Monday, July 31, 2006

Jefferson Comprehensive Plan hearing slated

The following article appeared in the July 30, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Jefferson Comprehensive Plan hearing slated

Penninsula Daily News

The Jefferson County Planning Commission will meet Wednesday to hold a public hearing on four proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments that each involve changes to land use designations.

The amendments are addressed in the staff report for the 2006 Comprehensive Plan
amendment docket
.


The public hearing begins at 6:30 p.m. at the Washington State University Community Learning Center in Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock.

Also, there will be a presentation by Tom Beckwith, consultant for the county and City of Port Townsend, on an assessment of housing needs in the county.

Then at 7:30 p.m., the Planning Commission will hold a workshop on the proposed critical areas ordinance that has been substantially debated since it was drafted May 17.

The commission is seeking candidates to join a committee that will re-examine the critical areas proposals and deliver a report in October.

The commission is looking for volunteers who represent agriculture, forestry, economic development, environmental protection, property owners, builders and real estate agents.

"The new timetable for revising a code amendment proposal will be reviewed and a general question and answer period will be conducted, in addition to setting up the critical areas committee," said Al Scalf, county community development director.

"After hearing from potential [committee] candidates on August 2nd, the Planning Commission will establish a working group of stakeholders who represent various sectors of the community.

"They'll meet over the coming months to review scientific information, recommend revisions to rhe draft ordinance and frame those revisions in the context of the requirement in state law to consider 'best available science,' " Scalf added.

The new committee is scheduled to meet for the first time Aug. 10.

DCD press release on CAO committee selection

The following press release was published by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development on July 27, 2006.

For Immediate Release — July 27, 2006
Contact: Al Scalf
Director
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Jefferson County Planning Commission seeks Critical Areas committee members

Port Townsend, WA—The Jefferson County Planning Commission is moving quickly to select representative stakeholders to participate on a “critical areas committee” and to plan the first of a series of committee meetings. The Planning Commission invites interested people to attend its regularly scheduled August 2nd meeting at the WSU Learning Center at Shold Business Park in Port Hadlock. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. with the critical areas workshop beginning around 7:30 p.m.

“The new timetable for revising a code amendment proposal will be reviewed and a general question and answer period will be conducted, in addition to setting up the critical areas committee,” said Al Scalf, Director for the County’s Department of Community Development.

“After hearing from potential candidates on August 2nd, the Planning Commission will establish a working group of stakeholders who represent various sectors of the community, including agriculture, forestry, economic development, environmental protection, property owners, builders and realtors. They’ll meet over the coming months to review scientific information, recommend revisions to the draft ordinance and frame those revisions in the context of the requirement in State law to consider ‘best available science,’ ” Scalf added.

Washington State's Growth Management Act requires local government to designate and protect environmentally critical areas such as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas. Under the current schedule, Jefferson County’s Board of Commissioners will consider development code amendments in January 2007.

The first committee meeting is Thursday, August 10th, at the Jefferson County Department of Public Health, 615 Sheridan Street, in Port Townsend, at 7 p.m. Meetings are anticipated to be every Thursday evening at least through September. The committee is expected to deliver a report in October. All committee meetings will be open to the public with dates listed on the County’s Web site. Upon completion of the committee work, the full Planning Commission will review the report as part of preparing a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

Information on the critical areas proposal is available online at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/CriticalAreas.htm
or contact Long-Range Planning at 379.4450
or via e-mail at planning@co.jefferson.wa.us.
###

Saturday, July 22, 2006

County sets timeline for wetland protection rules

The following article appeared in the online edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader on July 20, 2006.

County sets timeline for wetland protection rules

A timeline for development of new county development rules aimed at protecting the environment has been released by Jefferson County.

Under the new schedule, amendments to regulations protecting critical areas such as wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat are expected to be adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners by Jan. 18, 2007.

The process will involve revising the current proposal, which was released on May 17 and was the subject of Jefferson County Planning Commission public hearings in June.

A Planning Commission committee will work with a group of stakeholders over a series of meetings over the coming months to review scientific information, draft revisions to the proposal, and describe and defend those revisions in the context of the requirement in state law to consider "best available science."

Representatives from the farming, building, realty, property owner, and environmental communities will be invited to participate in the committee process.

All committee meetings will be open to the public.

The committee is expected to deliver a report by the end of September.

To initiate the process, a workshop is set for Wednesday, Aug. 2, during the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission at the Washington State University Learning Center at Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and the first two items on the agenda are a public hearing on four site-specific comprehensive plan amendment proposals and a presentation on the joint Port Townsend/Jefferson County housing needs assessment. The critical areas workshop will begin around 7:30 p.m.

The Aug. 2 workshop will be an opportunity for people to learn about the new timetable and the process for developing a revised critical areas proposal and to ask questions of the planning commissioners and county planning staff.

The workshop will help county staff prepare a fact sheet with answers to frequently asked questions about Jefferson County's current and proposed regulatory protection of critical areas as required by the Washington Growth Management Act.

A revised critical areas proposal is expected to go to the full Planning Commission in mid-November. After the Planning Commission holds a public hearing in December to gather input, it will forward its recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.

The board likely will hold a second public hearing on the proposal in January before taking legislative action.

Information on the critical areas proposal is available online at

www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/CriticalAreas.htm.

County planning staff also has developed a brief fact sheet designed to address concerns posed by residents of west Jefferson County.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Jefferson panel to study wetland buffers

The following article appeared in the July 19, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Jefferson panel to study wetlands buffers

By Evn Cael
Peninsula Daily News


PORT TOWNSEND — To sort out controversial issues with Jefferson County's proposed critical areas ordinance — namely the portion doubling wetland buffer zones in the county — a Planning Commission subcommittee will be formed to analyze and propose changes to the ordinance.

During the regular Planning Commission meeting tonight at 6:30 at the WSU Learning Center at Shold Business Park, 210 W. Pattison in Port Hadlock, candidates for the critical areas subcommittee will be discussed, said Jim Hagen, Planning Commission chair.

The subcommittee will be composed of three planning commissioners and stakeholders affected by the proposed ordinance that was drafted May 17 by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development.

The Stakeholders include Farm Bureau, real estate agents, homebuilders, property rights advocates, environmentalists and a representative from the west end of the county.

The members of the committee are not expected to be named at the meeting, said Hagen.

"One of the purposes of the committee is to receive input from the public and make changes to the ordinance," said Hagen.

"We've had difficulty engaging the public."

But he said in the past month he's received a notebook full of comments from residents opposed to the expansion of wetland buffers — properties designed to protect wetlands from manmade activities.

Only three are not only in favor of buffers doubling the current lengths — from the current 25 feet to 150 feet — but request even larger ones.

The committee will closely examine the proposed ordinance that came about from a settlement agreement with Washington Environmental Council that accused Jefferson County of not using best available science to regulate its wetland buffers.

The committee will look at places in the ordinance that can be changed that are not required by the settlement agreement, said Hagen.

Also, he said, it will see if there is science available that would support smaller but equally effective buffers.

Oct. 2 report sought

The Department of Community Development has requested that the committee deliver a report by Oct. 2, but Hagen said he doesn't think that will give the committee enough time to adequately look at the issues and make a recommendation.

The original deadline for the county commissioners to adopt the proposed ordinance was July 18, as stated in the settlement agreement, but the county has been granted an extension until Jan. 18, 2007.

An Aug. 2 workshop during the regular Planning Commission meeting will give residents a chance to learn about the proposed ordinance and make comments.

The workshop is a 7:30 p.m. at the WSU Learning Center.

The Department of Community Development is revising the critical areas ordinance [and] is expecting to deliver it to the Planning Commission in November.

"An issue of this significance and magnitude should have had more public process than it has," said Hagen.

"Regardless of what position is taken, all sides agree that it's imperative that the public is involved in this."

Information of the critical areas proposal is available online at


or contact Josh Peters, Depertment of Development long range planner, at 360-379-4466 or at jpeters@co.jefferson.wa.us.

Reporter Evan Cael can be reached at 360-385-2335 or evan.cael@peninsuladailynews.com.

Honor life of the commons over private rights, liberties

The perspective that follows our comments appeared in the July 19, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

Mr. Jay's perspective on the issues brought forward by the critical areas ordinance update process are very welcome in our discussion, and his remarks provide information that we need to take into consideration.

One of the purposes of this web log is to provide access to as broad a range of perspectives as possible on issues of interest to the North Olympic Farm Bureau and the community as a whole. We want to be as fully informed on issues of concern as we can, and knowledge gained ahead of meetings and negotiations helps provide us with a more accurate context and understanding of community opinion. That helps all of us avoid unnecessary confrontation points during those meetings.

We would not agree that the critical areas update discussion is still in the he-said-she-said stage, nor that discourse was lacking in the perspective exchange that took place in the pages of The Leader. Instead, the combination of perspective pieces, including the one that follows, allows us to open meaningful dialog between the various positions surrounding the issues.

While we may have been at that he-said-she-said stage at the end of May and beginning of June, when a great deal of public interest was generated as a result of first readings of the proposed critical areas update, we have seen several discussions, both on the record and off the record since that time. A basis was built for the formation of a Planning Commission subcommittee that will be working on modifications to the initial draft update, with an opportunity for a fully public process in the works.

Within the past week, we've learned that the proposed ordinance update that reached the public was written within the final few days preceding the May 17 deadline. We've also learned from an email message obtained by a county resident as part of a public records request that Jefferson County's senior planner was directed to hold one-on-one negotiations with the Washington Environmental Council's local representative. Both of these topics were discussed during the public comment portion of the Board of County Commissioners meeting on Monday, July 17.

We sincerely hope that we have left anger and frustration behind us as we move into a phase of full public participation in the process of working together on how Jefferson County's residents will be regulated by our government. It's becoming evident that county staff have a workload that is so large that they have difficulty meeting our basic needs, and that we need to assist them wherever possible. It's not enough to complain . . . we all have to be actively engaged in the governance process.

Because the political process is currently serving more as a divisive, rather than unifying force in community life, we prefer to avoid placing our natural resource issues and challenges onto a partisan political playing field. We are dealing with issues of importance to the landscapes and waterscapes that our children, grandchildren and beyond will be living in. We are willing to work hard to ensure that our ecosystems are protected, and that our children and theirs will not be regulated out of the opportunities they will need to make it possible for them to live and work in this marvelous place.

Part of the problem we see with the critical areas ordinance, along with several other natural resource regulatory systems, is that the underlying philosophy appears to be that the individual urban, suburban, or rural landowners cannot be trusted to provide top-level stewardship for the natural resources located on or near their properties.

We beg to differ.

We firmly believe that the vast majority of landowners of all kinds are concerned about ecosystem health and enhancement. We are far better served by processes based on education and incentive than we are by a regulatory regimen directed toward controlling our activities. We are also aware that there is already a considerable body of laws and regulations to be used, if needed, when someone is not providing adequate stewardship of his or her real property.

While Mr. Jay, and others, work hard to protect the commons, the reality is that this nation opted for a strong form of real property ownership when the country was formed. For better or worse, depending on one's viewpoint, it's that strength of ownership that has long provided one of the pillars for the economic strength that allows our nation to have the surplus financial resources to be able to afford to provide strong protections for our ecosystems.

While errors in land mangement have been made over time, we, as a people, have made great strides toward reversing the damage done in past decades and centuries, and have arrived at a point where we are continuously improving the health of our ecosystems. Yes, there is work that remains to be done. There is, however, a better way to do that work than to opt for increasingly onerous restrictions on what people can do with and on their real property. We are gathering together to build that better way.

We hope that there are many more who will join us in that effort.


Perspective

Honor life of the commons over private rights, liberties

By Tom Jay
Chimacum

For the past month I have been dismayed at the coverage The Leader and the Peninsula Daily News have provided on the critical areas ordinance and the ensuing outcry from some farmers and landowners. Both papers focused on the emotional and personal aspects of the outcry, and while eventually airing op-ed pieces on each side’s perspective, neither paper has researched the roots of the disagreement. Hence, the context of public discussion is still in the smoky, he-said-she-said stage. The perspective pieces were justification, not discourse. Anger trumps real argument, and we were left with the vacuity of posturing.

Years ago Bill Clinton made a cynical statement in answer to a question about the dynamics of politics. He said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Apparently a majority of Americans agree with him and his sharp-clawed successor, George W. That reductive cynicism translates into an ethic that imagines our home places as ciphers in a profit and loss statement.

A friend of mine remarked, when I complimented him on the care he took in tending his place: “Most people don’t see that. They say, ‘Wow, what a great investment you’ve got here.’ “ He’s keeping his place well for his kids, not the money.

The concept of passing on a well-cared-for place rather than a pile of dough is an echo of a more fundamental problem: the perennial one-eyed avarice of private property for the resources embodied in the public trust we call the commons. The commons are the air, waters, weather and soils that sustain us and the cycle of life. No one owns the commons. In fact, it owns us. Right now we have become a sort of planetary flu that may debilitate its host.

Property, on the other hand, is the lines we draw on the commons. These lines represent the areas of control where we act out our pretensions, found our dreams and seek, perhaps, an appropriate providence. For the last 200 years, property-minded capitalists, large and small, have mined the commons (the public trust) with a vengeance. Imagine gold miners in Northern California shooting Native Americans fighting to defend their traditional fishing grounds.

Yes, you say, but we’ve come a long way. We have laws. We do have laws — and the majority of them enshrine the rights of property and ignore the life of the commons. They are about private rights and liberties, not community responsibility. The last 200 years have been a “taking” on a massive scale. Witness the decimated salmon runs brought on by habitat conversion and destruction, the pitiful attempt to replace wild fish with hatchery “rags.”

The agreement between Jefferson County and WEC is not a taking; it was a retrieval of a portion of the commons steadily eroded by the economy of property since European settlement. Did anyone think of sending the timber companies and farm organizations a bill for lost salmon runs or ruined shellfish beds? The anger around this issue may well be that the debts of fathers have been left on the doorsteps of the sons and daughters. This is unfair but does not belie the essential need to heal the commons.

Another Democratic statesman, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, put it nicely when he said, “The economy is the wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.” Prosperity is an old word that means hope and abundance. It is the work-quickened tilth of creation. It is the opposite of debt and despair.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

County sets timeline for wetland protection rules

The following article was published Friday, July 14, 2006 on the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader website.

County sets timeline for wetland protection rules

A timeline for development of new county development rules aimed at protecting the environment has been released by Jefferson County.

Under the new schedule, amendments to regulations protecting critical areas such as wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat are expected to be adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners by Jan. 18, 2007.

The process will involve revising the current proposal, which was released on May 17 and was the subject of Jefferson County Planning Commission public hearings in June.

A Planning Commission committee will work with a group of stakeholders over a series of meetings over the coming months to review scientific information, draft revisions to the proposal, and describe and defend those revisions in the context of the requirement in state law to consider “best available science.”

Representatives from the farming, building, realty, property owner, and environmental communities will be invited to participate in the committee process.

All committee meetings will be open to the public.

The committee is expected to deliver a report by the end of September.

To initiate the process, a workshop is set for Wednesday, Aug. 2, during the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission at the Washington State University Learning Center at Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and the first two items on the agenda are a public hearing on four site-specific comprehensive plan amendment proposals and a presentation on the joint Port Townsend/Jefferson County housing needs assessment. The critical areas workshop will begin around 7:30 p.m.

The Aug. 2 workshop will be an opportunity for people to learn about the new timetable and the process for developing a revised critical areas proposal and to ask questions of the planning commissioners and county planning staff.

The workshop will help county staff prepare a fact sheet with answers to frequently asked questions about Jefferson County’s current and proposed regulatory protection of critical areas as required by the Washington Growth Management Act.

A revised critical areas proposal is expected to go to the full Planning Commission in mid-November. After the Planning Commission holds a public hearing in December to gather input, it will forward its recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.

The board likely will hold a second public hearing on the proposal in January before taking legislative action.

Information on the critical areas proposal is available online at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/CriticalAreas.htm.

County planning staff also has developed a brief fact sheet designed to address concerns posed by residents of west Jefferson County.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Do right thing for wetlands

The letter that follows these comments was published in the July 12, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

There's great value in hearing all of the positions on this issue well represented in the overall debate that is taking place. We should all recognize that an ordinance on critical areas reflects a policy decision based on science available to those who have the responsibility for writing the legislation. It's refreshing to have Mr. Bush bring to the table the idea that those with contrasting views about the proposed critical areas update should be able to back their positions with science that supports their views.

That's why we entered new science, conducted in the state of Washington and published by a state agency, supporting narrower buffers, into the public record on June 21 at the Planning Commission's hearing. We also presented a summarized version of that science to the Board of County Commissioners on June 26. A CD containing science supporting a lighter regulatory hand and other documents was also entered into the public record, and more is forthcoming.

While each of us, Mr. Bush included, may have our personal biases, we are doing our best to better inform the process of building an improved critical areas ordinance update. We are not simply bringing a "biased opinion" to the stage.

Our farmers are doing a lot to improve the ecosystems that exist on their properties. They are ably assisted in this by one of the most innovative and capable conservation districts in the Northwest. We repeatedly find reference to pioneering work accomplished by the Jefferson County Conservation District in the science that is helping to inform the debate. With the science suggesing that wider is not always better in riparian and wetland buffers, coupled with the science on the use of value added (commercially valuable) plants being done in British Columbia's Okanagan region and other locations, we do find reason to believe that the proposed update really is excessive.

It's not nonsense to bring human economics into the picture when we are discussing environmental protections. Jefferson County's economy is seriously challenged, and desperately in need of opportunities for success. There is no reason that we can't seek a viable balance between human needs and our ecosystems, where each will benefit substantially from a revised policy that makes ample provisions for both.

Our focus is less on the projected limitations on land use than it is on working together as a community to seek the balance that's lacking in the currently proposed critical areas ordinance update. We feel that the people who will be regulated by the provisions of the update were pretty much left out of the picture. In our system of government, they are supposed to be consulted, and by and large, they were not. Our government is intended to work with the consent of the governed, and that needs to be an informed consent with the offer to participate in the formation of policy.

That's not too much to ask, is it?


Do right thing for wetlands

Editor, Leader

Anxiety over proposed stream and wetlands protection in the critical areas ordinance continues to be focused on projected limits on land use that may result.

However, the ordinance is proposed for the purpose of protecting long-term ecologic values and cannot be effective if it is limited by exemptions that optimize land use. Arguing against an ordinance designed to protect intrinsic values of our watersheds by decrying its effect on human economics is nonsense. The only proper argument against an ordinance based on the physical sciences of hydrology, soils, and biology is one that can use those same sciences to reveal errors or shortcomings of the ordinance.

Statements such as "most of our farmers are already providing substantial services in conserving habitat and improving ecosystem functions" by Mr. MacLeod (Perspective, July 5 Leader) imply that the proposed protection is ecologically excessive. If that is true, it is the responsibility of those who believe so to show it to be so through scientific analysis — not biased opinion.

Lacking such analysis, it is the responsibility of the commissioners to do the right thing for the long-term health of our streams and wetlands by implementing the ordinance as written.

GEORGE BUSH
Port Townsend

A local coalition for open government

The following editorial appeared in the July 12, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

A local coalition for open government

Do Jefferson County residents guide their government or does the government do as it pleases?

The only real control the peasantry has over the palace is that our state has good laws that demand that discussions and decisions made by our government be open to the public. Most indications are that most local officials know the law or are open to being reminded. Special kudos go to Port Townsend City Manager David Timmons and to City Attorney John Watts, who have had cause recently to assert the public's right to know and learn of the inner machinery of government documents and decisions. Oughtright applause goes to the Public Utility District commissioners, who go so far as to let the public know when two or more of them (a voting majority) are taking a trip to a seminar. For this they have been singled out for priase by Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag.

The County of Jefferson has its highlights and its lowlights. One example of the latter concerns recent closed-door negotiations between county officials and Washington Environmental Council related to critical areas and stream buffers. The talks blew up when affected farmers found out, as they should have. The explosion (but not the debate) would have been avoided had the discussions been in public. Nothing new there.

Now there's a way county residents can push for openness in local government. The Washington Coalition for Open Government (www.washingtoncog.org) has put out a call for interested citizens in each county to form their own local Coalition chapter. The chapter would become a clearinghouse of information about openness in local government, regardless of the specific issue. This is not about specific issues but about integrity of the process.

The Coalition has been around since 2001. A predecessor got the initiative approved that created the state Public Disclosure Act in 1972. The Coalition is a true alliance of groups representing business, labor, libraries, the press, some state and local governments, access lawyers, activists and community groups. These entities disagree on much but are united in the belief that government should be open. I was one of the founding board members and am a past president. Frank Garred, my predecessor as publisher of The Leader, and retired librarian Patience Rogge are two other Jefferson County residents active in the Coalition.

Interested in forming a local Coalition? Send a letter or e-mail to me and I will convene a first meeting of those interested. Mail: 226 Adams St., Port Townsend, WA 98368. E-mail: swilson@ptleader.com.

— Scott Wilson

Sequim lands group seeks state funding

The following article appeared in the July 11, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Sequim lands group seeks state funding
Lost tax effort won't slow farmlands bid

By Jim Casey
Peninsula Daily News


SEQUIM — When a funding window with a scenic view of Dungeness Valley farms closed last fall, proponents of saving Clallam County agricultural lands opened a door.

Friends of the Fields lost its bid for a real estate buyer's excise tax when voters rejected it Nov. 8.

Now it has applied for a grant from the state Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation.

The tax would have raised about $2.7 million yearly to keep Clallam County farms in farming.

The grant — endorsed Monday by Clallam County commissioners — would total $311,000 that Friends of the Fields would have to match with an additional $332,300.

Although the amounts of money and land are drastically smaller, their aim is the same; to buy agricultural conservation easements on farms and to deed them to the North Olympic Land Trust. The easements would guaratee the land would remain in agriculture.

The 24 acres that Friends of the Fields seeks is located south of Dungeness Village.

They are owned by the Hutt and Wilson trusts, represented by Dorothy A. Hutt, 4620 Dungeness Way.

Organic farmer Nash Huber leases and farms the land, but its future is uncertain. It is zoned for residential development on five-acre lots.

Friends of the Fields hopes to raise the matching money required by the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program's Farmland Preservation project. Sources include donors, businesses, the land trust and Friends of the Fields.

The group is "pretty confident that they have those dollars," said Steve Tharinger, D-Dungeness.

Clallam County would make no contribution to the effort beyond the 20 hours of staff time already deveoted to processing the application.

"The county values the farms greatly," says a Friends of the Fields' draft document, "not only for what they do for its economy but also for the pastoral scenery they provide."

"While the residents value development in the county, they are concerned about the county becoming another metropolitan area."

Three quarters of Clallam County's farms have been developed, the application noted, primarily as subdivisions.

Reporter Jim casey can be reached at 360-417-3538 or at jim.casey@peninsuladailynews.com.

Friday, July 07, 2006

Fueled by fears of wider buffers farmers hold ‘tractor protest’

The following article appeared in the July 7, 2006 Western Oregon and Washington print edition of the Capital Press.

Fueled by fears of wider buffers farmers hold ‘tractor protest’
Planner: County probably has ‘best deal’ for farmers

By COOKSON BEECHER
Capital Press Staff Writer


When his voice didn’t seem to be loud enough for government officials to hear, Western Washington farmer Roger Short did the next best thing. He fired up some of his farm’s tractors and joined a tractor rally — manure spreaders and all — that showed up at the Jefferson County Courthouse at 7:30 a.m. on June 19.

“A lot of people gave us a thumbs up or the middle finger,” Short said, chuckling. “But most were thumbs up.”

Fueling the protest were concerns over proposed revisions to the county’s critical areas ordinance, which some farmers fear has the potential to lead to wider buffers along streams and wetlands.

The protest apparently drew attention to the proposed revisions. Whereas the first public comment hearing drew only two people, a public meeting held several days after the protest drew about 150 people.

During the heated four-hour meeting, about 60 people spoke against the proposal. Many said they had only just learned about it.

Jill Silver, a watershed program manager and environmental scientist with the 10,000 Year Institute, was the only person at the meeting to speak in support of the county’s proposal. She told the crowd that despite statements saying the proposal threatens local farms, it actually exempts existing agricultural lands from the ordinance’s proposed requirements.

In a June 27 telephone interview with the Capital Press, Josh Peters, the county’s senior planner, said the county probably has the best deal for farmers in all of Western Washington.

“There are no buffers on existing farms, and that would not change with the proposal,” he said. “All we ask is that farmers voluntarily implement best management practices with help from the Conservation District. Individual Natural Resource Conservation Service farm plans are not required.”In addition, county farms can take full advantage of accessory-use provisions in the state’s Growth Management Act.

“Courts have thrown out programs that were more stringent,” he said.

But Short said he’s read the proposal and said he finds it lacking in specifics that would assure farmers they have a future.

Like most other farmers, Short, a former dairyman, has switched to other crops and livestock operations over the years to meet changing demands in the marketplace. He’s worried the revisions will affect any changes he makes in the future by making it impossible for him to do what he needs to do to stay in business as a farmer.

What especially irks some farmers and other rural residents is that the proposed revisions are part of a settlement agreement the county reached with the Washington Environmental Council. According to the agreement, the county was to complete its work and adopt an updated critical areas ordinance on July 18. That has now been put off until Oct. 23 in order to give the public more time to learn about the settlement and to comment on it.

The settlement came as the result of the county’s delay in updating its critical areas ordinance based on “best available science.”

When the county decided to wait until the actual legislative deadline for more information, WEC petitioned the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, charging the county with violating the law.

Although the settlement agreement was reached in January, it was not widely publicized.

Some say that the language in the settlement sounds as though the county commissioners are letting an outside group decide on the way their land will be used in the future. County Commissioner David Sullivan counters that claim, saying the county still maintains control over land-use decisions.

Responding to widespread confusion over this issue, the county commissioners unanimously approved a 90-day extension for the rule-making process and called for more public participation.

Becky Kelley, a policy director for WEC, said the organization is agreeable to the 90-day extension called for by the county.

“It really is important for people to be heard and for more public meetings to be held on this,” she said.

The county, meanwhile, plans to distribute more information about this issue to the public before scheduling any more public meetings. Future meetings are expected to take place later this summer and in the fall.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Discussions on critical areas get more time

The following article appeared in the July 5, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.


Discussions on critical areas get more time

By Janet Huck, Leader Staff Writer


“The critical areas ordinance is not a done deal,” said Jefferson County Commissioner David Sullivan.

Sullivan and fellow Commissioners Pat Rodgers and Phil Johnson voted unanimously Monday to extend the deadline for the update on the county’s critical areas ordinance until Jan. 18, 2007.

The time allows for more public input on a land-use subject that has helped galvanize a rejuvenated farm-based property movement. People upset with the proposed critical areas ordinance, mainly wetland buffer zones, drove tractors to the courthouse for one protest, with hundreds showing a willingness to attend meetings or make public statements.

Originally, the commissioners voted on a three-month delay of the July deadline previously reached with the Washington Environmental Council, which had sued the county over its proposed critical areas ordinance. WEC has indicated support for a sixth-month delay instead of three months; its agreement is required.

In a related issue, the commissioners voted to include more public hearings on the Chimacum Creek management plan (1.4 MB PDF file) that was set for completion Aug. 18. The deadline for completion of those public hearings is now Sept. 18.

Critical delay

Most people at the regular July 3 commission meeting thought WEC would agree to the commissioners’ sixth-month delay. Al Scalf, county director of community development, said he expected a signed agreement with WEC by week’s end.

Many participants on both sides talked as if it were a done deal.

Norman MacLeod, who has been active in local issues, said: “It gives us time for community involvement on the regulations. The people who are regulated would have a say in being regulated. We wouldn’t be working in an us-versus-them basis but working to built something that benefits everybody.”

“It’s the best celebration of the Fourth of July,” said Jim Hagen, county planning commission chairman. “We can take a deep breath because we have more time for community involvement.”

“We have time to write a new timeline and get information about the draft out to the public so we can get good community input and make the changes we need to make to the ordinance,” said Commissioner Sullivan.

Under the present proposed changes, some streams and wetlands could require a 450-foot buffer zone to protect habitat from the impact of development or farming.

The buffer zone requirements vary depending on the kind of stream or wetland and how the surrounding land would be used. As an example, if a piece of farmland has a stream passing through the middle of it, its owner might be required to leave up to 450 feet of land on either side of the stream undisturbed.

Farmers protested the proposed changes, saying the changes would reduce the value and uses of their properties without compensation.

Critical Areas deadline changed to Jan. 18

The following article appeared in the July5, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Critical Areas deadline changed to Jan. 18

Ordinance move will allow more Jefferson County input

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News


PORT TOWNSEND — The three Jefferson County commissioners have agreed to extend the deadline for final action on a critical areas ordinance.

The move extends the deadline from July 18 to Jan. 18.

This will permit more time for public comment and input.

Al Scalf, director of Jefferson County Community Development, said the next six months will be devoted to public outreach so everyone who will be affected by the ordinance will understand the effects and voice an opinion.

He said a schedule and strategy for public outreach should be worked out by Monday’s commissioners’ meeting.

The new deadline, set by the commissioners on Monday was done in the form of the adoption of amendments to a settlement agreement between the county and Washington Environmental Council.

Doubles buffers

The settlement agreement with WEC doubled wetlands buffers from the current range of 25 to 150 feet to between 50 and 300 feet.

When residents discovered the change in June, public outcry forced county officials to rethink the proposed changes.

“Because we didn’t find out about it until it went before the Planning Commission, there is a distruct of the county,” said James Fritz, president of Olympic Water Users Association.

County officials said what they’ve heard most is that residents are upset they weren’t included early enough when the amendments were being drafted.

Agreeing with extension

WEC agrees with the extension.

“We want to allow for enough time for people to participate in the process,” said Michael Mayer, legal director of WEC.

“The extension should allow all parties to sit down and give their positions.”

Why ag objects

The most vocal critics of the proposed buffer expansions have been many in the agricultural community.

Agricultural land is exempt from the buffer expansions.

But critics question what, exactly, that means.

The county’s initial draft of amendments to the critical areas ordinance exempts existing and ongoing agriculture from expanded buffers, but it doesn’t mention future agriculture.

“If we want to define what agriculture is, the ability to change or not to change, now’s the time,” said Commissioner Pat Rodgers, R-Brinnon.

Some fear that expanded buffers would discourage agricultural development.

“We do not have a large sustainable agriculture community right now,” said Norm MacLeod, water and private property rights advocate.

“But we have the land to support that.

“We have new agricultural people coming in who aren’t going to be protected under the proposal,” he said. “We have to look out for the future and make sure they can come here.”

----------------------

Reporter Evan Cael can be reached at 360-385-2335 or evan.cael@peninsuladailynews.com.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Living Rural

Teren and I were working with our horses this morning, she with Tsigilili, and I with Belle. Belle is the mom horse around here, and she's expressed an interest in getting out and about with other horses on the trail with her people. Because she doesn't yet have much in the steering and braking departments, I've started working bareback and reinless in the round pen. She's becoming more fluid, and is starting to "get it" and we're building more of a relationship between us.

After we were done, we strolled the half-mile down to the pasture they use a few days a week, south of a neighbor who has several horses, too. Teren stayed to fill up the water, and I started back to get the truck so it would be easier to get Tsigilili's tack back to the barn.

As I walked back up the road toward the neighbor's driveway, Chip and Checkers, a couple of big geldings, came down to the corner of their pasture to greet me. Chip is a massive bay, with a blaze shaped pretty much like Thor's hammer. Checkers is a dappled gray.

As I approached, Chip turned his head up the road to check traffic. As he did, he started and let out with a snort. Checkers turned to look, too, and so I followed their eyes and ears.

Less than fifty feet to Chip's north, there was a small buck, with buttons just starting up between his ears. He was peering down the road toward me, checking out this two-legged to make sure there wasn't much threat. The horses were obviously not worrying him in the slightest.

Chip, on the other hand, didn't think the interloper belonged in his field, and lowered his head and ears, walking toward the deer . . . who simply jogged up the hill and behind the trees . . . still inside the pasture.

Now the deer was up the hill behind the trees . . . next to the barn . . . where Chip and Checkers get their grain. That was too close to home for Chip, so he cantered up the field to run the critter off. Checkers, meanwhile, strolled up to the top corner of the field to see if his people might be coming out to help.

The buck jogged down the hill between the two guys, and strolled up to the fence to have a closer look at me. Deciding the threat on this end was non-existent, he watched the horses. Chip wandered over to consult with Checkers, casting the occasional dirty look in the general direction of the intruder.

The two of them jogged down the hill, so the deer headed back up to the barnyard. This was too much for Chip, so he charged diagonally across the pasture and up the hill, which sent the buck racing around the field . . . not out, but enjoying the chase!

The deer headed up the hill toward the southeast corner, with Chip in hot pursuit. Somewhere along the line, a thought passed between Chip and Checkers, and Checkers headed up along the southern fenceline to intercept the deer at the top of the hill. They were perhaps expecting the deer would exit over the fence at the corner.

Instead, the little buck kicked in the afterburner up the hill, pulling a high-G turn at the top around between a tree and the fence at about the same time Checkers was arriving at the same place from the other direction. Checkers saw the deer cranking the corner and about climbed out of his skin . . . going up in the air and coming down running in the opposite direction, with almost 100 pounds of racing deer now hard on his heels.

Chip stopped at the top to watch . . . clearly perplexed at this turn of events.

Checkers maintained a slight lead down to the bottom of the hill, where he pulled hard right and back up the hill. The deer maintained heading and slowed to a head-high prance to the north fenceline.

Checkers ended up hiding behind Chip, peeking over Chip's back at the deer, now strolling quietly along the fenceline, without a care in the world.

Chip and Checkers slowly gathered their dignity together, then relaxed . . . body language congratulating each other on a job well done . . . and, "Didn't we show him!"

As I moved on down the road to get the truck, the little buck scrambled over the fence and kept pace ahead of me until he turned off on another driveway, in search of roses, no doubt.

I live out here in rural Jefferson County for moments like these. When a bird flies in the house, I catch them in my hands and take them back out so they can get back to their own homes. We've become a part of the landscape in which we live, and we take pride in caring for our place in it. There are some things that you just can't experience in town, and more often than not, they are things that build our knowledge of and wisdom about the many natural gifts we have.

It's Independence Day . . . the day we celebrate our separation from King George III and a Parliament where we had no voice. It's wonderful to live in a nation where we are allowed to have a voice in how we are governed, and in a time when we are able to participate in that governance if we wish.

There's no substitute.


Monday, July 03, 2006

Update from the Jefferson County Commissioners' meeting

During this morning's Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) meeting, we learned that the Washington Environmental Council has responded to Jefferson County's request for an additional 90 days to work on the critical areas ordinance update by offering the county six months instead.

This would provide a new "due date" of January 18, 2007 for the ordinance update to be adopted. While removing the urgency for getting our ducks in a row, we should not sit back and let things happen. We need a well-paced process that allows for full citizen participation in working toward a much-improved outcome, beneficial to all.

During the public comment portion of the BoCC meeting, one of the things brought forward is the need for the agricultural exemption to be broadened to include new farm operations. If that doesn't happen, our young sustainable agriculture movement will not be able to mature into a robust community providing locally grown produce for our community and region.

Articles are forthcoming from both of our local newspapers. Keep an eye out for them!

If you haven't already done so, please download the settlement agreement and the proposed critical areas ordinance update and go over them carefully. If you have questions, please send them to the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. (You should note that you wish to have a reply to your questions.) The more each of us knows about these documents, the better prepared we will be to work in the process of making the ordinance become what it needs to be to protect our families and the landscapes we are so much a part of and take pride in.

It's time for all of us to move into the work of developing critical areas protections that will support our ecosystems, while also providing opportunities for our children, grandchildren and beyond. Let's build our local solutions locally!