HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing re Conservation Futures Pt 3 w Resolutions pOCuMto
Jefferson Land Trust
Conservation Futures Citizen Advisory Committee Question Responses
April 2024
Humbleberrry Farm:
1. Please explain why the matching fund total from Question ld is different than the amount
noted in Question lc. Or is the difference the 0& M request?
The response for id.should be consistent with 1c.and the budget table in la.The
matching funds from the Navy REPI program are estimated at$345,000 and the matching
funds from the State Farmland Program are estimated at$340,000.These are estimated
figures because final costs are not determined until project due diligence is underway and
appraisals are finalized.
Deerfoot Forest:
1.What is the time period over which the puma and bear sightings were made and how many
of each are documented?Were any records kept regarding sightings along Center Road on
either side of the Deerfoot forest property?
Jefferson Land Trust has not been tracking or recording the sightings of large mammal
species crossing between the two Deerfoot Forest parcels since we began conversations with
the Hubbard family in the last 6 months.The landowners have shared with us that there have
been multiple sightings over the 50 years of living on site, as well as sign including cougar kill
site and a bee hive destroyed by a bear.
2. Deerfoot Forest does not appear to meet the classic definition of refugium (singular) "an
area of relatively unaltered climate that is inhabited by plants and animals during a period of
continental climatic change (such as a glaciation) and remains as a center of relict forms from
which a new dispersion and speciation may take place after climatic readjustment". How
does the JLT define refugium?
We should have utilized the term"refugium function" rather than "refugia"which
refers to De Groot, Rudolf S., Matthew A.Wilson,and Roelof MJ Boumans.A typology for the
classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions,goods and services. Ecological
economics:41, no.3 (2002):393-408.
"Refugium function- By providing living space to wild plants and animals, both for
resident and transient (migratory species), natural ecosystems are essential to the
maintenance of the biological and genetic diversity on earth. Natural ecosystems can thus be
seen as a `storehouse'of genetic information. In this`genetic library'the information of
environmental adaptations acquired over 3.5 billion years of evolution is stored in the genetic
material of millions of species and sub-species.To maintain the viability of this genetic library
(through evolutionary processes), maintenance of natural ecosystems as habitats for wild
plants and animals is essential."
3. Since there is"no apparent surface water flow (on the property)"where is the property's
hydrologic connection to Donovan and Tarboo Creeks? ("the property appears to have
hydrological connections as a section of the headwaters of both Donovan Creek and Tarboo
Creek")
From the hillshade maps, provided in the application packet.These maps show,at
fairly fine detail,the contours and depressions of properties and Deerfoot Forest appears to
be at the headwaters of both of these creeks.
4. The proposal references the Land Resilience Study the proposal's response to questions 5
and 11. It's unclear where the Deerfoot Forest property overlaps with the Habitat&
Biodiversity Conservation Opportunities areas identified in the Land Resilience Study(see
maps in email to follow this one) although it does appear it is within a Working Forest
Opportunity Area. Please identify where the overlap occurs and what percentage of the
Deerfoot Forest property is within one of the Biodiversity Conservation Opportunity Areas.
We were unaware that we were able to add additional maps to the application than
the Site Location Map and the Project Boundary Map. However,the climate resiliency data
has been updated in 2023 since it's original assessment in 2020q which is what the committee
member has screenshots of. Here is the most up to date data from Deerfoot Forest,showing
that portions of the property have Habitat& Biodiversity Terrestrial Conservation
Opportunities (dark green).
ArcGIS Web Map
j,
V11,2024 2 19 15 MI 18,945
001 O15 03m,
Of Cl
mmrN 4p Copbv.c, f b.p.
9u.VV tfS O QonA�Yo.
1trac1F b bnbm SrC P.
CR,Rr.arp..n t665 Euer f
lea�F'fy NVS.v.U.w luw..
5.What is JLT's working definition of wildlife corridor?
Wildlife corridors are greenbelts of native vegetation,connected by permanently
protected properties,with minimal human interruptions that can provide cover,transit and
sources of food for multiple species of wildlife.
6.What data does the JLT propose to gather to demonstrate the Deerfoot Forest is a linkage?
Our conservation easement monitoring does not typically involve quantitative data
collection. Monitoring will help ensure the baseline conditions of the conservation values are
sustained and/or enhanced over time. As the habitat conservation values are stewarded by
the landowner,evidence of wildlife use can be documented in our annual monitoring visits,
and over time that information may provide valuable insight into how local populations of
resident and migratory wildlife are using it in the decades to come.
Jefferson Land Trust has also been increasingly working with the Olympic Cougar
Project which collars and tracks many cougars present on the Olympic Peninsula.We will be
able to use their data as it is shared with us to know which of our protected properties are
used by collared cougars.
7. Has the AT utilized the mapping or evaluation tools for linkages/corridors identified by
Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (https://waconnected.org/applying-
the-science/)to evaluate if Deerfoot Forest is a wildlife corridor and if so its importance?
The Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Work Group connectivity data—amongst
multiple other data sources from The Nature Conservancy,the Cascades to Cost Landscape
Collaborative,and WA DNR and more—is incorporated into the analysis for Habitat&
Biodiversity Terrestrial Conservation Opportunities,as shown in question #4 above.
DDGV�M-e 1 E
Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee
Sponsor Question Responses -- NWI
April 2024
TARBOO WILDLIFE PRESERVE—WEST SLOPE FOREST ADDITION
1. Would they acceptfunding if it included a condition requiring retention of up to 60% (orsome
similar reasonable percentage)of the existing timber on the 80 acres?
YES. Retention of 60%of the trees is reasonable and consistent with NWI's management and plans for
thinning dense young plantation forests thattypically have more than 300 trees per acre. This is the
same recommendation in the Forest Management Plan for plantation forests on the 120 acre South Fork
Tarboo Creek property that NWI acquired last year(see attached FMP,page 21, for example). NWI's
se I ective harvest on olderforest,such as the 60 yea rold Tarboo Forest,are ge ne ral I y I ess than
20%. This 60% retention restriction could be written into the USFWS Conservation Covenant and/or
County deed restriction.
2. If funding is not available this year and the property were clear-cut, would the proponent still be
interested in purchasing the property forpurposes of planting a more diverse forestand owning
the property longterm?
Once the property is completely clear-cut by Rayonier,it will no longer be competitive for USFWS
National Coastal Grant funding(due to the loss of biodiversity,carbon storage, and potential to prevent
environmental damage).NWI is depending on NCWC grant for the purchase,with JCCF and donor funds
as the required match.NWI is negotiatingto purchase from Rayonier by March 2025 at the latest.If NWI
does not have funding lined up bythen,we will lose the opportunityto purchase the property.The
beauty of buying the property with 35 years of tree growth is that we are 35 years ahead in terms of
forest restoration.In addition,the additional forest restoration using commercial thinning will pay for
itself and provide additional review forstewardship of NWI properties overthe longterm.Generally,
NWI has found that the commercial thin of 35 year old stands breaks even or nets a few thousand
dollars per20 acres,with olderforest thinning providing more.Howver,once clear-cut,the costto own,
steward,and restore the forest will not be covered by thinning.
3. What are the specific limitations imposed by the Fish and Wildlife conservation easement
funding(documentation please)?
The proposed project will be conserved by four layer of protection:A)federal Conservation Covenant
(aka conservation easement),B)county deed restriction,C)ownership by a nonprofit conservation
organization,and D)following specific stewardship plan consistent with conservation goals and to FSC
certification standards,as discuss below:
A) The proposed property would be protected by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation
Covenant recorded on the property at closing that is comparable to a Land Trust
conservation easement but enforceable by both the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
Washington Department of Ecology.The Covenant also requires express approval of USFWS
and Ecologyforany change in ownership.Foryour review,I have attached the Conservation
Covenant from NWI's 2023 acquisition of 120 acres of Rayonierforestland on S.Fork Tarboo
Creek,a very similarforestconservation project to the proposed project,and highlighted
some relevant sections.Like a Land Trust easement,the Covenant has general restrictions as
Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee
Sponsor Question Responses -- NWI
April 2024
well as specific Prohibitions and Permitted Uses.Regarding timber harvest,the S.FkTarboo
property covenant includesthe following:
From Section 2.Specific Prohibitions-
d. Timber harvest or other removal of vegetation,except for the purpose of restoring habitat
or maintaining the Property and its boundaries.
From Section 3.Permitted Uses and Activities-
c. Low impact, sustainable forest practices to improve forest diversity and complexity so
long as those forest practices have negligible negative impact on habitat, native fish and wildlife,
water quality, open space_ and environmental values. Any revenues derived from such forest
practices will be applied to the restoration and stewardship of preserved conservation properties
in the Tarboo Creek and Dabob Bay watersheds owned by Northwest Watershed Institute or
other non-profit or government conservation organizations.
In addition,the USFWS Conservation Covenant requiresthat stewardship of the property be consistent
with the NCWC grant proposal.Below are some excerptsfrom S.ForkTarboo Creek propertygrant
proposal,which are very similartothe wording proposed forthe West Slope property:
Plans will include protection of the wetlands and selective ecologically-based forestry of existing 35-year
old plantation forest in the uplands to help restore older, biological diverse forest habitat.
Underthe"benefitsto rare habitats"section of the NCWCgrant:
Mid and late successional forests are increasing rare in the lowlands of the Puget Sound region due to
industrial forestry on short 30-year cut rotations,as well as increasing residential d evelopment.The
projectoffers an excellent opportunity to permanently protect and allow natural regrowth and
restoration of uplandforestfor continued growth of olderforest habitat overtime,including forests of
headwater wetlands and streams that generally do not receive protection understate forestry
regulations.
Underthe"fighting climate change"section of the NCWCgrant:
The forest will continue to store more carbon as it grows.Planned selective forestry(variable density
thinning)for the SF site in the future will increase growth rates of this dense plantation forestand
increase carbon storage. Thinning will also make the plantation forest more structurally and biologically
diverse,making it more resilient to damage due to drought,wildlife and otherimpactsof climate
change.
B) In addition the federal deed restrictions,Jefferson County also requires that the proposed
property be protected by deed restrictions recorded at closing.These deed restrictions are
reviewed and approved by the county and are intended to meet their requirements that the
property be conserved as proposed in the grant.I have attached the deed from the"Lincoln
Property"that was acquired by NWI as part of the UpperTarboo Creek Wetlands project
funded by Conservation Futures and US Fish and Wildl ife.Although not property where
forestry is planned,it gives an idea of the deed restrictions required bythe county.
Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee
Sponsor Question Responses -- NWI
April 2024
C) The proposed owner of the property is anon profit conservation organization,rather than a
private landowner,which gives additional assurance of long-term conservation and
stewardship.NWI's primary purpose as stated in Article 1of the bylaws is:the assessment,
protection and restoration of ecologically sign ificon tfish and wildlife habitats. NWI has the
expertise and capacity to conduct longterm stewardship as needed and oversight from the
Board of Directors.Furthermore,operating outside of NWI's legal mission,orfor profit,
would be illegal.
D) Finally,NWI will prepare a Forest Stewardship Plan,aka Forest Management Plan,forthe
proposed property.This has the same purpose as a Land Trust"Stewardship Plan";describing
the natural resources and habitats and laying out at the detailed management foreach zone
consistent with the more general goals and restrictions stated in the Conservation Covenant.
Weed control,forest thinning,boundary survey,and other potential uses are included in the
forest stewardship plan.Stewardship Plans are not binding and can be changed with new
information and changing conditions overtime.They are an excellent means of ensuring that
day to day management of the property supports the overall conservation objectives.The
Forest Management Plan will be likely be prepared by Northwest Natural Resources Group's
lead forester in cooperation with NWI's Stewardship Director/Botanist and Executive
Director/Aquatic Ecologist to comply with Forest Stewardship Council Certification standards,
the strongest voluntary standards in the US.Attached is the Forest Management Plan f orthe
S. Fork Tarboo Ck property as an example.This FMP includes,under"Desired Future
Conditions"Section: The long-termforest management goalfor this property is tofacilitate
the developmentof old growth forest habitat characteristics thatprovidea wide variety of
ecological benefits,including carbon sequestration while also managing to provide a
sustained flow of high-quality timber products that will generate revenue to support ongoing
ecological restoration and conservation efforts. Detailed stewardship recommendations
under each resource topic(wildlife,forestry,water quality..).
Do c u m-ear t zq g
;ON Co Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund (JCCFF)
ww G, Special Meeting: Hybrid between East Jefferson Fire & Rescue and
J Zoom Connection
April 23, 2024 from 2:00 to 4:40 PM
�sHI NO DRAFT Summary
Members Present: Tom Backman, District 3; Mary Biskup, District 1; Tom Erlichman, District 2;
Richard Jahnke, Interest—Coastal Areas; E. Ryan McMackin, Interest—Wetlands; Joanne
Pontrello, Chair, District 2; Ron Rempel, Interest—Wildlife Conservation Biology; Dave
Wilkinson, District 1
Members Absent: Rob Harbour, Vice Chair, Interest —Working Lands, Cheryl Lowe — Interest,
Habitat Values (joined briefly by phone)
County Staff Present: Tami Pokorny, Natural Resources Program Coordinator; Tressa Linquist,
Clerk, Public Health
Others Present: Peter Bahls, project sponsor, and a member of the broader public
I. Call to Order, Roll Call, Determination of Quorum
Chair Joanne Pontrello called the meeting to order at 2:05 PM. Roll call was performed, with
two Committee members absent (Cheryl Lowe will briefly join later by phone). With 10 current
CFFCOC members, a quorum of 6 is required. There are 8 members present.
II. Public Comments
None.
III. Summary of previous meeting
It was noted that an error was made in the "Members Present" section of the previous meeting
summary; former member Jessica Randall was erroneously included. The summary of the April
02, 2024 meeting was otherwise approved by consensus. *Summary will be corrected prior to
release.
IV. Old Business
CFFCOC vacancy update (Staff)
Tom Backman was officially appointed to the CFFCOC by the BoCC, and Cheryl Lowe was
reappointed. One vacancy remains in District #3, and two Open Interests. An individual in
District #2 has expressed interest in joining, and others are under consideration.
http://www.co.aefferson.wa.us
V. Sub-Committee Reports
Materials Sub-Committee: Tom E, Rick, Ron will meet after this session to begin their review
process. They request that Committee members share any comments they may have so far
about the scoring process or other materials.
The Committee was encouraged to reread the Bylaws section concerning Sub-Committees to
familiarize with the rules governing their function. The rules around Sub-Committee quorum
were discussed.
StoryMap Sub-Committee: Tressa reiterated what had been done to-date, no new update. Still
working on a letter requesting landowner permission to photograph the funded lands.
VI. New Business
A. Scoring/Ranking Review
Tami reminded the group that no new information should be requested today, despite the
presence of a sponsor in the room (as a member of the public). Projects should be evaluated
only on what has been presented so far. The total amount of funds available to the CFFCOC to
disperse this year is $15,000 more than the original estimate, at $280,000. Tami reviewed the
process for making motions for actions, that for each project a motion should be first made to
deem it eligible for funding, and then a second motion should be made for the recommended
funding amount. She let the group know that they are free to dive as deeply into the score data
as they choose. Tressa sent the scores on to the group via email at this time. The language in
the Bylaws related to Conflicts of Interest was displayed, and the Committee was asked to
pause to finally consider any conflicts they may have. No one voiced any conflicts of interest,
and there were no objections to anyone's participation today.
The overall scoring results for the three projects were displayed (average, min, max, SD, and
%CVs). Tarboo Forest had the highest average score (253/321, 78.9%), followed by
Humbleberry Farm (240/321, 74.7%), and finally Deerfoot Forest (196/321, 61.0%). Tarboo
Forest and Humbleberry meet the 70% requirement to be eligible for funding. While Deerfoot
Forest did not meet the 70% minimum score to be automatically considered, it had a high
standard deviation, indicating disagreement among committee scores for that project.
[Committee member Cheryl Lowe joined briefly at this time by phone] The committee
explored individual scores for this project.
The data for all individual answers for Tarboo Forest were displayed. Question 5 was reviewed
and discussed —what is meant by "program or plan" and "public review and comment/input"?
There was discussion around three of the application questions and the effect of multipliers,
and one member adjusted his score.
Rick moved to deem the Tarboo Forest project worthy of funding. Mary seconded. All voted in
favor.
The individual scores for Humbleberry Farm were reviewed, beginning with criteria 9, related to
habitat for anadromous fish and that aspect of the project and scores were discussed.
It was requested that the displayed spreadsheet show the question numbers next year.
Question 11 was reviewed, regarding climate resiliency. One member felt that Tarboo Forest
showed the greatest evidence for potential carbon sequestration and opportunities for climate
mitigation, and a brief conversation was had about the pros and cons of agriculture in
addressing climate-related challenges.
It was requested that the raw scores, prior to the multiplier, are displayed next year. This will
allow the committee to more easily compare their choices.
Ron moved that the Committee consider Humbleberry Farm worthy of funding. Ryan
seconded. 7 voted in favor, and one opposed. The motion passed by majority.
Individual scores for Deerfoot Forest were reviewed. Members focused on the matching
contribution and the definition of silviculture as it may pertain to this project.
Concern was expressed about meeting the Conservation Futures stewardship obligation and
the content of conservation easements in this regard.
Attention then turned to a comparison of the conservation values and trajectories of the
Tarboo forest as compared to Deerfoot.
Tom E moved to deem Deerfoot Forest worthy of funding. Rick seconded. 7 voted in favor and
one opposed. The motion passed by majority. It was noted that if the project is ultimately
recommended for funding, that choice will have to be justified due to the low average ranking
score.
The requested funding amounts were displayed. The total amount available is $280,000, with
$402,000 asked. Ryan asked what next year's budget would be if all funds were spent? About
$265,000 would be available in 2025. Ron suggested that the acquisition portion be funded for
Humbleberry Farm, not the 0 & M, and to give the rest to Tarboo Forest. The group weighed
the likelihood that each project could achieve its goals, threats to funding and the lands
themselves, and the legal and other mechanisms to ensure the public interest is retained, even
when a sponsoring entity dissolves.
Ron moved that the Committee recommend fully funding Tarboo Forest at$150,000,
consistent with the stewardship plans provided in the application and the sponsor's responses
to the Committee's questions. Dave seconded. All voted in favor, the motion passed
unanimously.
Because the Humbleberry Farm is depending on other funds that will expire soon, Ryan noted
that the funds were more urgently needed for Humbleberry Farm than Deerfoot Forest.
4
Ryan moved that the committee recommend partially funding Humbleberry Farm with the
remaining$130,000. Mary seconded. The use of requested 0 & M funds was reviewed. Joanne
amended the motion to say that up to$12,000 may be used for O& M as requested. Tom E
seconded the amendment. All voted in favor, the motion passed unanimously.
It was reiterated that Deerfoot was found worthy but will not be funded. Joanne will address
this in her recommendation letter to the BoCC.
VII. Next meeting date
The next meeting will be in September, 2024 (exact date TBD). Sub-Committees to be ready to
report at that time.
Vlll. Announcements
Tami gave thanks to Tressa and to the group for their help and cooperation this cycle.
IX. Public Comment
Sponsor guest gave thanks to the Committee, stating that projects might seem small but really
helps with obtaining other funds.
X. Adjournment
Chair Joanne Pontrello adjourned the meeting at 4:31pm.
Meeting summary prepared by Tressa Linquist.
*Tressa to correct April 02 meeting summary, add question numbers to ranking data
spreadsheet, rework summary data spreadsheet to show raw scores without multiplier.
414
poco n't-6�t 4tCl
cSGN c�G JEFFERSON COUNTY
o ti{ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend,WA 98368 I Web:www.co.iefferson.wa.Lis/communitydevelopment
`ems,
"o� Tel: 360.379.4450 Fax:360.379 44511 Email:dcda( co.iefferson.wa.us
Sy f N G
SquareONE Resource Center I Building Permits d Inspections I Development Review I Long Range Planning
TO: Tami Pokorny, Jefferson County Water Quality and Environmental Health
FROM: Joel Peterson, Associate Planner
DATE: June 11, 2024
RE: 2024 Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program Property Acquisition
and/or Operations and Maintenance Project Applications
Summary of DCD Findings for 2024 Conservation Futures Program:
Project Name Protect Type
1. Deerfoot Forest Easement
2. Humbleberry Farm Easement
3. Tarboo Wildlife Preserve—West Slope Acquisition
Forest Acquisition
The Department of Community Development (DCD) has reviewed the proposed 2024 Jefferson
County Conservation Futures Program Property Acquisition and/or Operations and Maintenance
Projects and provides the following findings.
When a local government chooses to use Conservation Futures Fund money to purchase an
interest in land, it must consider and analyze whether taking land out of the 'stock' of land that
can be developed leaves enough land subject to development to accommodate allocated
housing and employment growth (RCW 84.34.240). From our analysis, we find that the
proposals do not negatively impact housing supply or employment growth.
Methods:
Housing Analysis: DCD reviews the estimated number of potential dwelling units that may be
forgone by the Conservation Futures actions and the effect this may have on the County's ability
to accommodate our projected 20-year population growth, (within the current 2018-2038
planning period and also within the upcoming 2025-2045 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review
using recently available population data from the Office of Financial Management); and how the
actions may affect the County's ability to provide employment growth in the same 20-year
planning period. Note that any determination made in this exercise is only an estimate based on
current zoning and a map review of possible site conditions.
Employment Growth Analysis: Potential impacts resulting from the Conservation Futures
program actions on Jefferson County's ability to provide for anticipated employment growth
were reviewed by observing current employment conditions on the parcels and in the vicinity of
the project parcels, the prevalent employment sector in the area, and consideration of any other
potential effects resulting from conservation action that may limit or enhance the County's ability
to provide for economic development or jobs.
Findings:
1. Housing. The proposed easements and acquisitions of the 2024 Conservation Futures
program would be for conservation purposes. Extinguishing development rights could
preclude the opportunity for approximately 11 total theoretical residential units--single-
family residential dwelling units (SFRs) and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The
theoretical yield is primarily based on acreage. The subject parcels were not found to
have Critical Areas that may restrict residential development options.
Jefferson County has documented a surplus of vacant and underdeveloped parcels,
beyond that which is necessary to accommodate the land needs of the County's
projected population during the 20-year planning period (2018-2038 Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Element). Also, projected growth rates for Jefferson County remain at
about the current rate. As found in past evaluations, the proposed 2024 conservation
actions do not reduce the County's capacity to accommodate future planned growth.
2. Employment Growth. No commercial areas are included in the protected properties.
Employment or business development that could be forgone by loss of residential
dwelling units or employment use of the land is not apparent. Potential employment
opportunity may include home business or cottage industry opportunities. There is no
documentation to suggest that a reduction in rural employment may exist due to a
shortage of residential parcels that could support home business or cottage industry.
Employment in the project areas would likely consist of agriculture, home businesses,
cottage industries or in the natural resources sectors.
The Deerfoot Forest property has not been an employment center. Both Humbleberry
Farm and Tarboo Wildlife Preserve will continue to function as working landscapes.
Jefferson County has identified natural resource conservation as playing a role in
economic development, contributing to a draw—as opposed to a loss—of economic
development interests and potential employment growth to the area due to the quality of
life and healthy environment.
Additional Findings from the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan:
3. The action is consistent with the goals and policies of the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan for the preservation and enhancement of open space. The
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan identifies goals and policies for the preservation
and enhancement of open space as follows:
• Policy LU-P-15.2 Protect open space consistent with the goals and policies of this
plan and in cooperation with County Conservation Futures and other land
conservation programs.
2
• Open Space Goal OS-G-1 guides Jefferson County to "Preserve and improve the
quality, value and extent of open space lands." Open Space Policy OS-P-1.4
"Identify and conserve critical wildlife habitat, including nesting sites, foraging areas,
and migration corridors within or adjacent to natural areas, open spaces, and
developed urban areas. Preserve especially sensitive habitat sites that support
threatened species and wildlife habitat in developed areas."
• Natural Resources Goal NR-G-1 guides Jefferson County to "Encourage the
conservation and long-term sustainable use of resource lands so their continued
future use will not be precluded by other uses; and encourage the long-term
sustainability of natural resource-based economic activities through Jefferson County.
• Economic Development Goal ED-G-6 guides Jefferson County to "Encourage
economic development that sustains natural resources and open spaces, protects
environmental quality, encourages non-motorized recreation and transportation, and
enhances Jefferson County's overall quality of life."
4. None of the proposals include property in an Urban Growth Area or Rural Commercial
area.
Scope of Review:
This review is conducted solely to ascertain the current Conservation Futures project's potential
effect on housing supply and Employment growth. Any statements about the potential for future
development or land divisions is predicated upon many factors for site suitability. All applicants
are encouraged to take advantage of Community Development's customer assistance programs
so that technical provisions of Jefferson County Code can be explained and applied to particular
site-specific situations.
Attachment 1: 2024 Conservation Futures Housing and Employment Analysis Spreadsheet
3
Attachment 1:2024 Conservation Futures Housing and Employment Analysis Spreadsheet
Attachment 1: CONSERVATION FUTURES HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS 2024
APN Zoning Project Current Additional ADU Est.Net New Site Characteristics Housing Employment/Jobs
District Acreage SFR-ADU Theoretical Allowance Theoretical
SFR Yield of D.U./ADU
Project
PROJECT NAME Acrea e
Deerfoot Forest 701052002, RR20 28 2 0 0 0 Current uses are residential and designated Parcel consolidation would extinguish The two parcels will be combined and a
forest land.Two residences are reported on development rights for one(1)additional SFR conservation easement will restrict further
Easement the RR20 parcel.Only one residential building and one(1)potential ADU. development.There will be no apparent loss of
permit(1977)is found on the RR20 parcel, employment or jobs as a result of this project.
with Assessor notes for an ADU(1981)for
which no building permit was found.No
permit data is found for the RRS parcel,
which may have one SFR and one ADU.No
Critical Areas were found to be present.The
site is situated at the headwaters of both
Donovan Creek and Tarboo Creek.The forest
stand is regrowth from a 1920 timber cut and
provides diverse 104-year old second-growth
forest ecology.
701052011 RR5 8.9 0 1 1 2
36.9 2 1 1 2
PROJECT NAME APN Zoning Acreage Current SFRs Additional ADU Est.Net New Site Characteristics Housing Employment/Jobs
District Theoretical Allowance Theoretical
SFR Yield D.U./ADU
Humbleberry Farm 701182D03 AP20 17.7 1 0 1 1 Current use is residential and agriculture. If each of the three parcels were developed There will be no apparent loss of employment or
There is one permitted SFR structure and no with one SFR and one ADU,there could be an jobs as a result of this project.The goal of the
Easement known ADUs.The farm is comprised of prime additional five(5)residential structures. project is to protect productive and historic
agricultural soils,and is designated and farmland,and protects this existing use into the
assessed as Open Space Agriculture.The future.
project is part of a corridor of protected
property in the Quilcene Bay watershed.
702131D03 AP20 28.2 0 1 1 2
702131020 AP20 5 1 0 1 1 2
50.9 1 1 2 1 3 1 5
Page 1 of 2
PROJECT NAME APN Zoning Acreage Current SFRs Additional ADU Est.Net New Site Characteristics Housing Employment/Jobs
District Theoretical Allowance Theoretical
SFR Yield D.U./ADU
Tarboo Wildlife Preserve—West Slope 801282005, CF80 40.38 0 1 1 2 There are no residential structures on the The one-acre limit for residential use on each There will be no apparent loss of employment or
Forest Addition two commercial forest parcels.Due to the commercial forest parcel may theoretically jobs as a result of this project.The program will
primary use of a CF80 parcel as forestry,a accommodate a SFR and ADU on each parcel, allow selective timber harvest of the existing
Acquisition limited-sized(one acre)portion of the parcel for a total of four(4)new theoretical tree plantation.The ancillary uses of walking
may be used as residential without removing residential structures. trail system and educational outreach does not
the forestry tax status.Current use is forestry. preclude continued use as forest parcel.
As part of the Tarboo-Dabob Bay watershed, Protection of the parcels will provide ecosystem
the project provides landscape-scale services that benefit many other properties.
connectivity for large mammals.
801283001 CF80 40.41 0 1 1 2
80.79 0 2 2 4
Summary Totals: 168.59 3 5 6 11
Page 2 of 2
Doc LO-Vem SW l l- 13
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
Dedication of Conservation Futures Funds to the }
Tarboo Wildlife Preserve—West Slope Forest }
Addition Project,as Authorized by and in }
Accordance with Jefferson County Code } RESOLUTION NO.
Section 3.08.030(7)to Provide a System of Public }
Open Spaces }
WHEREAS, Conservation Futures Fund tax levy collections, authorized under RCW
84.34.230, are an important means of retaining community character and accomplishing the open space
policies and objectives of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that encourage the coordinated
acquisition of key open space lands for long-term protection; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County is authorized by RCW 84.34.210 and 84.34.220 to
acquire open space land, agricultural and timber lands as defined in RCW 84.34.220; and
WHEREAS, the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee has reviewed
project applications for 2024 and made its funding recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Jefferson County Code Chapter 3.08; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund
Program,Northwest Watershed Institute, as project sponsor,requests funding towards the fee simple
acquisition of two(2)parcels of land located in S28 T28N R1 W with Assessor's Parcel Numbers
801282005 and 801283001; and
WHEREAS, the County retains enough developable land to accommodate the Tarboo
Wildlife Preserve, West Slope Forest Addition project as well as the housing and employment growth
that it is expected to receive,thus satisfying the requirement in RCW 84.34.240(3); and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County considers it in the best public interest to contribute
financially to this open space project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. Jefferson County hereby dedicates up to $150,000 in Conservation Futures Funds
towards eligible acquisition expenses for the Tarboo Forest—West Slope Addition
project, contingent upon presentation of a matching contribution of at least fifty percent
(50%). The sponsor anticipates that the matching contribution will be eighty-two
percent(82%) at the time of project completion.
2. This dedication of funding may be nullified if a submittal for reimbursement,
accompanied by documentation of matching funds sufficient to complete the
acquisition, is not received from the sponsor within three years of the signing of this
resolution.
Resolution No. re: Dedication of Conservation Futures Funds to the Tarboo Wildlife Preserve,
West Slope Forest Addition project
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2024 in Port Townsend, Washington.
SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Kate Dean, Chair
ATTEST:
Greg Brotherton, Member
Carolyn Gallaway, CMC
Clerk of the Board Heidi Eisenhour, Member
Page 2 of 2
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
Dedication of Conservation Futures Funds to the }
Humbleberry Farm Project as Authorized by and in }
Accordance with Jefferson County Code } RESOLUTION NO.
Section 3.08.030(7)to Provide a System of Public }
Open Spaces }
WHEREAS, Conservation Futures Fund tax levy collections, authorized under RCW
84.34.230, are an important means of retaining community character and accomplishing the open space
policies and objectives of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that encourage the coordinated
acquisition of key open space lands for long-term protection; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County is authorized by RCW 84.34.210 and 84.34.220 to acquire
open space land, agricultural and timber lands as defined in RCW 84.34.220; and
WHEREAS, the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee has reviewed
project applications for 2024 and made its funding recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Jefferson County Code Chapter 3.08; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund
Program, Jefferson Land Trust, as project sponsor, requests funding towards the acquisition of
conservation easements on three (3)parcels of land located in S18 T27N RI W with Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 701182003, 702131003 and 702131020 and to reimburse operations and maintenance costs;
and
WHEREAS, the County retains enough developable land to accommodate the
Humbleberry Farm project as well as the housing and employment growth that it is expected to receive,
thus satisfying the requirement in RCW 84.34.240(3); and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County considers it in the best public interest to contribute
financially to this open space project,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. Jefferson County hereby dedicates up to $130,000 in Conservation Futures Fund monies
towards reimbursement of eligible acquisition expenses for the Humbleberry Farm
project. Funding is contingent upon presentation of a matching contribution of at least
fifty percent(50%). The sponsor anticipates that the matching contribution will be
eighty-two percent(82%)at the time of project completion.
2. Jefferson County hereby dedicates up to $12,000 of the $130,000 in Conservation Futures
Fund monies towards reimbursement for eligible operations and maintenance expenses
incurred within ten years of the signing of this resolution, contingent on a matching
contribution of no less than the amount of Conservation Futures Fund monies requested
for operations and maintenance.
Resolution No. re: Dedication of Conservation Futures Funds to the Humbleberry Farm project
3. This dedication of funding may be nullified if a submittal for reimbursement,
accompanied by documentation of matching funds sufficient to complete the acquisition,
is not received from the sponsor within three years of the signing of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2024 in Port Townsend, Washington.
SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Kate Dean, Chair
ATTEST:
Greg Brotherton, Member
Carolyn Gallaway, CMC
Clerk of the Board Heidi Eisenhour, Member
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
Dedication of Conservation Futures Funds to the }
Deerfoot Forest Project as Authorized by and in }
Accordance with Jefferson County Code } RESOLUTION NO.
Section 3.08.030(7)to Provide a System of Public }
Open Spaces }
WHEREAS, Conservation Futures Fund tax levy collections, authorized under RCW
84.34.230, are an important means of retaining community character and accomplishing the open space
policies and objectives of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan that encourage the coordinated
acquisition of key open space lands for long-term protection; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County is authorized by RCW 84.34.210 and 84.34.220 to
acquire open space land, agricultural and timber lands as defined in RCW 84.34.220; and
WHEREAS, the Conservation Futures Fund Citizen Oversight Committee has reviewed
project applications for 2024 and made its funding recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Jefferson County Code Chapter 3.08; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund
Program, Jefferson Land Trust, as project sponsor,requests funding towards the acquisition of
conservation easements on two (2)parcels of land in S5 T27N Rl W with Assessor's Parcel Numbers
701052002 and 701052011 and to reimburse operations and maintenance costs; and
WHEREAS, the County retains enough developable land to accommodate the Deerfoot
Forest project as well as the housing and employment growth that it is expected to receive,thus
satisfying the requirement in RCW 84.34.240(3); and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County considers it in the best public interest to contribute
financially to this open space project,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. Jefferson County hereby dedicates up to $0 in Conservation Futures Funds towards
reimbursement of eligible acquisition expenses for the Deerfoot Forest project. Funding
is contingent upon presentation of a matching contribution of at least fifty percent
(50%). The sponsor anticipates that the matching contribution will be fifty-three percent
(53%)at the time of project completion.
2. Jefferson County hereby dedicates up to $0 in Conservation Futures Funds towards
reimbursement for eligible operations and maintenance expenses incurred within ten
years of the signing of this resolution, contingent on a matching contribution of no less
than the amount of Conservation Futures Funds requested for operations and
maintenance.
3. This dedication of funding may be nullified if a submittal for reimbursement,
accompanied by documentation of matching funds sufficient to complete the
Resolution No. re: Dedication of Conservation Futures Funds to the Deerfoot Forest project
acquisition, is not received from the sponsor within three years of the signing of this
resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2024 in Port Townsend, Washington.
SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Kate Dean, Chair
ATTEST:
Greg Brotherton, Member
Carolyn Gallaway, CMC
Clerk of the Board Heidi Eisenhour, Member
Page 2 of 2