple of ravines and streams, and a wetland stream. They all drain into fish-bearing Tarboo Creek. NWI is asking for $150,000 (18 %) out of $825,000 for the acquisition. O&M and stewardship are being covered by National Coastal Wetlands grant. Joanne asked about scoring for NCW program. Peter said that the CFFF recommendation will help boost NCW request, and that there is $75,000 coming from private donors. There isn’t a good REPI possibility and right now as this property has only access for resource use and therefore little value for development rights currently. Long-term stewardship: NWI will own and manage ensure project objectives. NWI has been working to preserve and restore the Tarboo area for over 20 years. This parcel would be stewarded as part of the Tarboo wildlife preserve. Acquisition feasibility: There’s no guarantee to purchase, but NWI has had 3 successful prior acquisitions from Rayonier and been successful with almost all NCW applications. Washington usually does really well. The key to this working out is the Conservation Future Fund as match. This project is part of the Land Trust’s conservation plan, which had public input (2011). It has a special subplan for the Tarboo watershed, and this particular property is part of the stream corridor priority from the plan. It’s part of TNC’s ecoregional priority and for DFW too. It is zoned one to 80 zoning, and there are two, 40 acre parcels grandfathered in. An owner in the future could have an argument for subdivision someday – This project will keep it as forestland forever. Streams are type 4 non-fish bearing. The property will be clear cut in next year or two if it is not purchased for protection. The property provices habitat protections for western toads. In the future will encourage fishes, spotted owls, amphibians. It is not just a plantation forest, with some maple, third growth Alder stands and wetlands. There are a few scattered snags as well as understory species. Cougars are present a couple miles south of the subject property, with young male cougars recently documented exploring the Tarboo wildlife corridor. Bull and cow elk are present in the Tarboo valley recently for the first time in many years. There is potential for large scale wildlife and landscape connectivity. NWI is a conservation organization and enrolled in EQIP and FSC. Degree of fish habitat protection: The streams are non fish-bearing but directly input to Tarboo Creek with Coho, steelhead and trout present. Project will add to existing forest management plan by NNRG for forestry growth and to improve soil and water quality. TNC land mapping tool calculates the amount of carbon sequestered by the project land to be 13,000 metric tons of CO2 stored (current condition), equivalent to 1,792 American home uses in one year. This is the P a g e 7 | 8 no harvest option, but even if slightly thinned, the forest will grow back and is this is a significant amount of carbon being stored. The other sequestration benefit is increased resilience because single aged, fairly small stands are more vulnerable to forest fires. As opposed to clear cut, thinning helps with drought and reduces flooding and forest disease. Because NWI will own the property, there will be a lot of opportunity for educational use, including eco-forestry. The project also protects cultural resources for the Tribes. NWI invites tribes to sustainably use resources on the Tarboo preserve. Ron asked if on NWC grants are usually fully funded? Yes, if highly ranked. Joanne asked about the potential longevity of NWI. Peter answered that the organization had been around 20 years and was developing a succession plan. A successor organization would likely be the JLT. Mary asked about defending easements. Since NWI owns the property, the easement does not need defending. The objective will be to protect older forest structure allowing for selective timber harvest. It is best not to be too restrictive in case of root rot or other issue requiring tree removal. It will still be in the range of natural disturbance, and up to half acre pasture. Understory thinning or variable retention harvest is possible. Tom noted this is very steep and difficult to harvest. Cable yarding may be necessary and is feasible with selective harvest. The timber value is about $500,000 and the rest is land value. Rayonier is a willing seller. Joanne noted that there have been partially funded CFF projects in the past, and asked if partial funding would be helpful? Peter said that the most NWI could raise independently is already accounted for on the application. Telling NCW that we have the match in hand would be persuasive. Ranking process and Bylaws review Tressa reviewed the CFFF bylaws, conflict of interest and language cited from the administrative manual. The manual and bylaws do not appear to be in conflict. She described financial conflicts. In these cases, it’s necessary to refrain from discussion and voting. Interests can also pertain to gifts or exchanges, or privileges, or confidential disclosures. This includes yourself, family, and employer or future employer. Committee members and staff must avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest – If it feels uncomfortable, bring it up with staff, the Public Health Director, or Jefferson County Human Resources, if necessary. There is no longer a conflict of interest form. VIII. Announcements/Administrative Staff Update/Schedule review for submitting questions Tressa reviewed the schedule for questions and responses. Tami and Tressa reviewed how scoring may be accomplished. VII. Guest Observer Comments Tom enjoyed attending and learning about the projects. Ryan pointed out that it would be good to note questions about the score sheet for next year as you score, for the Materials Sub- Committee. Ranking meeting will be 2pm on April 23rd at Chimacum Fire Station. The scoring is important but not the final result. P a g e 8 | 8 IX. Adjournment Chair Joanne Pontrello adjourned the meeting at 4:40pm. Next Meeting: April 23rd, 2024 (Ranking Meeting) Meeting summary prepared by Tami Pokorny and Tressa Linquist.