olyfarm

Planners tour wetlands before vote

2007-06-21T22:49:00.000-07:00

The following article was published in the June 21, 2007 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Planners tour wetlands before vote

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News

CHIMACUM — Before Jefferson County Planning Commission members issue a recommendation for wetlands buffer zones, they want to see what they are talking about.

So, on Wednesday, they donned rubber boots for a field trip to view some fo the county's streams and wetlands.

The nine members of the Planning Commission were joined by Department of Community Development staff and members of a critical area ordinance advisory committee.

The advisory committee has issued its proposals for revisions the county's critical areas ordinance, which include recommendations for buffers around wetlands.

The Planning Commission is considering those recommendations.

It has until Aug. 22 to decide on its recommendation to the three county commissioners, who will make the final decision by Oct. 15.

The ordinance is meant to protect streams, wetlands and wildlife habitats through setting up buffer zones between the critical environmental area and dvelopment.

The first stop on the field trip was a wetland on Port of Port Townsend land near Jefferson County International Airport.

Next, the group of about 20 headed to H.J. Carroll Park in Chimacum to look at Chimacum Creek, which runs through a wooded area of the park.

Community Development staff had positioned wooden stakes in the ground at various locations near the creek to show differing buffer width recommendations.

One stake was positioned 90 feet from the creek, representing the critical area ordinance committee majority opinion.

Another stake was at the 100-foot mark, representing the committee minority recommendation.

Committee member Jill Silver — who has spearheaded the minority opinion — announced during the field trip that, after consulting with her "constituents," she was changing the minority recommendation to 150-foot buffers for streams smiliar to Chimacum Creek.

When fellow committee member Norm MacLeod asked Silver who her contituents are, she replied, "Norm, that's not your business."

A third stake was stuck in the ground 150 feet from the creek bank, reperesenting the current requirement in the Jefferson County critical areas ordinance.

That is the buffer width included in a revision to the ordinance that was drafted May 17, 2006.

The revision came about through an agreement between Jefferson County and the Seattle-based Washington Environmental Council.

The revision has sparked controversy in Jefferson County over wetlands buffer widths.

The Planning Commission plans to have public hearings on the proposed ordinance before it makes its recommendation.

Public outcry

The May 17 draft update to the ordinance was met with public outcry.

That lead to an extension of the agreement terms and the formation of an 18-member Planning Commission committee — coined the crtical areas ordinance committee and citizen advisory group — that met weekly from August to April to deliberate possible revisions of the county's critical areas ordinance.

The committee presented a majority view to the Planning Commission outlining buffer widths between 7.5 feet and 180 feet and a minority view included buffers between 25 feet and 300 feet.

The Planning Commission also recently heard a presentation from state Department of Ecology representatives who also recommended buffer widths that fall between 25 and 300 feet.

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

Wetland buffers defended

2007-06-01T11:25:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the June 1, 2007 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Wetland buffers defended
Ecology specialist outlines how much perimeter state wants

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — Representatives from the state Department of Ecology laid out the agency's policy protecting critical wetlands at Wednesday's Jefferson County Planning Commission meeting.

"Buffering is necessary," said RIck Mraz, Ecology wetlands and shoreline specialist.

He spoke to the nine planning commissioners and an audience of 60 at the Washington State University Learning Center in Port Hadlock.

Few have debated that point since a controversy ballooned last June over the increased buffer widths in a proposed critical areas ordinance.

The question that has been ringing repeatedly and loudly ever since remained the same Wednesday night:

What is the necessary buffer width to protect water quality and wildlife habitats?

Ecology's policy is that between 25 feet and 300 feet of buffer is necessary, depending on the type of wetalnd and activity adjacent to it.

Agreeing with that policy are three citizens on an 18-member critical area ordinance committee that was formed last August to recommend revisions.

An opposing opinion is held by the remaining citizens on the critical areas ordinance committee — spearheaded by Kenneth Brooks, a wetlands scientist who is also a committee member.

They believe the buffer widths should fall between 7.5 feet and 180 feet, with a voluntary additional buffer width for wildlife habitats.

But althought only part of Brooks' recommendations involve voluntary buffers, Mraz said, "Voluntary measures do not adequately address all types of development impacts.

"Prescriptive requirements are sometimes necessary."

Of Ecology's recommendations, "We're giving up some of the simplicity and offering flexibility," Mraz said.

Throughout the question and answer period in which only planning commissioners coupld pose inquiries, Mraz repeatedly said that Ecology's recommendations have not incorporated Jefferson County's unique geological and topographical characteristics.

During the public comment period, Jim Hagen, former Planning Commission chairman and critical areas ordinance subcommittee member said, "I'm leery of regulations that have nothing to do with our area."

But some audience members did agree with Mraz.

Jefferson County resident Frank Hoffman said, "I think a lot of what you said is common sense."

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

Critical Areas Ordinance Public Workshop with Planning Commission and Department of Ecology

2007-05-29T13:24:00.001-07:00

Following our comment is a press release from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development.

The reports referenced in the press release were actually submitted on May 2, 2007, not last week. The press release also implies equal weighting between the majority reports (which were adopted by substantial majority vote) and the minority reports.

The Department of Ecology will present their information, and take questions from the Planning Commission. While Ecology's representatives do not intend to engage with the public, anyone may submit questions through the Department of Community Development. Those questions will be then provided to the Planning Commission chairman, who will ask these questions on the public's behalf.

As of this morning, Tuesday May 30, DCD will also make these questions available to the Department of Ecology's representatives prior to the workshop.

The "questions that have arisen from the subcommittee meetings" refers to the work of Dr. Kenneth Brooks, whose review of Ecology's best available science (BAS) found that the science in Ecology's recommendations for wetlands buffers is incomplete as it pertains to conditions in Jefferson County. After their comments on his findings, Dr. Brooks' further review found additional concerns with Ecology's work. Although repeated requests have been made for this workshop to be centered around a discussion between the Department of Ecology's scientists and Dr. Brooks, so that the Planning Commission can have the benefit of an open and frank discussion between contrasting scientists, that opportunity has not materialized.

For Immediate Release — May 24, 2007

Contact: Al Scalf
Director, Department of Community Development
Jefferson County
(360) 379-4450 or ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us

Critical Areas Ordinance Public Workshop with Planning Commission and Department of Ecology

Port Townsend, WA —The Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a special public meeting on Wednesday, May 30, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. at the WSU Learning Center, Shold Business Park, located at 201 West Patison, Port Hadlock. A workshop will be held with representatives from the Department of Ecology who will present information regarding wetlands and best available science (BAS) related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).

“This workshop is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to ask questions of Ecology so they can better understand the complex issues of the CAO,” said Al Scalf, Director of the Department of Community Development. “A discussion about wetland Best Available Science will help clarify questions that have arisen from the subcommittee meetings held weekly over the past nine months.”

Anyone having a question on wetlands and BAS may submit their question to DCD prior to the Planning Commission meeting. These questions will be forwarded to the Planning Commission Chair, who will be facilitating the meeting on May 30.

Twenty reports were submitted to the Planning Commission from the CAO subcommittee last week. The Planning Commission will utilize the reports for policy direction in the drafting of a new CAO code.

It’s anticipated that the CAO draft will be completed in the first few weeks of July, with a public hearing to be scheduled with the Planning Commission later that month. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in late August. A decision of the BOCC on a CAO is expected by October 18, 2007.

The CAO reports that are currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission are available to the public at either the Jefferson County Library, the Port Townsend Public Library or at the office of the Department of Community Development.

For further information or submitting possible questions, contact Long-Range Planning at the Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan St, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450, or planning@co.jefferson.wa.us.

Reports differ on county's plans for critical areas

2007-05-05T21:40:00.001-07:00

The following article appeared in the May 4-5, 2007 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — The Jefferson County Planning Commission heard three different suggestions for a revised critical areas ordinance at its meeting this week.

The three reports were a majority view that recommends minimum wetlands buffers with some voluntary aspects, a minority view that sets larger buffers to err on the side of caution and a critique of both those reports.

All exempt agriculture from the ordinance.

The reports were developed by an 18-member critical area ordinance committee that has met weekly since last August to make recommendations based on best available science to update the county's ordinance.

Wednesday was the first look the full Planning Commission has had at the committee's views.

"This represents a ton of work from a lot of people," said Planning Commissioner Peter Downey, District 2, speaking before about 60 people at the Washington State University Learning Center in Port Hadlock.

Downey was elected chairman of the commission at Wednesday's meeting.

He replaces Planning Commissioner Bud Schindler, District 3, who was elected vice-chair.

On May 17 last year, the Jefferson County Department of Community Development drafted a critical areas ordinance update, which — in some cases — required 100-percent increases in wetland buffer zones, the largest being 300 feet.

That change was part of an agreement with the Washington Environmental Council, an environmental state lobbying group that appealed the county's critical areas ordinance before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

WEC argues that the county had failed to incorporate best available science in its ordinance, which is a requirement of the Growth Management Act regarding such critical areas as wetlands, salmon habitat, channel migration zones and flood zones.

Public outcry when the revised ordinance went before the Planning Commission in June prompted the formation of the review committee.

It consists of four planning commissioners and about 15 citizens.

The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the county commissioners, who are scheduled to make the final decision by Oct. 18

"The update we have in front of us can support a healthy relationship between the government and our citizens," said Norm MacLeod, who presented the majority report.

He stressed compliance versus defiance, saying people may begin to defy regulations they perceive as being too stringent.

"With any ordinance, you want to have willing compliance," MacLeod said.

Otherwise, "the folks simply stop observing the statutes of the ordinance."

He said the majority report aims to provide land owners with maximum flexibility in protecting critical areas.

But he emphasized that, "We're not saying no regulations."

The buffer zones recommended by the majority range from 7.5 feet to 150 feet, depending on the type of wetland.

A voluntary extended buffer for wildlife areas is also a component of the majority's recommendations.

Committee member Jill Silver presented the stricter minority report, with larger wetland buffers.

Silver said the minority report — backed by three citizens on the committee and Planning Commissioner Henry Werch, District 2 — was aligned with state Department of Ecology recommendations.

Therefore, she said, it should not be subject to legal challenges because the best available science is not questionable.

The recommended wetland buffer zones range from 25 feet to 300 feet, depending upon the type of wetland.

Silver said the recommendation is not because the group doesn't trust current landowners to be responsible stewards, but because of "an enormous amount of people who will be moving into the county soon."

"I don't have mistrust about long-term land owners in Jefferson County," Silver said.

"I don't trust new land owners coming in."

Many people will be coming from California or other states who are unaware of the unique environment in Jefferson County and won't know how to maintain it or will be purchasing land to sell it, she said.

Therefore, Silver said, the ordinance should err on the side of caution.

"The reality is that, in the absence of regulations, individual financial gain will often trump land use and management decisions," Silver said.

Robert Crittenden presented his own dissenting report that criticized both the majority and the minority.

"The general approach proposed in both reports may reasonably be expected to result in the opposite of what they aim to achieve, because they penalize those property owners who have protected their critical areas and reward those who have degraded or eliminated them," Crittenden said.

His report proposes exemptions for sustainable living.

Do no harm, suffer no regulation," Crittenden said.

A few reasonable restrictions would be placed on compost heaps, driveways and stormwater management, he said.

". . . my recommendation is that the Planning Commission adopt the minority report as a basis, add an exemption fo sustainble living, reduce its excessive regulation, and, also, add any ideas from the other reports, or from elsewhere, that are worthy of inclusion.

"There are many ideas in there that should be incorporated."

A special Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Wednesday to conclude the committee report presentations.

Most of this week's presentations laid out the philosophical approaches of each report.

When the presentations are continued next week, more of the substance of the reports is expected to be heard.

The Planning Commission will call for public comment on the recommendations for the critical areas ordinance update sometime this summer.

At the conclusion of Wednesday's meeting, during general public comments, Chimacum farmer Roger Short apologized to the Planning Commission for making a threatening comment at the April 18 meeting.

The threat led to Jefferson County Administrator John Fischbach positioning two sheriff's deputies outside the county commissioner's April 23 meeting.

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

Newcomers appointed to replace longtime planning commissioners

2007-03-20T10:46:00.001-07:00

The following appeared in the March 20, 2007 Jefferson County Edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Newcomers appointed to replace longtime planning commissioners

By Evan Cael, Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND - Wednesday will be the first Jefferson County Planning Commission meeting after restructuring of the nine-member advisory commission, with two newcomers chosen over former commissioners.

On Friday, the three Jefferson County commissioners appointed to four-year terms Ashley Bullitt, of Port Townsend, for the District 1 seat - which had been held by Dennis Schultz, of Port Townsend - and Patricia Farmer, of Kala Point, for the District 2 seat - which had been held by Jim Hagen, of Cape George.

The terms of Shultz and Hagen expired on Saturday.

Both had applied for reappointment.

Wednesday's Planning Commission meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Washington State University Community Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock.
Bud Schindler of Brinnon, planning commission vice-chairman, will take over as chairman of the commission, beginning Wednesday, since Hagen had served as the commission chairman.

The county commissioners conducted interviews Friday with seven candidates - including Hagen and Schultz - in the Superior Court courtroom for the two seats.

The questions elicited some complaints on Monday.

Dragged through mud

Hagen said in an interview Monday that he felt chided by the commissioners.

"They could have taken the high road and honored our service," he said.

"They chose to drag us through the mud."

Commissioner David Sullivan, D-Cape George, said the questions asked of Hagen and Schultz may have been harsher than those asked of other applicants because the two incumbents had a history of Planning Commission decisions to inquire about.

"They had a record of four years to ask about," Sullivan said.

He said he was especially curious about why they had recommended going ahead with the Hadlock-Irondale urban growth area plan - which the Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board found in 2004 to be noncompliant with the state Growth Management Act because of lack of an adequate facilities plan for sewage.

Port Townsend resident Al Frank accused the three commissioners - Sullivan, Phil Johnson, D-Port Townsend; and John Austin, D-Port Ludlow - of being unnecessarily harsh with the two incumbent planning commissioners and of failing to thank them for their thousands of hours of volunteer service during the interviews.

"Why put these guys through that?" Frank said.

"It was a complete charade," Frank told the county commissioners during the public comment period of Monday's commissioner meeting.

"It was just set up."

Sullivan said he didn't specifically thank Hagen and Schultz because the three commissioners decided to send a letter of thanks to each of the candidates for applying, and he thought that covered it.

New appointees

Bullitt has lived in Port Townsend for the past seven years.
Her family, which is responsible for the Bullit Foundation, has lived in the state since 1889, she said.

She said she will deal with each issue that faces the Planning Commission with flexibility.

"You can't serve the public well if you are inflexible," she said.

Bullit said Jefferson County residents made their voices heard in the November 2006 general election by electing Democratic candidates and with the failure of I-933.

"I'm in agreement with the voters of Jefferson County," she said.

Farmer has lived in Jefferson County since 1993, when she became a master gardner.

"I didn't look at it as a political appointment at all," Farmer said.
"I don't look at it as a black and white thing at all, and I think that's one of the reasons I was picked."

Along with serving as commission chairman, Hagen had also served as chairman of the Planning Commission's critical areas subcommittee that has been working on a revised ordinance for critical environmental areas since August.

It has not yet been established how the critical areas subcommittee will be affected by the Planning Commission member restructuring.

Sullivan said that both the two new appointees are members of the same political party that he is a member of.

Shultz and Hagen are Republicans.

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

Critical areas rewrite enters home stretch

2007-02-19T13:31:00.001-08:00

The following article appeared in the February 19, 2007 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Critical areas rewrite enters home stretch
Draft expected Thursday with dissent report

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — A group of volunteers charged with suggesting changes to Jefferson County law that affects environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands are preparing to write their final recommendations.

Four members of the 18-member critical areas panel don't agree with the majority and plan to issue a minority report on Thursday.

Also on Thursday, the panel will select a subcommittee to tackle writing the group's recommendations in legalese - without help it said was expected from the county Department of Community Development.

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. on Thursday at the Washington State Extension Learning Center Madrona Room, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison in Port Hadlock.

"Jefferson County has not fulfilled its part of the bargain," said Ken Brooks, a wetlands scientist on the panel, last Thursday.

"I move that we establish a code writing subcommittee to do the county's work."

The advisory group, which includes four planning commissioners, was formed in August after a critical areas ordinance proposed in May drew public criticism.

The biggest outcry was against a portion of the law that would change the buffer zones around wetlands.

In many cases, the required buffer zone around wetlands would be larger than had been legally required before, thus cutting the amount of private property that could be developed.

Once the Planning Commission has the advisory group's recommendations, it will go over them and put together its own recommendation to the Jefferson County board of commissioners.

The commissioners have a mid-October deadline to adopt the revisions to the critical areas ordinance.

Jefferson County Commissioner John Austin, D-Port Ludlow — one of three commissioners who will consider the final version of the legal changes — said that the minority report "might well be" more representative of all county residents than the majority report.

Austin said last week that the committee itself was not representative of the county.

"It was basically selected by Jim Hagen during a public meeting," said Austin, a Democrat.

"I don't know if [the committee] represents the majority of citizens in the county."

Hagen, a Republican, is the Planning Commission chairman and the chairman of the critical areas subcommittee.

Hagen said that sufficient notice was given about the Aug. 2 Planning Commission meeting at which the volunteers were chosen.

Hagen said he chose everyone who volunteered.

"I think it's very representative," Hagen said of the committee.
"It was based on the public response to this issue, which is really the only definitive way to judge it."

Wants help

The critical areas group agreed to take on the task of writings its recommendations “in code” — language appropriate for a legal ordinance.

The advisory group — which has been meeting weekly since Aug. 10 — is expected to deliver its recommendations to the full nine-member Jefferson County Planning Commission by April 1.

But a contracted worker to assist the group in writing the recommendations in “code language” will not be available until March, said Brent Butler, lead planner with the Department of Community Development.

Two weeks would not be enough time, the group decided.

So members voted to do the job themselves and form a code writing subcommittee.

Austin said he didn’t believe the committee needs to write the recommendations in code language.

“I can see why, with all the time they’ve put in, there’d be e pretty low threshold for frustration,” Austin said.

But, “their mission is to advise the Planning Commission, not produce code in its polished form.”

“It’s possible that they’re feeling they’re being required to do more than they’re actually required to do.”

Al Scalf, director of the Department of Community Development, said the reason he plans to hire a contracted worker to help the critical areas advisory group write code is because his department is understaffed and already devotes 112 hours a month to the critical areas group.

The person he had in mind, Eric Toews with Cascadia Planning, won’t be available until mid-March, he said.

Another contracted expert might become available sooner, but, Scalf said, he is not counting on it.

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

The Fine Line Between Compliance and Defiance

2007-02-17T22:54:00.001-08:00

The Fine Line Between Compliance and Defiance
A few thoughts from Norman MacLeod

When government develops public policy to deal with natural resource issues, such as the protection of critical areas, there is a risk that human needs will not be recognized as having sufficient importance to be included as key factors when deciding the degree of regulation to be applied in protecting habitat and other values of those critical areas. When people perceive the resulting ordinance or rule as being too onerous, they may find it necessary to choose between willing compliance with the regulations or quiet defiance of them.

Today, many of our rural home and landowners find themselves standing at that fine line between compliance and defiance. They are not the first to stand there. It’s a place where change is born, and crossing that line has led to some of history’s most significant turning points. They include, but are not limited to:

· The Protestant Reformation
· The Magna Carta
· The Declaration of Independence
· The Underground Railroad
· The women’s vote
· Ghandi, whose nonviolent defiance brought down the British Empire
· Rosa Parks, whose refusal to move to the back of the bus inspired a movement
· Martin Luther King, whose articulate nonviolence led to the Civil Rights Act
· Billy Frank, whose insistence on exercising his treaty rights led to a transformation of fisheries policies and how we view treaties between the United States and the Tribes.

Each of these turning points was initiated by either an individual or by a small group of people who felt they had finally been pushed too far by massive self-serving institutions that were oppressing them and people like them. None of them gained the public support of those institutions easily, but all of them eventually did.

When we develop public policy designed to protect wildlife habitat and other critical areas of our landscapes, we are materially affecting the lives, aspirations, and opportunities of the people who live there. In many instances, those policies are set by government officials who do not live in areas where the rules and regulations will be implemented. Because their assigned goal is to protect the critical areas, wildlife habitat, and the environment in general, the people who will be most impacted are often relegated to the back of the bus.

The regulatory frameworks coming out of these public policy exercises are often touted to provide a wonderful public good. However, the costs of providing that public good is laid solidly on the shoulders of a small minority of the population, the rural home and landowners. Bearing the financial and regulatory burden of the regulation, they become rather less than happy campers.

Good public policy in regulating human activities in the rural landscape results in a shared onus between the rural landowners and their urban counterparts. The financial burden of these regulations should be shared evenly across the entire population. Unfortunately, good policy in this light is extremely rare.

Finding themselves unfairly burdened, and unable to find a way to change the situation, many people who would otherwise be fully law-abiding citizens will find it necessary to bend or ignore those rules that make it impossible to do what they feel needs to be done in order to care for their property and enjoy its use. This is where they step over the line from compliance to defiance. For most, it is not a comfortable place to be, and they don’t enjoy being there, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

Let’s take the example of a family who doesn’t have a lot of money, and is heating their home with wood. They don’t have enough disposable income to upgrade to a certified wood stove or furnace. A cold front comes in, a temperature inversion develops, and the Clean Air Board temporarily bans the use of uncertified wood stoves and furnaces. Faced with the option of complying with the law and seeing their kids shiver, or breaking the law and having their children be warm, what do you suppose this family will decide to do?

Let’s say that this same family comes into enough building materials and money to be able to add onto their home a few months later. A couple of weeks before they are going to begin, a pair of eagles comes along and starts building a nest within a hundred feet of the house. What do you think is going to happen? Given the fact that eagles successfully raise their young next door to the hospital in Port Townsend, where their nest occasionally gets rocked by the rotor wash from helicopters, does it make a whole lot of sense to prohibit building activity at this family’s home?

Many of today’s land use regulations appear to be based firmly on a notion that home and landowners simply cannot be trusted to provide adequate stewardship of their properties without the “assistance” of a dog’s breakfast of rules, many of which seem to be rooted in academia rather than on-the-ground reality. While this may seem a harsh assessment to those making the rules, it does reflect the perception of property owners, particularly those who live in our countrysides. For a large share of those landowners, that perception is their reality.

Home and landowners, particularly those living in our rural areas, experience of land use regulation is that there is a complex web of rules that gradually become ever more confining. Urban homeowners often come away from the permit center with the same impression. The increasing pace of new rules today comes across as what you might think of as regulatory galloping goalposts. There is never any certainty that today’s rules will be deemed adequate by “the wise” at the next review of an ordinance, and this uncertainty drives unintended consequences to the fore.

The net effect of this process can easily become apparent in the form of environmental degradation. When forest landowners become concerned that they will not be allowed to harvest their trees in a few years, they are going to harvest sooner rather than risk not being able to harvest at all. Large forest landowners then seek to subdivide to sell large lots to new owners, convinced they will never be allowed to harvest again.

In a time when activist groups are attempting to convince local jurisdictions to include the presence of lights, noise, and pets as factors justifying factors for increasing buffer widths, requiring large pasture acreages per animal unit on the property, and generally micromanaging human activities in our landscapes, the people being managed feel threatened. When policy-makers develop rules adopting the activists’ prescriptions in order to avoid litigation, the citizens are likely to respond by simply not complying with the new restrictions.

The people suffering the weight of land use restrictions on their use of their property are increasingly turning to the courts for relief because they feel that their local governments are not willing to listen or work with them. It’s an expensive and extraordinarily time consuming option, but often the only form of redress open to them. So, in many places around the nation, home and landowners are banding together to share the costs of litigation. This way, or through the assistance of public interest law firms that are qualified to manage cases from the local level all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, they are able to bring their voices and concerns to an imperfectly balanced playing field.

Having learned that getting favorable legislation passed is often only the first round in a complex process, more local and state governments are being offered the choice to be sued by one or more activist organizations, or by their own citizens.

Meanwhile, whether in town or out in the countryside, individual home and landowners are facing the choice of whether to comply with or whether to defy individual provisions of overly onerous rules and regulations. This fraying around the edges of the rule of law is not a good thing, but it is a reality . . . and in most cases, it’s an avoidable reality.

First, before entering into a regulatory process, government should be able to demonstrate that a problem needing a solution actually exists. The nature and scope of the problem should be confirmed by empirical science.

Next, government needs to notify the people whose activities will be regulated of the intent to regulate. This notice should be sent individually by mail to every citizen who will be affected by any new regulations. These people should also be invited to participate in the process of developing solutions to the identified problem(s).

Third, every effort should be made to solve the identified problem(s) through education and voluntary programs.

Finally, if education and voluntary programs do not provide an adequate solution, a regulator framework can be put in place as the last resort. The process of developing such regulations not only needs to take place in the public space, but it also needs to involved the full participation of agreed upon stakeholder representatives from all groups that will be directly impacted by the regulations.

The financial burden of providing a public good through regulation should then be born by society as a whole, so the individual landowner does not have to bear a disproportionate share of the load.

If this general process is followed, there will be a greater chance that those impacted by the regulations will be more willing to stay on the compliance side of the line, rather than crossing over in defiance.

We can have excellent ecosystem protections while also allowing home and landowners full exercise of their property rights. We can enlist the support and assistance of those landowners through an imaginative and effective combination of education, incentives and collaborative projects. The alternative is an onerous, burdensome regulatory environment which will be observed more in defiance than compliance, and watch our ecosystems go into decline in an angry and confrontational atmosphere.

Compliance or defiance. It’s a choice that we are making at every level, whether we have been aware of doing so or not.

Compliance or defiance. Which are we going to choose?

Planning commission appointments get political

2007-02-15T10:14:00.001-08:00

The following article appeared in the February 14, 2007 edition of the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader.

Planning Commission appointments get political
Just in time for CAO decision, it’s Democrats’ turn to choose

By Allison Arthur
Leader Staff Writer

Two Republican Jefferson County Planning Commission members might lose their seats because their terms have expired and three Democrats are now making the appointments.

Jim Hagen and Dennis Schultz, both Republicans, were appointed to the advisory board when the BOCC was composed of three Republicans. Schultz and Hagen have reapplied, but Democratic commissioners David Sullivan, Phil Johnson and John Austin opted Monday to extend the application deadline until 5 p.m. Friday, Feb.23.

Although it’s not the first time the political pendulum has swung in terms of advisory board appointments, it comes at a time when the controversial Critical Areas Ordinance is being crafted.

As of Tuesday morning, Schultz and Andrew Redling had applied for a seat representing District 1 (Port Townsend. Hagen, Dennis Burke and Pat Farmer had applied for a seat representing District 2 (Tri-Area). The four-year terms of those seats expire March 17.

Planning commission member Bill Miller, a Democrat, asked commissioners to continue accepting applications, while planning commission member Bud Schindler presented commissioners with a petition signed by five of the nine commission members urging the board to reappoint Hagen and Schultz. Hagen and Schultz abstained from signing the petition.

Despite support for Hagen and Schultz from other planning commission members, the BOCC decided to accept applications but not readvertise the two openings.

“The fix is in,” commented Richard Hild, a real estate broker and political observer who submitted a petition signed by about 64 people who also support Hagen and Schultz.

Commissioner Phil Johnson said after the meeting that he was concerned about Hagen and had received comments about Hagen specifically.

“I’ve been concerned about the way the Critical Areas Ordinance subcommittee was picked, and the imbalance of it and the fact that Jim put himself on as chair of that committee,” Johnson said. Johnson had not heard concerns about Schultz.

District 2 commissioner Sullivan also had previously expressed concern about the way Hagen conducts planning commission meetings.

“I think we need to keep the politics out of the planning commission if possible and have them tryly represent the citizens of Jefferson County,” Sullivan said Tuesday. He said he has seen some meetings conducted by Hagen, and he did not think they were well run.

“Planning commissioners set the tone of the meeting, and I think I would look for a tone that sheds more light and less heat,” Sullivan said.

Even before the BOCC meeting began on Monday, the planning commission appointments were the talk of those waiting, including Hagen and Schultz, who wondered whether they would be reappointed.

“Dennis is the only voice for terrestrial farming,” Hagen said of Schultz.

Schultz estimated he has put in 1,500 volunteer hours on the planning commission since being appointed by Republicans Glen Huntingford, Dan Titterness, and Pat Rodgers.

Schultz also received an award last year from Gov. Christine Gregoire’s office for his work on a new agriculture code for Jefferson County. Schultz said he had a choice between accepting the award and attending a meeting to discuss the county’s CAO. He chose the CAO meeting.

Hagen estimated he has put in more than 1,000 hours since being appointed by the Republicans three years ago.

It was also noted by Hagen that Hagen and Schultz had been the only ones who had expressed an interest in the planning commission seats until Katherine Baril of Washington State University Extension sent out an e-mail the day before the deadline, advising people of the two openings.

Baril said Tuesday that WSU trains volunteers, maintains a list of volunteers, and sends out notices of positions regularly. “We’ve done this before on many positions,” Baril said, adding that it was the second notice she had put out about the vacancies.

But at the meeting on Monday, there were questions about whether she did that at the request of commissioners. She said she did not receive such a request.

“It raised questions in my mind of political games,” said Norm MacLeod, who voiced support for Hagen and Schultz and questioned why the BOCC would continue to accept applications. He suggested the board was “trolling” for candidates by doing so. He also likened it to changing horses in the middle of the stream, referring to the continuing work on the controversial CAO.

Several others spoke of the upcoming land-use issues slated to come before the planning commission this year.

Hild said the county would get either “compliance or defiance” from landowners, and he said landowners support Schultz and Hagen “because they feel they’ve gotten a fair shake.”

There also has been e-mail correspondence to commissioners about the appointments.

Dr. Kenneth M. Brooks, who has been working with the planning commission, also wrote a letter endorsing Schultz and Hagen. He lauded the men for their leadership and innovative approaches.

“Their continued contribution, as members of the planning commission, is considered essential to further completion of a model ordinance that will be protective of our critical areas and seen as legitimate by Jefferson County’s citizens.” Brooks wrote.

Teri Nomura, Jefferson County Democratic Party chairwoman, told The Leader that appointments are up to the BOCC.

“It makes sense that if you have a more liberal commissioner they would want the advice of a more liberal planning commission,” Nomura said. “But with the structure that’s already there, they will actually have a balanced planning commission.

Democratic panel may nix terms for GOP planners

2007-02-13T10:43:00.001-08:00

The folloowing article appeared in the February 13, 2007 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Democratic panel may nix terms for GOP planners

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — Several residents and colleagues rallied Monday behind the reappointment by the all-Democratic Board of County Commissioners of two Jefferson County planning commissioners who are Republicans.

Jim Hagen, the Planning Commission chairman, and member Dennis Schultz have requested reappointments.

Their four-year term expires March 17.

The Planning Commission is an advisory board to the county commissioners, and its members are appointed by the three commissioners.

At Monday's commissioners meeting at the county courthouse, Planning Commissioner Bud Schindler handed them a petition signed by five of the nine planning commissioners supporting the reappointment of Hagen and Schultz.

Period extended

The county commmissioners also are considering four other applications for the seats held by Schultz and Hagen in commissioner Districts 1 and 2, respectively.

The deadline to receive applications was last Friday, but the county commissioners voted unanimously Monday to extend the application period until Feb. 23.

"We still have applications coming in, and there is no urgency," said County Commissioner David Sullivan, D—Cape George.

"I'm leaning toward not reappointing (Hagen and Schultz)."

Both County Commissioners Phil Johnson, D—Port Townsend, and John Austin, D—Port Ludlow, said they will wait and see what their qualifications are before deciding appointees to the two positions.

Hagen, vice chair of the Jefferson County Republican Party who lives in Cape George, said he's volunteered about 1,000 hours during the past three years as planning commissioner.

"It's going to be a very dynamic year for the Planning Commission," Hagen said.

He cited the critical areas ordinance, shoreline master plan, proposed Black Point master plan resort at Brinnon, an industrial land bank and about 15 expected comprehensive plan amendments.

'Experience important'

"With that kind of workload, experience is going to be important," Hagen said.

Schultz mentioned in his letter seeking reappointment that he earned the county an award from Gov. Chris Gregoire last year for authoring the county's agriculture unified development code update.

He pointed out he is the only planning commissioner ever to be so recognized.

"I have a very strong interest in agriculture and small farming in the county." Schultz said.

Planning Commissioner Bill Miller, an active Jefferson County Democrat, addressed the county commissioners at their Monday meeting.

"Even though I recognize the experience of the two planning commissioners, their terms are expiring," Miller said.

He suggested the county commissioners extend the application deadline, which they did.

Resident Richard Hild presented a petition with about 65 signatures in support of Hagen and Schultz.

And the commissioners said they received several e-mails also in support of both men.

The commissioners will conduct open interviews in the coming weeks during their regular Monday meetings for those who have applied.

For residents living in Districts 1 and 2 interested in applying for the non-paid seats, write county commissioners at P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 or e-mail them at jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us.

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

The Jefferson County Critical Areas Committee has entered a very active phase in its process

2007-01-21T21:22:00.000-08:00

The Jefferson County Critical Areas Committee has entered a very active phase in its process, and contrasting viewpoints are coming forward.

The January 18 meeting was held at the Quilcene Community Center, and more than a hundred people came to see the committee in action and to weigh in with their comments. The personal stories that were told, along with the reactions to the committee discussion, carried landowners' concerns for their futures with an eloquence that is often absent from the policy-making process.

As we work our way through the Jefferson County CAO update, we are learning a lot about how other counties are doing things, what kinds of policy approaches they've used that have passed muster with the Growth Management Hearings Boards, and what they've done that didn't work out. We are also learning what pieces were missing when policy efforts were turned down. All of this new knowledge will be used in developing the committee's recommendations for the planning commission.

At the moment, two areas of the CAO are noteworthy for their contentiousness. One revolves around wetland buffers, and the other concerns channel migration zones.

Wetlands Buffers

Wetlands buffer widths were one of the main issues that concerned many people when the initial draft of Jefferson County's CAO update was published last May. That document called for buffers of up to 450 feet for wetlands that had not been previously categorized and delineated.

Dr. Kenneth Brooks is a member of the CAO committee, and amongst his many qualifications is his extensive experience in delineating wetlands in the Pacific Northwest. So far, he's done more than 400 throughout the region.

Dr. Brooks accomplished an independent review of the Department of Ecology's best available science (BAS) package as it relates to wetlands. He then provided supplemental peer reviewed BAS to better inform the delineation policy recommendations he has made available to the committee in draft form.

You can download a copy of that draft from the list of resources on the right side of the home page of our web log, located at

http://olyfarm.blogspot.com/

The draft recommendation includes a discussion of Ecology's BAS and Dr. Brooks' supplemental BAS, which he uses in designing his refinements to the buffer setting process.

We've also made the draft Appendix 1 document available for your review, mainly because of the way it illustrates how a minority of the buffer subcommittee feels about what they would prefer to see.

Dr. Brooks feels that Jefferson County should adopt an approach that ensures protection of wetlands functions while respecting the rights of landowners to use and enjoy their property. Monitoring would ensure that the often narrower buffers are effective in protecting water quality, and that there would be an adaptive system for modifying the buffers if water quality results demonstrated a need for a wider buffer to correct an identified problem.

Because some of those who reviewed Dr. Brooks' work questioned his qualifications, he made his CV available for review, and we've included it as a link from our resources section on the home page of this web log (address above). Please feel free to download it and learn more about this superlative professional.

Channel migration zones

One of the areas addressed in the Second Settlement Agreement between Jefferson County and the Washington Environmental Council was channel migration zones (CMZs). These are not directly addressed in Washington's Growth Management Act, but are briefly mentioned in the Shoreline Management Act. Nonetheless, WEC insisted that Jefferson County adopt regulations for CMZs as part of the CAO update.

The environmental activists on the CAO committee want the county to include CMZ regulation in the CAO update, but other members of the committee question the wisdom of doing so until and unless required through amendment of the GMA or some other statutory requirement.

To that end, a brief statement was made during the meeting, followed by a motion regarding channel migration zone regulation:

Discussion

Under the requirements of the Second Settlement Agreement between the Washington Environmental Council and Jefferson County, the committee is discussing the regulation of channel migration zones. We have been made aware that such regulation is not required under the provisions of Washington’s Growth Management Act, and is only tangentially addressed in the state’s Shoreline Management Act.

With the exception of the requirement set forth in the Second Settlement Agreement, inclusion of a regulatory framework in the Critical Areas Ordinance for channel migration zones is an optional exercise of powers on the part of Jefferson County.

The addition of regulatory provisions regarding channel migration zones in the Critical Areas Ordinance will have significant impacts on a significant, but as yet undetermined number of private property owners who live and/or conduct business within the boundaries of Jefferson County’s channel migration zones.

We can presume that the vast majority of those landowners are not fully aware of the intent to regulate their use of their property, and in particular that they are not aware that such regulation would be promulgated in the absence of a state mandate under the Growth Management Act.

We can further presume that the potentially affected landowners have a vital interest in any discussions regarding the possible regulation of their use of property under the provisions of the resulting Critical Areas Ordinance update.

Because any regulatory recommendations we send forward from this committee have great potential to materially affect the lives and dreams of channel migration zone landowners, we must assure that they have ample opportunity to participate in any decision-making process that affects their futures. To do otherwise would be a great disservice on our part.

Motion

That this committee not make a decision on recommendations regarding channel migration zones until the county:

· identifies all privately owned properties in Jefferson County that would be affected by channel migration zone regulatory provisions, to include those properties potentially falling into any buffer zones set beyond the actual channel migration zones.

· Provides a complete list of the identified properties, their parcel numbers, and the names and contact information for the property owners to this committee.

· Notifies, by letter, each potentially affected property owner of the intent to regulate under the provisions the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance, and that regulation of channel migration zones is not required by the Washington Growth Management Act, but is a requirement of the Second Settlement Agreement between the Washington Environmental Council and Jefferson County.

· Invites the participation of potentially affected property owners in any process that could result in regulation of their property under provisions of any ordinance relating to channel migration zones.

After some discussion centering primarily around whether the motion was timely, it was tabled for the moment. Once the committee enters into more active discussion about channel migration zones, the motion will once again be brought forward, according to the committee member who introduced it.

We'd like to invite you to take part in the CAO committee's meetings, which are held on Thursdays at 7:00 PM. The venue is generally at WSU's Shold Business Park facility, but occasionally take place in other locations to allow more people the opportunity to observe the process in action.

On Thursday, we went to Seattle

2006-10-13T15:27:00.000-07:00

Thursday, October 12, 2006, farmers from all over Washington converged on Seattle for a tractorcade through the city that showed our urban neighbors that farmers do, indeed, want Initiative 933 to be passed by the voters. While there may be a few farmers across the state who aren't so sure about I-933, our presence in Seattle on a beautiful day in harvest season illustrates just how important the Property Fairness Initiative is to us.

The first farm equipment arrived at the staging area Wednesday evening, with most showing up Thursday morning, arriving at a lot full of tractors, trailers, and trucks ranging from small pickups to tractor-trailers. Several tons of fresh produce was hauled in, too, and would be donated to a Seattle-area food bank when the event came to a close.

With reporters interviewing anyone who looked like a farmer, television cameramen taping everything in sight, and news helicopters circling overhead, the serious work of decorating the tractors and converting trucks and trailers into floats occupied the time between arrival and hitting the streets.

The Seattle Police Department provided security, traffic control, and escort assistance, and we very muck appreciate their efficiency and smooth professionalism. It's not easy to insert a twelve-block-long procession of slow-moving farm equipment into city traffic in the middle of the day, and they did it with apparent ease.

As we got under way, people came out and welcomed us to town . . . well, some did . . . others seemed to just take it as part of another day in Seattle. It's amazing the number of people who are carrying a digital camera around with them as an everyday accessory, though.

The closer we got to downtown, the more cameras we saw, along with smiles, waves, and shouts of encouragement. While some folks seemed to be wondering why there were tractors crawling along the city streets, most were very welcoming.

When we arrived in the midst of the high-rises, though, the number of people who seemed to need to go about their business determined not to notice that anything was different today than yesterday . . . air horns and tractor noise notwithstanding . . . picked up. That made for an interesting mix with those cheering us on.

Approaching Westlake, where a rally in support of the initiative was held, we encountered some folks opposed to I-933 who were holding signs representing their point of view, with others supporting the Property Fairness Initiative mixing in. While some of the opposition folks were fairly chilly, others smiled, and a few even waved. We encountered only a couple of in-your-face opponents the entire time we were in town, and we really appreciate that touch of civility. We're sure the police do, too!

We dropped the rally leaders at Westlake, and motored onward, making the turn back toward the south end of town, continuing to receive more encouragement from many of the pedestrians along the way.

Arriving back at the rally point, most stayed long enough to help load all the produce to take to the food bank. Several of us accompanied the trucks to the delivery point to help unload.

Pumpkins . . . lots and lots of pumpkins . . . and several other types of produce . . . but so many pumpkins!

It turns out that the people associated with this particular food bank had been praying for . . . pumpkins. They had been worrying that there wouldn't be enough to go around for the kids for Halloween, and here we were, with enough for their needs and more to share with other food banks. It's incredibly humbling to be the answer to someone's heartfelt prayer. Tends to underscore the faith you carry in life. Kind of makes you water up some, too.

It was a perfect note in a pretty near perfect day.

County critical areas planning continues

2006-10-05T16:32:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the October 4, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader.

County critical areas planning continues
Volunteer advisory group seeks extension

By Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

Just about a month after they began hashing out ideas for revising a county ordinance designed to protect critical areas such as wetlands, the members of a volunteer advisory committee are asking for six more months to complete their work.

The committee was initially expected to come up with a list of recommendations by the end of September, with the Jefferson County commissioners considering a final draft of the ordinance in January.

The commissioners received the time extension request on Sept. 25.

In an e-mail to the county commissioners Sept. 6, county planning commission member and Critical Areas Ordinance Committee Chairman Jim Hagen wrote, "We have reached agreement that the importance of the proposed ordinance is such that to rush the process would not do the end result justice."

Despite the request for more time, Hagen said he's happy with the committee's progress so far.

"I think it's going very well," he said, adding that the committee had already reached agreement on several topics that should help it begin the process of developing recommendations.

"Everybody would like to see this get done without rushing it," Hagen said.

But not everyone on the committee thinks things are going well.

Committee member Jill Silver, a habitat biologist, said getting the 17-member group to agree to a list of recommendations would probably be a bigger challenge than most committee participants realize.

The different perspectives are valuable in developing a list of recommendations, but without a shared understanding of the basics of the guiding science and planning and growth-management issues, it's hard to have a conversation in which everyone is in agreement on what is at stake.

"We aren't even a tenth of the way through," she said. "We've only dealt with agriculture so far, and we're not yet in agreement on that."

Among the members of the committee, Silver said, "there's a huge range of understanding of basics about landscape processes and the ecologic and economic value of protecting our shared water resources. Then there are varying degrees of understanding of the critical areas ordinance itself."

During a committee meeting two weeks ago, Silver proposed that members of the committee take coordinated field trips to see for themselves what different kinds of wetlands and their buffers look like. That way, she said, they can better understand what a buffer might look like, and how it might be applied.

"Many people, including me, don't know what it's going to look like to put it [the ordinance] on the ground," she said.

Silver also said she would like to see the county develop a map of wetlands and water resources in rapidly developing East Jefferson County, not only as a way to protect them but as a way to provide property owners — and prospective buyers — with some degree of certainty as to how the land can be used, and to develop buffers that protect water storage, flood control and filtration of pollutants.

Despite the committee's slow progress, Silver said the dialogue among people representing such a broad range of perspectives — including farming, building, real estate and the environment — is important to develpo9ing critical areas protections that everyone can live with.

"Maybe we're setting up a process to get at the rest of the ordinance more easily," Silver said. "I'm seeing a benefit from sharing ideas with everyone at the table."

Common ground

Josh Peters, the lead planner at Jefferson County Department of Community Development, said members of the county's planning staff have been asked to attend the committee meetings and provide information and resources as needed.

"We;re going to help them frame the problems they're trying to solve and lay out the issues for consideration so they can develop a list of recommendations to present to the planning commission," he said.

Peters said the county could choose to develop its own wetland guidelines, but doing so carries considerable risk. The process would not only be time-consuming and expensive, but it would also leave the county vulnerable to a legal challenge.

If the county chooses not to adopt the Department of Ecology's guidelines, "are we going to come up with our own scheme?" Peters wondered. "if so, how would we come up with it, and how are we going to prepare to defend our decision?"

Addressing agriculture

So far, much of the discussion has focused on the proposed ordinance's exemption for agricultural land. The exemption allows development of site-specific buffers on some agricultural land, but critics worry that the exemption won't cover land that has ben out of production for a while or that has only recently been converted to farming.

Some committee members advocate the use of farm plans instead of relying on the agricultural exemption — a strategy that was recently approved for use in Island County by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

Developed with the help of resource conservation professionals, the plans outline a farm's natural resources as well as how to protect them and how to maximize the farm's economic profits.

Developing a farm plan costs about $2,500, according to Al Latham, manager of the Jefferson County Conservation District. The cost is usually covered through state conservation grants and county funding.

Latham said he has his doubts about the value of making farm plans mandatory. The conservation district has had a lot of success with getting farmers to take care of steams and other critical areas on a voluntary basis, he said.

"Once you tell them they have to do a farm plan, it changes their feelings about the process," he said.

Besides that, Latham said, farm plans are not designed to be used for regulatory purposes.

"Who is going to go out and monitor each farm? We don't want to do that," he said. "it would change our whole relationship with farmers if we were a regulatory agency."

Making farm plans mandatory also would mean that the agency would have to hire more conservation planners, Latham said.

"If there was a deadline given by which everyone had to have a farm plan, I'd say we'd need three more people, at least, for at least the first year," Latham said.

Planning for the future

Silver said she hopes the long-term solution will take into consideration not only the needs of current residents of Jefferson County but also of those yet to come.

"I'm looking ahead 20, 30, 50 years from now," she said. "I want to know we have the natural system in place to support whatever developing is going to take place in this county."

The availability of water also is key to maintaining the economic value of land, Silver said. Educating people about the value of wetlands not only as wildlife habitat but also as the source for replenishment of water supplies is key to gaining acceptance for land-use regulations designed to protect them.

"I want people to understand why we need to protect water," she said. "If we just ram it down their throats, they're just going to fight against it."

I-933: Property rights at center of debate

2006-10-04T17:24:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the October 4, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader.

I-933: Property rights at center of debate

By Fred Obee
Leader Staff Writer

It's easy to see why Roger Short distrusts government regulators.

A mile and a half of slow-moving Chimacum Creek passes through his property, and over the decades, the government has led efforts to straighten the creek, cut down trees, plant canary grass and eradicate beavers. Today, environmental planners would recommend just the opposite.

At one time, with the backing of government agencies, the object was to put as much land in production as possible by draining wetlands. Today, setbacks to preserve wetlands and protect salmon have grown so restrictive that Short claims his Chimacum Valley farm isn't worth what he paid for it 20 years ago.

"Overregulation squeezes out the little guy and opens the door for the big guy," Short told an election forum crowd at the Masonic Hall in Port Townsend on Sept. 27. "The government needs to think before it acts."

Short said he thinks the answer is Initiative 933, which is on the ballot this November.

I-933 provisions

If approved by voters, I-933 would work like this: If government regulations reduce property values, state and local governments would be required to pay owners for their loss or waive the rules and allow a proposed development to go forward. Compensation would be paid when any portion of a property is required to remain in its natural state, when logging is restricted or when new regulations prohibit uses that were legal on Jan. 1, 1996, the initiative says.

Opponents, however, say if approved I-933 will cause a tangle of confusion, will require even more government bureaucracy to process claims, will add uncertainty and delay to land-use decisions and will open rural lands to widespread development.

Elizabeth Davis, a Whidbey Island attorney and chair of a League of Women Voters committee that has studied the issue, told the Masonic Hall crowd the wording of the initiative extends beyond real estate to include all real property, including water rights, and even such things as boats, cars, trailers and stocks. While the initiative is being pushed by the Washington Farm Bureau, it applies to any properties, not just farmland.

She said a law adopted in Oregon which also seeks compensation for aggrieved property owners has resulted in more than 2,500 claims totaling more than $5.6 billion. So far, no compensation has been paid.

"That's a pretty good indication of what will happen in Washington," she said.

The Oregon law, called Measure 37, is more far reaching than I-933, everyone agrees, but its premise is the same. Under that law, one property owner proposed to build a pumice mine and hydrothermal power plant inside the Newberry National Volcanic Monument in central Oregon. When told he couldn't go forward with the project, he claimed the state must pay him #203 million in compensation or waive the rules and let him build. If I-933 passes, property owners could file similar claims here, so long as the use proposed was legal on Jan. 1, 1996.

Not a new issue

This isn't the first time advocates have asked for a statewide vote to protect private property rights.

In 1995, Referendum 48 was placed on the ballot. Although worded differently, like I-933 it would also have required government to pay landowners when regulations imposed for "public benefit" reduced property values. The referendum was defeated at the polls.

The issue fueling the discontent then was the imposition of the Growth Management Act, which restricts uses in rural areas and requires that growth be funneled to cities and towns. Today, growing resentment over the government use of eminent domain nationally and locally for increased setbacks from streams and wetlands is pushing the property rights issue to the forefront once again.

Mark Dembro, board president of the Jefferson Land Trust , said he knows that history is replete with examples of bad government, and he said he knows current growth management laws can be improved. He supports working though those specific problems at the local level, but he's opposed to I-933.

"It's the speculator's bill of rights," he says of I-933. "The facts are the facts. It's bad news."

Dembro said all governance is a balance of individual rights and the rights of community as a whole. Zoning might restrict one person, but it also protects neighbors from inappropriate uses popping up next door. Environmental laws might restrict an individual property owner, but it is in the community's interest to protect the environment, he argues.

Cost of implementation

The initiative has caused a storm of controversy across the sate as government agencies and interest groups weigh in.

An analysis by the state Office of Financial Management, for example, estimated that I-933 would cost state agencies between $2 billion and #2.18 billion in the next six years.

Cities and towns would have to bay between $3.8 billion and $5.3 billion, while counties would pay $1.49 billion to $1.51 billion, the study says.

Supporters of the initiative dispute those numbers. They say they are based on the worst case possible and that if governments are careful and enact legislation that doesn't harm property owners, the cost won't be anywhere near that high.

John Stuhlmiller of the Washington Farm Bureau, and one of the drafters of the initiative, told the Port Townsend crowd that governments managed to find the money to pay for growth management, and that cost was easily in the millions.

"The GMA is stopping reasonable us," Stuhlmiller said. "This is our greatest shot at fairness."

At the Masonic Hall League of Women Voters forum, one questioner asked Short whether his support for I-933 means he's unsatisfied with current county efforts to find a compromise on development setbacks from wetlands and streams.

"The process we're involved in right now is very good," Short acknowledged, but he said he's still wary.

"There's just been so much that's bad in the past," he said.

I-933 turns contentious between foes at forum

2006-10-04T11:35:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the October 3, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

I-933 turns contentious between foes at forum

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — One sees I-933 as damaging to the community, grossly anti-government and marketed deceitfully to the voters.

The other sees it as a way to rein in out-of-control government that is threatening his livelihood as a farmer.

Mark Dembro, Jefferson Land Trust president, and longtime Chimacum farmer Roger Short faced off Monday before about 7- people attending the Port Townsend Chamber of Commerce luncheon at Fort Worden State Park Commons.

"I-933 is all about a process to be followed by government and how to do it," said Short, adding he has experienced some "horror stories" dealing with government as a small farmer.

He urged residents to carefully read I-933, which goes to the voters of Jefferson County through Nov. 7.

Outright, the proposal states: "This act is intended to protect the use and value of private property while providing for a healthy environment and ensuring that government agencies do not damage the sue of value of private property, except if necessary to prevent threats to human health and safety."

Dembro, who as a land rust leader helps protect more than 1,200 acres county-wide, takes a dim view of I-933.

It would, he said, set up a pay or waive system, letting property owners collect a cash payment from government by claiming that a law prevents them from the most profitable use of their property.

If the government won't pay or does not have the money, government must waive the law.

"In other words," said Dembro, "if we, the taxpayers, do not pay an individual property owner for following the law, the property owner would be free to ignore the law."

Pay or waive

What could happen, Dembro said, is developers could profit while the rest of the community pays.

Dembro said many farmers oppose I-933, including those with the Western Washington Agricultural Association, United Farm Workers, Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland and others.

Short, however, is not one of them.

He said continued over-regulation of small farmers will cause them to fade away in time, with conglomerate national and international corporations set to take over.

For example, Short said, "more food is being grown in South America."

For this reason and others, he said, "government needs to think before it acts."

More land to preserve?

With 85 percent of Jefferson County in public hands, whey does the state Department of Fish and Wildlife need more land to preserve, Short wondered.

While opponents say the proposal would cost taxpayers up to $4 billion, Short said, it is accurate to say that it would cost $8 million to enact, according to the state Office of Budget and Management.

Dembro argued that he did not believe that I-933 supporters see what damage the act would cause.

"I believe they have made the mistake of putting their trust in people who sell the lie that government is the problem," said Dembro.

"The government is us."

Dembro called I-933 more than just an attack on farmers.

"I-933 is a broad attack on our power as citizens to authorize our government to use legitimate and necessary functions of government for our public benefit," he said.

Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Understanding the buffer zone battle

2006-09-21T12:28:00.000-07:00

The article following our comments appeared in the September 20, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

While we understand that county officials prefer to characterize the 450 buffer as a "waiver buffer" for those who have enough land so that a 450 buffer does not impact their opportunity to build a home, there are others for whom this is not a practical option. For them, the draft's 450 foot buffer for an uncategorized wetland comes into play as the default. On page 14 of the May 17, 2006 draft update, Note 3 following table 3.3 states:

"Uncategorized wetlands shall be assumed to be Wetland Category 1 with wetland characteristics that require the largest buffer width in the respective wetland category, unless an assessment is made of the wetland in order to determine its category and classify the wetland according to the wetland characteristics in Table 3-4B of this section. The applicant shall be responsible for determining the wetland category and characteristics, and that determination must be made by a qualified professional."

We understand this to mean that an uncategorized wetland is assumed to be a Category I wetland with high land use. Referring back to Table 3-3, that means that the wetland has a 450 foot buffer until such time as the applicant pays a qualified professional to determine the wetland category and characteristics. To us, that makes the 450 foot buffer for Wetland Category I at high levels of land use. We think Note 3 is quite clear in its intent, and it sounds very much like a default buffer to us.

Perhaps it's the difference in perspective brought to the table when you are the landowner who has not yet hired a wetlands professional to characterize and delineate the wetlands on your parcel, rather than if you are in the regulator's seat?

Understanding the buffer zone battle
County trying to educate on complicated issue

By Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

Count planning staffers bristle when property owners point to a section of the critical areas ordinance that they believe requires a "default" buffer of 450 feet unless the owner of the property pays a professional wetland specialist to delineate the outer edge of the wetland.

Cost estimates on wetland delineation vary, but habitat biologist Jill Silver said the bill could be as high as $2,000, depending on the property.

Critics of the proposed ordinance say it puts the brakes on just about any new activity adjacent to a wetland except for basic lawn maintenance. Unless they want to pay for the delineation, anything more they do with their land can't encroach within 450 feet of a wetland.

But county planner Josh Peters says the ordinance does not establish a 450-foot default buffer. Instead, it allows a property owner to go ahead with building plans without paying for a wetland survey.

Jefferson County's revised critical areas ordinance proposes to use a wetland management system developed by the state Department of Ecology. Under the system, wetlands are categorized according to their level of function, with those scoring the highest level for wildlife habitat requiring the largest buffers to protect that function.

According to Peters, the maximum 450-foot buffer — which is provided as an option for landowners who decide they don't want to hire a specialist to perform a wetland survey — applies only when high-intensity land uses are proposed adjacent to wetlands that have been determined or presumed to have high habitat value.

The "waiver buffer" option does not apply to geologically sensitive areas, flood-prone areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas such as streams, and areas where water drains rapidly into an underground aquifer.

For example, under the proposed critical areas ordinance, the standard buffer for a wetland that has high habitat function might be 300 feet when a high-intensity land use, such as residential development on one acre or less, is proposed. In that case, a landowner who opts not to hire a wetland expert to delineate the wetland must stay 450 feet from the outer edge of the wetland. A related discussion is who would pay for the initial wetland assessment — the county or the property owner.

According to Peters, the DOE guidelines that would be incorporated into the ordinance are more complex than current county standards, but also more flexible. Wetland buffers might increase or decrease from current standards, depending on the land use proposed and the functions and values of the specific wetland.

In East Jefferson County, the typical freshwater wetland would probably be rated as moderate-value habitat, according to Donna Frostholm, a part-time wetlands specialist at the Department of Community Development. Land with a wetland of moderate habitat value that would be used for a moderate-intensity land use, such as a single-family home on greater than one acre, would likely require a 110-foot buffer in the county's current regulations.

A person seeking a county approval to construct a building may be allowed to apply a smaller buffer through a habitat management plan that addresses how the resource will be protected. The county also offers a "reasonable use variance" for land where critical areas severely constrain it use.

PT Council debates I-933 forum

2006-09-07T13:31:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the September 7, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

PT Council debates I-933 forum

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — City leaders were setting up a "bully pulpit" by even suggesting that the city sponsor a public forum on the Property Fairness Act, a city councilman argued.

"The place for debate is the ballot box," Geoff Masci told Council members during a lively Council debate late Tuesday night on setting up a public forum on Initiative I-933.

The initiative — which would require government to pay compensation for regulations that devalue private property — goes to voters Nov. 7.

It requires compensation if any portion of private property is required to be left in a natural state, such as a buffer requirement in a plat, Watts said.

Debate about forum

Tuesday night's Council discussion was punctuated by comments from I-933 supporters in Jefferson County, including Chimacum farmer Roger Short, real estate agent Richard Hild and Jim Hagen, Jefferson County Republican Party vice chairman.

Hild said Masci's remarks were "right on the mark."

"Government has the ability to pass rules and more rules . . . without ever informing the public affected by those rules," said Hild.

Supporters remarks were countered by Port Townsend environmental activist Nancy Dorgan, who said she supported getting the message out to voters.

"This is the most extreme threat to our environment the state has ever faced," Dorgan said.

Masci made his remarks after City Attorney John Watts gave an overview of the initiative, calling it "ambiguous in many areas."

Masci said Watts cited information from the Association of Washington Cities, which has a "vested interest" in the issue as a lobbyist group for municipalities statewide.

Councilman Frank Benskin said he also saw Watts' presentation as one-sided.

Watts said the Council's options could include conducting a public hearing or forum, or even adopting a resolution on where the body stands on the matter.

Both Mayor Mark Welch and Councilwoman Michelle Sandoval said they merely wanted a hearing or forum to help educate and engage voters.

"I asked John (Watts) to provide us information on how to hold a public meeting," Sandoval told Masci, explaining part of the reason the initiative was again brought before the Council after initial discussion in August.

Hagen, however, contended that if education was the aim, then Watts should have mentioned the benefits of I-933.

"There are increasing gaps between government and people," said Hagen.

Short, who last spring rallied county farmers to park their tractors in front of the Jefferson County courthouse against proposed county critical areas proposals, said monetary compensation is not the only option under I-933.

"It can be a mitigation or a waiver," said Short. "I feel I-933 is a very middle-of-the-road type initiative."

Councilwoman Catherine Robinson said she believed a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Jefferson County would be more appropriate.

"I'd really like to see a forum on this but I don't think the city should hold such a forum," said Robinson.

Councilwoman Laurie Medlicott agreed that she did not see such a forum within the city responsibilities.

Indeed, the Jefferson County League of Women Voters is scheduling an I-933 forum on Sept. 27.

Councilman Scott Walker said he saw a forum as an opportunity for the Council to take a stand on the issue.

"(The initiative) says that cities don't have a right to regulate for the common good," said Walker.

Watts cited information form the Association of Washington Cities, which estimates statewide expenses for compensation and other related costs at between $3.5 billion and $4 billion.

He said the initiative's definition of "damaging use or value" of private property is "extremely broad."

"In conclusion, I-933 is ambiguous in many areas, such as the scope of the laws covered, what laws are exempt, and the scope of a city's waiver authority," Watts stated in his memo to the Council.

"From those who have studied the initiative, it is difficult to to know the impact of what is being voted on.

"What appears certain is that there will be significant costs to jurisdictions to respond to I-933 and that the courts will be involved in determining when government should compensate property owners, and to what extent."

Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Critical areas process linked to agenda issue

2006-09-06T12:37:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the September 6, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

Critical areas process linked to agenda issue

By Barney Burke
Leader Staff Writer

Jefferson County's draft critical areas ordinance in effect establishes a default buffer of 450 feet from sensitive environmental features such as wetlands. As written, property owners who want to build something or change the way they use their land within 450 feet of a critical area cannot do so unless they hire an expert to demonstrate that the project will not damage the critical area. Those who cannot or choose not to pay for an expert must not encroach on the 450-foot distance.

The ordinance has been influenced by two agreements between the county and the Washington Environmental Council (WEC), a state-wide environmental group that includes the Olympic Peninsula-based Olympic Environmental Council. WEC has contested the county's land use regulations before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

In January 2006, WEC and the county signed an agreement whereby the county is to confer with WEC in adopting and implementing regulations for critical areas. The agreement also provides that WEC can seek additional regulatory requirements with respect to agricultural exemptions "if it concludes that the voluntary compliance program is failing to meet its (WEC's) objective to pro0tect wetland and fish habitat areas from impacts related to agriculture."

After reviewing public records, Belenski concluded that WEC had eight months (April through December of 2005) to negotiate with the county and provide a checklist it wanted the county to use. After the second agreement was signed, the county spent about six months preparing for the June 20 hearing where farmers and other landowners protested.

"The farmers didn't get to give one of those [checklists]: I didn't get to give one of those," said Belenski. "The public got one ceremonial meeting."

Belenski finds it ironic that the agreement with WEC states that "The county will commit staff and resources to collaborate with other stakeholders" when many of those stakeholders, particularly farmers, have complained that they were given no meaningful opportunity for input prior to the county's attempt to adopt the CAO on June 20.

Commissioner Phil Johnson (D-Port Townsend) said that it took longer than expected to prepare the draft ordinance, leaving elected officials — and opponents — without enough time to review it. "I think we're listening to everyone," said Commissioner David Sullivan (D-Cape George).

The county and WEC had agreed to adopt the CAO by June 18, 2006. After loud protests from the public, the county extended the deadline to Jan. 18, 2007, and is working with people who want input in the process.

Belenski's suit seeks to nullify the county's agreement with WEC. But he cautions that even if he wins, WEC can still make its case to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, and his lawsuit might not directly affect that body's proceedings.

County sued over meetings

2006-09-06T11:55:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the September 6, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

County sued over meetings
Decisions leading to critical areas ordinance are questioned

By Barney Burke
Leader Staff Writer

A lawsuit alleging that Jefferson County has violated the Washington Open Meetings Act raises questions about a series of actions that led to the draft critical areas ordinance opposed by some farmers and property rights advocates.

Acting as his own attorney, Mats Mats resident Mike Belenski filed suit in Clallam County Superior Court Aug. 28. According to the suit, he alleges that Jefferson County violated the Open Meetings Act and other state laws by not giving adequate notice and agendas for meetings, making decisions in executive sessions, changing agendas retroactively, and approving minutes that made no mention of actions taken on topics such as gravel mining and the Port Hadlock sewer project.

Chief Civil Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez said Tuesday that the suit has "no merit."

The suit asks the court to nullify the county's agreement with the Washington Environmental Council, a statewide environmental group that has been a primary influence in the draft critical areas ordinance (CAO). It also asks that the court order the county to disclose the names of lawsuits discussed in executive sessions on litigation, to follow its own rules on meetings, and to create written minutes for all meetings since Jan. 1, 2005.

Belenski, 49, said he has no financial or personal interest in the critical areas ordinance, and that he has not been working in concert with its opponents.

"I'd never heard of that," Belenski said of the critical areas ordinance. But two days before the June 20 public hearing when farmers drove tractors to the courthouse in protest, someone called him at home and urged him to attend. "How can you sit and do nothing?" he thought.

"Then I started turning in public records requests," said Belenski.

Whether or not he prevails in court, Belenski thinks he's already had an effect on the county's meeting procedures. "You can make a difference if they know that you're watching 'em," he said.

Monday, Tuesday

Belenski made his first request related to the CAO on June 26, and since then, the county has not conducted a Board of Commissioners meeting on a Tuesday. Belenski's suit argues that the county's long-standing practice of having a board meeting on Monday and a second one on Tuesday violates the state Open Meetings Act.

"Anybody who's sitting there Monday morning's got no idea that they're gonna reconvene and take action on Tuesday," said Belenski.

But attorney Alvarez said that whenever the county commissioners have met on a Tuesday, it has been properly noticed on the Monday agenda.

"Maybe it's a coincidence that those Tuesday meetings stopped the same week plaintiff made his request," Belenski wrote.

"It's definitely a coincidence," said John Fishbach, county administrator. Fishbach said it was his own suggestion that the meeting be consolidated to Mondays, and Commissioners Phil Johnson and David Sullivan confirmed his explanation. Commissioner Pat Rodgers is out of town this week.

Agenda, minutes

When Belenski started checking printed agendas he received in response to records requests with agendas posted on the county's website, he learned that they are not the same. The website posts the agendas in their original form, and then an "indexed agenda" is subsequently made, which includes items added.

"It's more informative," said Alvarez of preparing revised agendas.

On Feb. 22, 2006, the board approved a letter supporting new surface mining regulations that was not on the agenda, according to Belenski. The suit notes that representatives of Fred Hill Materials and opponents to the company's planned pit-to-pier sand and gravel mining project attend virtually all Monday meetings, but apparently were not in attendance on that Tuesday.

The original agenda for a Dec. 6, 2005 meeting reportedly made no mention of an executive session that occurred that day, according to the suit. "To document this executive session, the commissioners retroactively altered the Monday, Dec. 5, 2005 agenda that was previously provided to the public in an attempt to legitimize the existence of an executive session that took place after the Monday meeting had taken place," he claims.

Belenski also listened to audio recordings of meetings and compared them to the official minutes and found that some topics were not on the original agenda, nor in the meeting minutes.

The minutes of March 15, 2005 report that the commissioners approved letters of support for a grant concerning Tamanawas Rock and utility tax legislation. According to the lawsuit, the tape of that meeting reveals that the commissioners also discussed and acted on the county budget, the Hadlock sewer project, and the WRIA 17 water rights regulations.

The issues left out of those minutes are important to the public, Belenski said. "I don't want them (the commissioners) to decide what's good for me to know."

State rules loose

Commissioners Johnson and Sullivan, attorney Alvarez and clerk Lorna Delaney all said that it is the county's practice to include every "motion" or action in the minutes of every meeting.

Nancy Krier, senior assistant attorney general, told The Leader that state law requires that minutes be kept and made available to the public, but does not specify their content or format. The state Attorney General's Office advises agencies to record all motions in minutes, but notes that advice is not binding, she said.

Violations of the Open Meetings Act can bring a fine of $100 per person per incident, but Belenski noted that a judge must find that a commissioner "knowingly" violated the law in order to impose a fine.

Belenski said he might amend his complaint if more information comes to light, and he's planning to file interrogatories with the court so he can ask county officials about "what they knew and when they knew it."

"I'm still diggin'," said Belenski, who said he has no plans to seek elected office.

(Contact Barney Burke at bburke@ptleader.com.)

Letter to the editor

2006-08-30T20:36:00.000-07:00

The letter to the editor following our remarks appeared in the August 30, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

It's been noted in the media on several occasions that there is considerable confusion as to the provisions of the draft proposed update to Jefferson County's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). This can lead to some heated conversations and public testimony about the specific provisions, strengths, and weaknesses of the update.

Another challenge is that column inches in newspapers are too few to do the topic justice. Given the brevity that reporters must digest complex information into, incomplete understanding of the issues can lead to reactions that produce unfortunate confrontations.

To say that any political party has lied to the public is perhaps a bit strong, and may lead to further divisiveness. That would be a shame, because the natural resource and human rights issues we face transcend partisan political considerations. We are talking about the opportunities for our children, grandchildren, and their future generations will enjoy . . . or not. We don't wish their ability to live and work in Jefferson County to be regulated beyond their reach.

Yes, there is an agricultural exemption within the draft CAO update for agricultural operations. Commissioner Sullivan is correct in saying that it needs to be expanded to support greater levels of food production, and he has mentioned this in public on more than one occasion. As drafted, the agricultural exemption is far too narrow to allow for that. In order to qualify, a landowner has to meet the exempt activities requirements of paragraph 18.15.335 (e):

"Existing and ongoing agricultural activities on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or on lands designated as agricultural lands of long-term significance on the official map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations. For the purpose of this section, "existing and ongoing" means that agricultural activities have been conducted within the five-year period leading up to the adoption of Ordinance 5-03 on April 28, 3003;"

This means that the property in question would be required to have been actively farmed in the five year period prior to April 28, 2003, and would have to be further qualified under one of the two specified special programs. Newcomers to agriculture in Jefferson County, as well as long-standing farmlands that were not actively farmed during the specified period would not be exempt.

Commissioner Sullivan is also correct in noting that the 450-foot buffer is the "waiver buffer" for Wetland Categories I and II, for those people who do not wish to have a wetland typing and delineation performed. That is a benefit to some landowners. However, there's quite a bit more to understand where these particular buffers are concerned.

Table 3-3 in the draft ordinance update is where 450 foot buffers are mentioned, and they are specified for Wetland Categories I and II. Note 3 to Table 3-3 says:

"Uncategorized wetlands shall be presumed to be Wetland Category I with wetland characteristics that require the largest buffer width in the respective wetland category, unless an assessment is made of the wetland in order to determine its category and classify the wetland according to its wetland characteristics in Table 3-4B of this section. The applicant shall be responsible for determining the wetland category and characteristics, and that determination must be made by a qualified professional."

The largest buffer width in Category I is 450 feet, which according to Note 3 is the default . . . or mandatory . . . buffer until such time as the property owner hires a professional to categorize and characterize the wetland to determine what buffer widths should actually be required for the wetland. Under the proposal, the landowner would be required to foot the bill for this work, which would amount to thousands of dollars.

So, the 450-foot buffer is both a waiver buffer and a default buffer. That's what the fuss is about on this point. As a waiver buffer, there's the potential for problems with the landowner's neighbors. What if a landowner wants to go with the 450-foot waiver buffer, and a significant portion of that buffer happens to extend onto a neighbor's land? The current draft is pretty quiet on that kind of situation.

Commissioner Sullivan's note regarding the expense of the delineation process is good to see. Perhaps this can lead to a shifting of the financial burden of professional delineation from the landowner to the public at large. When the goal is to obtain a public benefit, the entire public should share the cost equally.

While people may understand that the draft update proposal that came out on May 17, 2006 is not a final product, there was every chance that it would have been legislatively approved prior to the settlement agreement deadline of July 18, 2006. Routine public comment during one Planning Commission meeting in June would not have been likely to result in significant changes to that draft before it became final. At this point, it is correct to say that the original draft is not a threat to anyone, but that's primarily because a sizeable portion of the public spoke up in opposition to the original draft.

The public at large now has significant representation on the committee working on the critical areas ordinance update draft. The expertise assembled on the behalf of all of our citizens is extensive, and includes internationally recognized natural resource scientists, among many other highly experienced professionals.

We'd like to invite you to use these links to download the Second Settlement Agreement between the Washington Environmental Council and Jefferson County and the proposed critical areas update that was released for public review on May 17, 2006. If you spend some time reading and studying it, you will gain a greater understanding of the reasons for our concerns.

Commissioner Sullivan is also correct when he says that county commissioners from both parties supported more local control over water use. Jefferson County Resolution 68-05 provides specific guidelines for the implementation of the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 watershed plan, and provides for distinction between that process and the development of the WRIA 17 instream flow rule.

The instream flow rule-making process is a separate discussion that is being held with the Department of Ecology, who proposed an instream flow rule that would have taken an extraordinary water right to be assigned to instream flows in line of seniority. This would have effectively made 72% of all surface and groundwater unavailable to the residents of WRIA 17.

It is appropriate to ask that candidates for county office from all participating political parties state their positions on these very important issues that will affect the lives of all county residents. These land use and water access issues are of very high importance to everyone in both the rural and urbanized areas of Jefferson County.

Because these issues are so very important to how Jefferson County's future is shaped, citizens need to know how each candidate and current office holder feels about them.

At the same time, these issues rise far above politics, and we all need to be involved in building solutions to any problems that are identified. While each party is free to take positions on their goals for the issues, we really hope that our politicians will focus on the needs of the people they serve.

Please visit these fine websites to learn more about these issues and to gain access to the documents pertaining to them:

www.olyfarm.org

www.olywater.org

Local GOP twists truth

Editor, Leader

The Jefferson County Republican Party has deliberately lied to the people of Jefferson County.

They know the Draft Critical Areas Ordinance has an exemption for agriculture. They know I've spoken in favor of expanding it to support local food production.

They know that wetland buffers are proposed to decrease in many situations and they range from 25 to 300 feet. They know the draft ordinance has no mandatory 450-foot buffers proposed. They misrepresent the voluntary waiver option (1.5 times the 25- to 300-foot buffer, maximum 450 feet) that exists in the present ordinance as a benefit to property owners. Waivers needn't require expensive wetlands delineation.

The Jefferson County Republican Party knows the Draft Critical Areas Ordinance is just an initial draft and as such is no threat to anyone. Republicans have significant representation on teh planning commission and the subcommittee reviewing this draft right now.

Their ad in the Aug. 23 Leader questioned where Democrats stand on restricting the use of water from private wells. They know the Democrat and Republican county commissioners worked together to adopt the current policy advocating voluntary measures. Why does the local Republican Party leadership want to mislead you to think otherwise?

The people of Jefferson County deserve the truth. Ask the leadership of the Jefferson County Republican Party why they think otherwise. Ethical Republicans need to assert themselves and stand up to the local party leadership when they don't tell the truth.

DAVID SULLIVAN
county commissioner
District 2
Cape George

I-933's message: 'Pay up or back off'

2006-08-29T14:34:00.000-07:00

The following commentary appeared in the August 29 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

I-933's message: 'Pay up or back off'

Adele Ferguson

Well, I've made up my mind.

It wasn't a tough decision to make.

I voted for a similar version of it in 1995 when it arrived in Olympia in the form of an initiative to the Legislature.

Signed by 230,000 people, it expanded the constitutional mandate that people have to be paid when government takes property for public use.

The initiative limited by regulation what could be done on portions of land and called for filing of economic impact statements on any proposed regulation affecting private property.

The Legislature passed it, as is, in a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, but opponents were waiting in the bushes and got it on the fall ballot as Referendum 48.

Those impact statements would cost the taxpayers millions, they cried.

Well, not necessarily.

They could avoid the cost of the statement entirely by not putting so many restrictions on private property to satisfy the whims of environmentalists and other anti-growth types.

R-48 was declared the greatest danger to our way of life since World War II because it put the rights of private property owners ahead of the demands of government.

I wrote at the time that R-48 was a dose of "think before you act" medicine for governments that were too quick to make decisions ostensibly for the public good but without regard for the rights of the people.

There was a media blitz against R-48, with wide use of a last minute University of Washington study warning of billions (instead of millions) it would cost if government were forced to pay citizens when it made their property unusable by regulation.

The fiscal part was done by someone at The Evergreen State College, but saying University of Washington made it more impressive.

Voters were sufficiently scared and took a powder.

R-48 went down, 59.39 percent to 40.61 percent, 796,869 votes to 544,888 votes.

I'm telling you this because I expect the same tactics again this year.

The new version, I-933, was put together by the Washington State Farm Bureau.

It requires state and local governments to consider in advance what the cost would be to pay the landowner for any lessening of the value or use of his land when proposing a land use regulation rather than passing the regulation first and then pricing it out.

Government must also consider whether voluntary effort could mitigate the cost.

If it can't, then government must choose between paying the owner or excusing the owner from obeying the regulation.

It's pay up or back off.

I-933 is opposed by the usual suspects — environmentalists who want to stop growth anywhere since they already got theirs.

They throw the word developer around like the feds talk about terrorists.

There also are greedy developers, reckless developers and the worst kind — out-of-state developers.

If it helps you make up your mind, Gov. Chris Gregoire doesn't like I-933.

She is sympathetic, she said, but says the measure "is poorly drafted, far too broad."

She promised to work with the Legislature to find a solution to preserving farmland in Washington.

Oh, sure, her promises are good.

Didn't she promise not to raise taxes if elected?

Any time I get a chance to tighten up the rights of property owners, I do it.

Adele Ferguson's weekly columns on statewide issues appears on the opinion page of the Peninsula Daily News every Tuesday.
Write her at P.O. Box 69, Hansville, WA 98340.

Critical areas questions made public

2006-08-23T11:55:00.000-07:00

The article following these comments appeared in the August 23, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Because Al Scalf is interested in obtaining as much comment as possible on the information provided in the FAQ we'd like to ask that you click here to download the draft FAQ PDF file, go through it with a critical eye toward making improvements that more closely address your concerns where necessary.

For instance, the 450 foot buffer is addressed in this draft of the FAQ as a waiver, which is only part of the story. in Note 3 following the chart on page 14 of the ordinance update draft we see that:

"Uncategorized wetlands shall be assumed to be Wetland Category 1 with wetland characteristics that require the largest buffer width in the respective wetland category, unless an assessment is made of the wetland in order to determine its category and classify the wetland according to the wetland characteristics in Table 3-4B of this section. The applicant shall be responsible for determining the wetland category and characteristics, and that determination must be made by a qualified professional."

This changes the philosophy of this being a waiver to its being a default for those who find uncategorized wetlands on their property. There are a lot of those in Jefferson County.

Question 62 is interesting . . .

62. Isn’t 30 feet enough to protect a wetland?

No. According to DOE, the first 10 to 50 feet removes the core sediment. Fine sediment is removed between 100 and 300 feet. Nitrogen and phosphorous are removed 30 to 200 feet. Wildlife “screening” occurs between 50 and 150 feet. Wildlife habitat needs 100 to 1200 feet for a buffer.

Buffer filtering varies depending on many factors, including soil types and slope. The GEI study added to the best available science (BAS) collection on June 21, 2006 indicates that wider buffers don't necessarily add significant levels of function. We are not bound to the use of the Department of Ecology's BAS collection by the GMA. We are required to consider it, but we are also allowed to use science from other sources to meet our local conditions.

Now, where did that 1200 foot buffer for wildlife habitat come from? It wasn't part of the draft updates to our ordinance. Is that where we are headed at the next review of Jefferson County's CAO?

We need your help in reviewing and responding to the draft FAQ document. There are several more things that need clarification, of which these are but two examples. Al Scalf is soliciting our assistance with this, so let's jump in and help make it a better reflection of our understanding.

Critical Areas questions made public

Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — With accurate, and inaccurate, information swirling around the proposed critical areas ordinance, a list of frequently asked questions (with answers) was distributed at the weekly county commissioners meeting Monday.

Al Scalf, director of the Department of Community Development, handed the commissioners and those in the audience copies of the six page, double-sided document containing 96 questions about the proposed ordinance.

"This is not all inclusive," Scalf told the commissioners.

He said the questions were generated mostly from a well-attended June 21 meeting of the county Planning Commission in which the critical areas ordinance was the main topic of discussion.

The questions were also taken from public comments at Planning Commission meetings since June 21, and from e-mailed comments, Scalf said.

Devoid of jargon

The department tried to answer the questions in a manner devoid of bureaucratic jargon, Scalf said.

Question 2 asked, "What are 'critical areas?' "

The answer:

" 'Critical areas' is a term found in the GMA [state Growth Management Act] and includes a)wetlands, like swamps, marshes or bogs; b) aquifers, where rock or soils conducts water; c) fish and wildlife habitat, such as creeks, rivers, mudflats, forested areas; d) freque3ntly flooded areas for both fresh and salt water; and e) geologically hazardous areas like landslides, steep slopes and rock falls.

"The GMA requires a county to both designate and protect critical areas."

As soon as he handed out the document, the audience began reading through it, and some immediately wrote notes on it.

During the public comment session of the meeting, Mike Belenski of Port Ludlow took issue with No. 15 in the document:

Q. "Who drafted the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO)?"

A. "The county's Department of Community Development Long Range Planning staff wrote the draft ordinance."

Belenski said the county staff had assistance, or guidelines, from the Washington Environmental Council.

Jefferson County entered into a settlement agreement with Washington Environmental Council in January 200[6] after the county was petitioned by the council for failing to use best available science when protecting critical areas.

"I'm sure [the frequently asked questions] will stimulate a lot of discussion," said Scalf. "I hope it does."

The document can be viewed at

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

(click on New Items).

For questions, or to submit comments, e-mail

planning@co.jefferson.wa.us

or phone 360-379-4450.

Critical Areas Committee, August 17, 2006

2006-08-19T20:12:00.000-07:00

Thursday, August 17 was the second meeting of the Critical Areas Committee, and the main topic of the evening was the agricultural exemption and related topics concerning farming and its relationship to critical areas.

The Jefferson County Conservation District's Al Latham provided a presentation on the ongoing agricultural best management practices planning process, which recently won a state award. He also answered several questions from the committee on a wide range of questions about agriculture in the context of critical areas.

There was broad agreement among the members of the committee that the agricultural exemption as written into the draft ordinance update is too narrow, and that it leaves new agricultural activities, such as subsistence/lifestyle farming without an opportunity to really become viable in Jefferson County. The ability to purchase locally grown food at the farmers market, the Co-Op, and other venues around the county is seen as one of the values that makes Jefferson County the kind of place that it is, and a quality of life issue for a broad cross-section of the community.

A recent Washington Supreme Court decision concerning what constitutes a change in agricultural practices also appears to further restrict what may be done under the provisions of the ordinance update as currently drafted.

Based on the discussion, staff will prepare information for next meeting that will help the committee move forward with suggested modifications for how agriculture is defined in context with the critical areas ordinance. The intent is to provide opportunity for new agricultural operations to become viable as soon in their life cycle as possible, and to remain viable for the long term. There is also a need for better definition of the types of farming that are being conducted in Jefferson County beyond the traditional types of agriculture that were considered in the previous version of the ordinance.

Al Scalf, director of the Department of Community Development, asked that committee members begin sending in recommended findings of fact, so that a list of potential findings can be generated for incorporation with the next draft of the critical areas ordinance update. These findings will help provide a basis for understanding the provisions of the ordinance when it is approved and published.

The level of expertise and the professional manner in which the discussions are taking place is encouraging. The people around the table are committed to producing the best product possible, even though the timeline is very short. Those who have attended as observers have also brought some excellent thoughts into the work being done, and their contributions are much appreciated.

Meetings take place every Thursday evening at 7 p.m., and all are welcome.

Court of Appeals will consider growth board decision

2006-08-14T21:14:00.000-07:00

On April 19, 2006, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board granted an appeal filed by the Departments of Ecology and Community, Trade and Economic Development challenging Kent's new Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). According to the board, the state's best available science requires bigger wetland buffers than the city adopted, even if the city is providing adequate protection for wetland functions and values through other programs, including stormwater control rules, wetland restoration and enhancement projects, and open space requirements. The GMHB held that bigger buffers are required, even if there is no evidence that existing buffers are inadequately protecting the environment and even if there is no evidence that existing buffers would produce any environmental benefit.

The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, Building Industry Association of Washington, Seattle-King County Association of REALTORS® and the Pacific Legal Foundation all intervened on behalf of the City of Kent in the state's appeal to the Hearings Board, arguing that wetland protection can be achieved by methods other than Ecology's increased buffers.

According to the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties' Executive Officer, Sam Anderson, "The Board ruled, in effect, that the Department of Ecology's vision of what constitutes best available science supercedes all other Growth Management Act goals, including affordable housing, reducing sprawl, economic development and protecting private property rights."

Kent's Critical Areas Ordinance package was negotiated with a diverse group of stakeholders. The city's elected officials found that the resulting ordinance was effective and had community buy-in, and adopted it.

MBA South King County Manager said, "Kent's city council adopted this ordinance on a unanimous vote, and it includes a flexible approach for land owners, no infringement on property rights and enhancement for degraded wetlands. Our approach is a better buffer rather than a bigger buffer."

The Court of Appeals recently agreed to hear an appeal of the GMHB's decision, allowing the parties to skip review at the Superior Court level to save time and expense.

Under Washington law, the Growth Management Hearings Boards are required to presume a local ordinance to be valid unless "clearly erroneous." The Washington Supreme Court has recently admonished the Hearings Boards to defer to local government decisions under the Growth Management Act unless they are in clear violation of a GMA statute.

This case is clearly important to the process now taking place with Jefferson County's critical areas ordinance review and update. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board has demonstrated its reluctance to accept deviations from the Department of Ecology's BAS package, even when those deviations represent an improvement in buffer function over and above that achievable through increased buffer widths.

Their reluctance in the City of Kent's case does not mean that we should accept Ecology's BAS and unquestioningly fully incorporate it into Jefferson County's update. While Kent may have lost at the Hearings Board level, recent history in the appellate courts indicates that the city may well prevail at the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, if further review is necessary. It does, however, mean that we need to learn where Kent's strengths and weaknesses in their approach were, so that we can capitalize on their strengths, and improve in those areas where they were vulnerable.

It's good that we are able to learn more about building policy from a local citizen level, whether from our successes or the challenges faced by other localities. Working together, we can retain our local governance where we still have it, and regain those areas of local governance that have been absorbed into state agency operations.

There's no time like the present!

Panel prepares for wetlands debate

2006-08-13T19:56:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the August 13, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Panel prepares for wetlands debate
Advisory committee forms, forges meeting schedule

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — The Critical Areas Committee, a subcommittee of the Jefferson CountyPlanning Commission, met for the first time last week to begin reworking a controversial proposed law.

The committee will meet every Thursday at 7 p.m. in the conference room in the Jefferson County Public Health office, 621 Sheridan Street.

The committee includes 17 residents and four planning commissioners.

Ordinance provisions

The Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff drafted the ordinance and released it on May 17.

The law would change buffers around wetlands areas.

It would increase the buffer from the current 150 feet to a proposed 300 feet for wetlands with wildlife habitat that is on property of high intensity land use.

In some cases, the buffer would decrease, as in a moderate habitat wetlands with moderate intensity land use.

In that case, the current 150-foot buffers would decrease to 110 feet, said Josh Peters, Department of Community Development senior planner who drafted the proposed ordinance.

The committee Thursday agreed to take on the wetland buffer portion of the ordinance during later meetings.

The buffer discussion is expected to get heated.

Many on the committee expressed beliefs that the ordinance, as it's written would take property rights away from landowners.

The members decided to begin with less contentious aspects of the ordinance to give relationships a chance to form and small victories tasted.

Then they will move on to some of the tougher issues, like wetland buffers.

Next week the committee will discuss the portion of the ordinance that makes exempt existing and ongoing agriculture.

Some at the meeting suggested that organic farms also be placed in the exempt category, as well as farms that have not yet started and are looking to use sustainable techniques.

Al Latham, director of Jefferson County Conservation DIstrict, has been invited to give a brief presentation on agriculture at the start of next week's meeting.

The committee is expected to have a report ready of its recommendations to the Planning Commission by Oct. 2, which leaves about nine weekly meetings for the committee.

The Planning Commission will review the recommendations and then give its recommendations to the board of county commissioners, who must act by Jan.18.

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

Advisory group reviews wetland protection proposal

2006-08-08T12:12:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the online edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader on Augist 4, 2006.

Advisory group reviews wetland protection proposal

When the Jefferson County Planning Commission asked for volunteers to help review the county's proposed critical areas ordinance, the response was bigger than expected.

Nineteen people are signed up to take part in the advisory group, including four planning commissioners. The names of the volunteers were presented at the Aug. 2 planning commission meeting.

Planning Commission Chairman Jim Hagen said he had envisioned an advisory group of no more than 12 people.

"It's a little more than I expected, but we'll make it work," he said.

The group plans 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." Members of the public are also invited to comment on proposed changes to the law during the advisory group's weekly meetings.

The first advisory group meeting is set for 7 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 10 at the Jefferson County Department of Public Health office, 615 Sheridan St., Port Townsend. The meetings are held Thursdays through Sept. 28 and are open to the public.

The group is expected to deliver a report to the planning commission, which will then present its own recommendations to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. Under the current timeline, the county commissioners are expected to consider the revised law in January.

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

Volunteers who signed up for the advisory group are Kenneth Brooks, scientist; Robert Crittenden, scientist; Kathy Dickson, Hoh River Valley farmer; Sandy Hershelman, Jefferson County Home Builders Association; Amy Hiatt, architect; Dianne Bonniver Holman, Jefferson County Association of Realtors; Diane Johnson, farmer and psychologist; Norm MacLeod, Olympic Water Users Association; John Richmond, Hoh River Valley resident and watershed planning volunteer; Roger Short, North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau; Jill Silver, wetland specialist; Jim Tracy, attorney and land-use planner; Fredrick Tuso, Brinnon resident; Bill Wheeler, Olympic Shadow Forest Owners; George Yount, Admiralty Audubon.

Members of the planning commission who are taking part in the group are Chairman Jim Hagen, Peter Downey, Dennis Schultz and Henry Werch.

At the Aug. 2 planning commission meeting, some 70 people turned out to make comments and listen as Department of Community Development Planner Josh Peters tried to clarify some misconceptions about proposed changes to the law.

Herb Beck of Quilcene suggested that an economic impact study of wetland buffers should be done.

Wetland specialist Jill Silver, who mapped the channel migration zones on the Hoh River for the Hoh Indian tribe, said property owners might not be able to afford to hire a specialist to delineate wetlands when they want to make a change in land use. She suggested the county hire a staff person who is qualified to perform wetland delineations, and provide that service to people who apply for land-use changes.

Al Latham of the Jefferson County Conservation District recommended that members of the advisory group take the time to make at least one on-site visit to a wetland so they can get a firsthand look at what they are regulating.

Property rights initiative qualifies

2006-08-04T10:35:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the August 4, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Property right initiative qualifies
Measure 2nd to make November ballot

By Rachel La Courte
The Assosiated Press

OLYMPIA — A property rights initiative has qualified for the November ballot, election officials said Thursday.

Initiative 933 would require state and local government agencies to either compensate private landowners for regulations that harm the value of private property, or waive the requirements.

It's aimed at land use rules adopted since 1996.

Some farmers say that without such a change, government rules will continue to unfairly remove valuable farms and ranches from production.

"We're looking forward to the voters telling the government that they need to slow down and work with people instead of running over their rights," said Dan Wood, spokesman for the Washington Farm Bureau, which is backing the I-933 campaign.

Different from Oregon

Oregon voters passed a similar measure in 2004, but I-933 differs in part because it does not affect land use and zoning in effect before 1996, Wood said.

"Ours is very limited," he said. "Everybody's rights are protected equally."

Last month, sponsors submitted more than 317,000 voter signatures for I-933, exceeding the 225,000 valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot, as well as the cushion that is required to cover duplicate or invalid signatures.

A check of 9,700 randomly selected voter signatures showed an invalidation rate of about 17.1 percent, much less than the error rate threshold of 29 percent that the office had calculated, election officials said.

Opponents of I-933 say the measure is an unnecessary gutting of important environmental rules.

"This initiative boils down to costing taxpayers billions of dollars and allowing irresponsible development in places that were previously protected," said Aisling Kerins, campaign manager for No on I-933.

Washington voters rejected a similar initiative, Referendum 48, in 1995.

Wood said there is a different environment now, and he predicted success.

"The problem has spread and it has gotten more intense," he said. "I don't think enough people had been impacted back in 1995.

I-933 is the second measure to qualify for the ballot.

On Wednesday, election officials announced that I-920, a measure to repeal the state's new estate tax, also secured a spot.

Secreterary of Stat e Sam Reed's office is still verifying signatures on a measure that would force a renewable energy standard for large utilities.

Time Eyeman's third run at $30 car tabs is in danger after failing a preliminary check of its petition signatures.

Reed is now conducting a full count of Eyeman's petitions, which could take until September to complete.

Earlier this week, Gov. Chris Gregoire vowed to help defeat the estate tax and car tab initiatives if they make the ballot, as well as the property rights issue.

Gregoire said she sympathizes with the concerns behind the property rights measure and will work with the Legislature to find a solution, particularly for preserving farmland in Washington, but that the initiative "is poorly drafted, far too broad."

Jefferson will take hard look at critical areas

2006-08-04T08:21:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the August 4, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Jefferson will take hard look at critical areas

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — A committee has been formed by the Jefferson County Planning Commission to take a hard, close look at the county's proposed critical areas ordinance that has been met with contention since the public found out about it in June.

With about 70 people attending a Planning Commission meeting Wednesday in Port Hadlock, interested parties who represent several "stakeholders" to the proposed ordinance were asked to volunteer for the committee.

As has been the case in the past, the main concern is the portion of the proposed law that would expand wetland buffers by 100 percent — from the current 25-100 feet to 50-300 feet.

Four planning members

The special committee will include four planning commissioners and members of the audience who volunteered.

They are: Kathy Dickson and John Richmond, representing county's west end; Bill Wheeler, forester; Roger Short, Farm Bureau; Dianne Holman, real estate agent; Dianne Johnson, conservationist; Jill Silver, environmentalist; Norm MacLeod, Olympic Water Users Association; Jim Tracy, lawyer; Robert Crittenden, scientist; Amy Hiatt, architect; and George Yount of the Audubon Society.

Planning Commission Chairman Jim Hagen said study committees are usually only comprised of planning commissioners.

"This is frankly a new idea, having a Planning Commission subcommittee that includes members of the public," Hagen said.

The committee members will meet about nine times before they are expected to deliver their findings and recommendations to county commissioners in October.

They will pick apart the proposed ordinance that was drafted by staff of the Department of Community Development on May 17.

The committee will meet every Thursday from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Department of Public Health offices, 615 Sheridan St., Port Townsend.

The committee meetings are open to the public.

"There are a lot of 'what if' questions that need to be answered in this whole project," said Planning Commissioner Dennis Schultz.

"Let's see if we can come up with something we can all live with."

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

Letter to the editor

2006-08-02T10:16:00.000-07:00

The letter to the editor following our comments was published in the August 2, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

When Jefferson County intially reviewed the existing Critical Areas Ordinance, the Department of Ecology's best available science (BAS) package was available in draft form, and had not yet been issued as a final set of documents. At the time, it was deemed inappropriate to committ the county's residents to guidance that was not yet ready for publication. We agree that it would have been very unwise for the county to make substantial changes to its ordinance based on incomplete guidance. The Washington Environmental Council did not agree with the county's approach, and challenged the results of the county's ordinance review.

When we discuss BAS, there's a small factor that's not often brought into the open . . . there is significant disagreement even within Washington's state agencies as to just what that best science is. This leads us to believe that we should be able to locally craft an ordinance update, supported by science, that meets local needs and requirements, and still be able to successfully defend our work at the Growth Management Hearings Board and beyond.

We are in agreement that it's important to protect our natural resources. We are also of the opinion that it's important to consider human needs when we build a regulatory framework designed to protect ecosystems. We also believe in an approach based on education and incentive, with regulation as a last resort, and that we already have enough regulations in place to meet that occasional eventuality. We have a responsibility to the needs of our children, our grandcihldren, and generations to come. We should work together to make sure that we do not regulate their opportunities to live and work in our landscapes out of their reach.

While the intent of the critical areas ordinance and other growth management tools may be noble, we're not as certain as the author that our farmers will ever find that the current update draft was the best choice of action. We should also remember that the draft update's impacts on non-farm landowners are far more substantial than they are for our farm families. The reason that the initial reaction came so predominantly from the agricultural community is that our farmers have their finger far more closely connected to the pulse of regulation than most other landowners do. Regulations are intimately related to their financial bottom lines in ways unfamiliar to most of us.

We fully understand that we are well out of the 1800s, and our attitudes do not come from those "Wild West" paradigms the author refers to. We know that what we do on our land can easily have effects on our neighbors, and the vast majority of us are good stewards of our lands, often in ways that are unfamiliar to our more urban friends.

It's difficult to think of Jefferson County as overpopulated. Our county is larger than some states, yet has fewer than 30,000 people living in it. 62% of the county is held in federal ownership, and is not available for development. Nearly another 30% is held in state ownership or is otherwise also unavailable for development. That leaves a bit less than 10% of the county available for our use for farming and homes, and most of that is zoned for one house per five acres at its highest density. This is something that should be taken into account when we are drafting land use ordinances and other growth management tools.

When the author refers to the Farm Bureau and the builders, we apparently shift to the property fairness initiative, I-933. Let's please understand that our concerns with the county's critical areas ordinance update is unrelated to the initiative, although there are several members of our community who are concerned about property rights as an issue of its own. It's not a matter of property rights suddenly being taken away . . . it's a matter of those rights being incrementally diminished to the point where their position as constitutional guarantees are in doubt.

We're disappointed that the author found it necessary to move on to push so hard against those who are concerned about their investments as landowners. We're asking for an opportunity to help build a better approach to protecting our critical areas than the regulatory approach proposed in the draft update. We're closing in on that initial goal. We are not asking the letter's author to compensate us for anything, and we're sorry he feels otherwise.

We are concerned about the incrementally more restrictive regulatory framework we have to work with in Jefferson County and elsewhere. We're not pleased that these regulations come our way with the assumption that we cannot be trusted to provide good stewardship for our lands without government suprevision. That's a reality that we would like to see shifted to a framework based on education and incentives encouraging landowners to improve their stewardship practices.

We're uncertain as to where the author is hearing that over a million new residents will relocate here in the next ten years. That's a highly unlikely scenario for Jefferson County, given the growth management plans that are already on the table. Perhaps he's referring to the Puget Sound region as a whole, in which case our current zoning and land ownership patterns will suffice to prevent high population densities locally.

We're not asking the commissioners to toss out the settlement agreement they made with the Washington Environmental Council. Indeed, we are in a time extension that was agreed to by all parties to the settlement. We are merely working toward an improved approach to protecting our critical areas while also protecting our children's opportunities to have a place in Jefferson County.

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

Say yes to planned growth

Editor, Leader:

This letter is written to state my support of the Washington Environmental Council guidelines for Jefferson County to live up to the law of the Growth Management Act ordinance, which strives to protect critical areas that were largely ignored by past boards of county commissioners.

I think the majority of Jefferson County citizens basically agree with the WEC position in regard to critical areas including wetlands. As a citizen I expect my watersheds and wetlands to be identified and protected, as they are cornerstones to our quality of life. I think many Jefferson County residents also want to sustain open areas and farming. Once the rhetoric is over, many farmers will find the intent of the guidelines make sustainable sense.

I think many opposing the ordinance see it in terms of the Wild West of the 1800s, where there were no neighbors and the manifest destiny doctrine entitled you to your plot of perceived Eden where you did as you pleased and could care less about folks downstream. Guess what, many areas of the West are now overpopulated, with natural resources stretched razor-thin. Protecting sensitive areas where we can and planning for the tremendous future growth is tantamount for our future citizens.

The Farm Bureau and Home Builders Association frame their agenda in terms of the 1800 spirit, where now suddenly your property rights are being taken away and your right to milk the cash cow to exploit as you see fit is being taken away.

I say rules change. Just because you bought property in the past expecting to turn a profit in the future doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. The rules from 50 years ago have changed to accommodate for greater densities and protections not even visualized at that time. Why should I have to compensate you for your risk? You made your bed, lie in it. Don't expect more than sympathy for the changed reality of new and ever-changing landu-use rules reflecting our greater densities.

We in Jefferson County are hearing that over a million new residents will relocate here in the next 10 years. the Realtors and builders will still make their fortunes. Is it too much to ask for clean water? I say yes to regulated, planned gorwth that identifies and protects our precious resources. Please, commissioners, uphold the agreement reached with the WEC to protect our "critical areas."

CAVIN RICHIE
Port Ludlow

Jefferson Comprehensive Plan hearing slated

2006-07-31T16:46:00.000-07:00

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.

(http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/2006cycle.htm)

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

2006-07-31T10:37:00.000-07:00

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
(360) 379-4450 or ascalf@co.jefferson.wa.us
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment

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.
###

County sets timeline for wetland protection rules

2006-07-22T09:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Jefferson panel to study wetland buffers

2006-07-19T14:49:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

2006-07-19T11:18:00.000-07:00

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.

County sets timeline for wetland protection rules

2006-07-15T16:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Do right thing for wetlands

2006-07-12T11:54:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-12T09:49:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-12T09:10:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2006-07-07T21:34:00.000-07:00

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.

Discussions on critical areas get more time

2006-07-05T13:21:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-05T12:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Living Rural

2006-07-04T12:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Update from the Jefferson County Commissioners' meeting

2006-07-03T12:54:00.000-07:00

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!

Sullivan deals with hot questions during Farm Bureau meeting

2006-06-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared on the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader's website on June 30, 2006.

6/30/2006 10:15:00 AM

Sullivan deals with hot questions during Farm Bureau meeting

County Commissioner David Sullivan took the heat from about 80 people at a North Olympic Farm Bureau meeting June 28 in Gardiner.

The meeting was supposed to be a formal inauguration of the Washington Farm Bureau's 24th and newest chapter.

The agenda changed a bit when Sullivan, county commissioner (D-Cape George) representing District 2, walked in shortly before the meeting began. After a few opening speeches and a presentation on county buffers given by state Rep. Jim Buck (R-Joyce), Sullivan was given the podium and took the brunt of audience members' questions.

Audience members heatedly voiced their opposition to proposed regulations on buffer rezoning and an in-stream flow ruling.

Two messages were heard loud and clear, said Sullivan - a need for an organized rewritten version of the critical areas ordinance, and a need for it fast.

“I realize we have to get information out in a better way. We just couldn't do it that fast. Not by July 5,” Sullivan said in regards to the canceled question and answer forum proposed by the planning commission. “There is no sense in calling a public information meeting and not be prepared.”

Sullivan said county staff is presently working on a rewrite. He tried to reassure the audience that the ordinance is still in the beginning stage, not something set in stone.

Also present at the meeting was Jim Hagen, chairman of the county planning commission, who said due to the cancellation of a question and answer forum July 5, the commission could do nothing about the public process regarding the CAO until September when they would review the rewrite.

Draft ordinance

The draft ordinance now under consideration has been in the works since January, when a legal challenge filed by the Washington Environmental Council against Jefferson County came to a settlement.

The agreement was reached in an effort to avoid an expensive legal battle that the county thought it would lose. County officials have said they entered into the settlement as a way of preserving language that allowed agriculture to be exempt from new wetland buffer requirements.

Through negotiations with the WEC, the county agreed to more precisely define “existing and ongoing agriculture,” thereby limiting the exemption to land that has been committed to agriculture for the long term.

Under county development laws, new agricultural uses are not eligible for the exemption.

Many of the people protesting the critical areas ordinance are concerned not only with existing use but with how rule changes could reduce future use, and how landowners would be forced to pay for expensive consultants when seeking land use changes.

The county commissioners have extended the public comment period to Monday, Oct. 23. County officials intend to spend the next few months hosting public meetings to explain and build consensus on the proposal. The first step, commissioners said, is to develop a question-and-answer sheet to explain in plain English what the ordinance says.

Bureau officers

North Olympic Farm Bureau officers elected May 17 and installed June 28 were President Roger Short, Vice President Steve Marble and Secretary/Treasurer Sue Forde. Board members include Larry Hess, James Fritz, Jim Story, Bob Forde and Steve Johnson. The bureau still needs two chairmen, one for a legislative committee and one for policy development. Position applications will be considered Oct. 25 during a regular North Olympic Farm Bureau meeting, 6:30 p.m. the fourth Wednesday of each month on the first floor of the Gardiner Community Center.

More than 100 members already transferred to the North Olympic Farm Bureau and 11 new members signed up June 28.

Short said he expects about 50 new members by the end of next month.

Each county Farm Bureau is affiliated with the 35,000 member Washington Farm Bureau, a grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of Washington farmers and ranchers at the local, state and national level. The national organization is the American Farm Bureau.

“I felt we did need a broader organization,” Short said during his opening speech. “I felt this is the time to band together. I know some of the things the Farm Bureau has done and I have been behind them the whole time.”

Letter to the editor

2006-06-30T10:06:00.001-07:00

The letter to the editor following our comments appeared in the June 30, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

We applaud the letter's author for her courage to present her comments during the June 21 meeting. We have points of agreement with what she said, and we have points of disagreement.

We agree that we should work together to protect our water and wildlife, and that we should take measures to prevent landslides and problems related to flooding.

We understand that there is an exemption for existing and ongoing agriculture, and we are glad that this is included in the proposed regulatory changes. However, we are deeply concerned that this type of agriculture is defined in paragraph 18.15.335 (1) (e) of the proposal as follows:

"For the purpose of this section, "existing and ongoing" means that agricultural activities have been conducted within the five-year period leading up to the adoption of Ordinance 5-03 on April 28, 2003;"

Lands eligible for exemption are also required to either be part of the open space tax program for agriculture or designated by the county as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. There is no mention of an exemption for agricultural operations started after April 28, 2003, or for any operations that may be initiated in the future. Unchanged, this would mean that it would be incredibly difficult for someone to initiate a new farming operation.

While there are indications that provisions will be made for opeations starting after April 28, 2003 and for future farms, those provisions remain to be entered into the proposal.

While the settlement agreement may have been approved during a public meeting, discussions leading up to that approval were held in executive session, which means that a record of the session where the agreement was discussed is not available for public review. The lack of public process at that time, and during the months following the agreement until the draft was released, are areas of great concern to those of us committed to open public process in government.

We are doing our best to provide factual information, and are not trying to distort any facts. We are not conducting a smear campaign, nor are we interested in doing so.

We are expressing our concerns, and we are working to gain access to the process so that we may work directly with staff and the County Commissioners to arrive at a critical areas update that provides excellent site-specific protection to all types of critical areas, while also allowing the best possible opportunity for our rural families, our children and generations to come.

Farms, critical areas

I support local farms in Jefferson County, both in concept and in fact — I buy lots of produce and cheese grown right here.

I also support preventing floods and landslides and protecting our water and wildlife.

That is exactly what the improvement to Jefferson County's critical areas safeguards is setting out to do.

So I was very disappointed to read the stories in the paper over the past two weeks claiming that local safeguards will be harmful to local farmers.

For many good reasons the Washington Environmental Council, of which I am a proud member and former member of the board of directors, negotiated to have farmers exempted from the buffers that some people are complaining about.

It is right there — printed in black and white: Current agriculture is exempted from the new buffer requirements.

The agreement between the Washington Environmental Council and the county that helped lead to the development of these newly proposed protections and the exemptions for farmers was approved at a public meeting and has been publicly available for months.

Both the council and the county sought and received local media coverage, including an article in the Peninsula Daily News months ago.

Wetlands store and clean water for use by everyone, so it makes sense to support rules that protect them.

I believe that most of your readers want to know the news and understand the issues, not some distortion of the facts or a smear campaign on a good organization.

So I hope this clears up any confusion about proposed buffers to protect our clean water.

The Washington Environmental Council has worked hard over the past five years to improve local protections and help local agriculture.

Jill Silver
Port Townsend

EDITOR'S NOTE: Silver was the lone proponent of the proposed critical areas code who spoke June 21 at a Jefferson County Planning Commission hearing.

After four hours, the commission indefinitely extended written comments on the proposal.

County commissioners have delayed considering the proposal until later in 2006 under a new, as-yet undetermined time line.

The updated time line will be posted on the Web on the county's home page.

Also, a July 5 question-and-answer forum has been canceled.

Submit comments by e-mail to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us or by mail to Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368.

Information is available on the Web at the county's home page, www.co.jefferson.wa.us.

Go to the second text item on the home page, "Amendments Proposal to Critical Areas Regulations" and click on "Critical Areas page" for background and other information.

Paul Gottlieb
Commentary Page editor

County delays wetland rules

2006-06-28T13:25:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the June 28, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

County delays wetland rules

By Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

Bad timing, poor communication, pages of baffling legalese and a sense of public distrust contributed to the recent uproar over proposed changes to a county law designed to protect the environment.

To make up for the public relations disaster, county officials plan to take all summer to smooth things over with local residents and property owners, hosting a series of public meetings to explain the county's critical areas ordinance and inviting people to comment.

But many of the people protesting the critical areas ordinance are skeptical that further meetings will change their opinion that the proposal is too restrictive and severe both for farmers and other property owners. People are concerned not only with existing use but how rule changes could reduce future use, and how landowners would be forced to pay for expensive consultants when seeking land use changes.

"They're layering on yet another layer to make it more difficult to do whatever you're going to do on your property," property owner Richard Hild told The Leader. "You can smell wrong, if you just get in there and stick your nose in the wind."

The draft ordinance now under consideration has been in the works since January, when a legal challenge filed by the Washington Environmental Council against Jefferson County came to a settlement.

The agreement was reached in an effort to avoid an expensive legal battle that the county thought it would lose. County officials have said that they entered into the settlement as a way of preserving language that allowed agriculture to be exempt from the new wetland buffer requirements.

Through negotiations with the WEC, the county agreed to more precisely define "existing and ongoing agriculture," thereby limiting the exemption to land that has been committed to agriculture for the long term.

Under county development laws, new agricultural uses are not eligible for the exemption.

According to Jefferson County Senior Planner Josh Peters, land would qualify for the agricultural exemption from standard stream and wetland buffers if it is either enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or designated by the county as either prime or local agricultural lands, and has been the site of some form of agricultural activity within the five years before April 28, 2003.

But some farmers say the wording of the agricultural exemption is hard to understand, and they're not sure they can trust county officials to explain it to them. They worry that any change in their operations could trigger new, more restrictive buffer zones that would force them to set aside more land for protection of wetlands and streams.

County officials said they feel exasperated over the uproar and are especially frustrated by the farmers who are angry about the settlement.

"The most disappointing thing is that it's the farmers who are angry." Peters said in an email to The Leader. "They're the whole reason we entered into a settlement to avoid the Growth Management Hearings Board. It's hard to fight for people who think you're fighting against them."

If the issue can't be resolved with the settlement and instead ends up in the courts, Peters said he believes the agricultural exemption will be lost.

"They seem to want to give up a sure thing of an exemption from standard stream and wetland buffers for existing and ongoing agriculture in exchange for taking their chances in the legal process," he said.

Confusion, anger

To meet the requirements of the WEC settlement, county planning staff spent about five months developing a new ordinance, which was released to the public in May. The ordinance is currently under review by the county planning commission, which is now taking public comment and will eventually present its recommendations to the county commissioners.

The commissioners agreed to extend the public comment period after about 30 farmers and property owners staged a demonstration at the commissioners' meeting on June 13.

According to Peters, the draft ordinance indicates that the standard buffer for the most environmentally valuable wetlands is 300 feet.

Most of the standard buffers are smaller — from 50 feet to 250 feet — and buffers for less-critical wetlands could actually be three times smaller than what is currently required.

Rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach, the proposed ordinance allows for greater flexibility depending on the conditions onsite, he said.

Peters said that depending on the value of the habitat, the new buffers might be twice as big as before — or three times smaller than before.

While the draft critical areas ordinance has been available for public review, some people who have expressed opposition said they either hadn't reviewed it or had trouble understanding what it meant.

Because of an internal communications glitch, a county Department of Community Development press release announcing a public hearing on the ordinance was delayed. By the time people learned about the hearing, they felt they didn't have time to prepare.

Scrambling to read and understand the ordinance in time to provide informed comments at the hearing, many people complained that the complicated legal language left them confused and worried about whether or not they really understood how it might affect them. Many farmers found themselves trying to decipher the ordinance at the peak of the late-spring haying season, ,when they were busy putting in long hours out in their fields.

As a result, many assumed the worst.

Fanning the flames of anger over the proposal is the current campaign for a statewide property rights initiative being promoted by the Washington State Farm Bureau. A new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau chapter is being formed in part to help advance the campaign.

The turmoil also comes on the heels of a recent uproar over the in-stream flow rule proposed by the Washington Department of Ecology to regulate how much water is left in local streams to protect salmon habitat.

The same man who was at the helm of the WEC when the group sued Jefferson County for failing to update its critical areas ordinance is now the head of the Deparment of Ecology: Jay Manning.

Public relations

County planning and administrative staff met June 26 with the Jefferson County commissioners to discuss what went wrong, and what to do next.

Also invited to the meeting was Katherine Baril, director of Washington State Univerity's Jefferson County Extension, who offered her perspective on how to diffuse people's anger over the proposal.

Her first suggestion: Make sure people don't feel left out of the process.

Reaching the settlement through confidential negotiations with the WEC only served to make people suspicious, she said.

"Whether it's litigation or policy, people need to be at the table," she said.

She also recommended that county officials invest time in communicating the changes in language that makes sense to the average reader.

Uncertainty over how the proposal could affect the use of land for farming could undermine the recent renaissance of small-scale farms in Jefferson County, many of which seek to meet growing demand for organic produce and farm products, Baril said.

"We have some young farmers buying land, and they're scared to death," she said.

Many property owners, especially those with deep roots in Jefferson County, are afraid well-heeled newcomers want to turn the county into a giant park, she said. Whether through purchase or regulation, land could be taken out of production and set aside for environmental protection. With no way to make a living, farmers and other local residents would have to pull up roots and leave.

To foster a sense of trust, Baril urged the commissioners to find ways to reach out to local farmers. Her suggestions included creating an ombudsman position to serve as a liaison representing the inteterests of farmers and other property owners, and promoting economic development that ensures no net loss of farm families and helps aging farmers develop a transition plan for the next generation of farmers who could take their place.

Public outreach

With the public comment period extended to Monday, Oct. 23, county officials will spend the next few months hosting public meetings to explain and build concensus on the proposal.

The first step is to develop a question-and-answer sheet to explain in plain English what the ordinance says.

A major concern among some farmers is the lack of certainty about the definition of "existing and ongoing" agriculture as described in the ordinance. Does it mean that agricultural land that has lain fallow for a few years loses that exemption? If a farmer wants to shift from growing hay to raising beef cattle, would the new enterprise still qualify as an "existing" use?

People are also confused about the proposed wetland buffers and say they are worried the changes could limit how they can use their land, and potentially reduce its economic value.

People also are angry about a section in the ordinance that says that property owners who want to develop their land — or change how they use it — must foot the bill to hire a professional to delineate the wetlands on their land. Those who don't want to pay for a delineation report must agree to a 450-foot buffer — a setup that might work for someone who has a wetland in the far corner of their property, but not so great for someone who has a wetland in the middle of it.

Another option for people who want to develop their land is a less-expensive wetlands assessment that identifies the category and type of wetland but not its boundaries. Under that option, the property owner would have to set aside the standard buffer plus one-an-a-half times that amount of land.

Rather than forcing landowners to shoulder the burden of paying for the delineation, the county could instead add a new position and provide that consulting as a public service, said Department of Community Development Director Al Scalf. But to pay for that position, the county would have to increase permit fees.

(Contact Kasia Pierzga at kpierzga@ptleader.com.)

Perspective: Local protections take a voluntary, flexible approach

2006-06-28T10:02:00.000-07:00

The following perspective appeared in the June 28, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

It's good to see the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) weigh in on this from their own perspective, and to put their position forward.

WEC is correct in informing us that existing and ongoing agriculture is exempt from many of the provisions of the critical areas ordinance update. The update defines existing and ongoing agriculture this way in paragraph 18.15.335(1)(e):

"For the purposes of this section, "existing and ongoing" means that agricultural activities have been conducted within the five-year period leading up to the adoption of Ordinance No. 5-03 on April 28, 2003."

The proposed update does not tell us whether activities initiated in the subsequent three years are also exempt, but it's a logical conclusion that they are not, in the absense of additional information.

With the emphasis on the agricultural exemption that's been provided to the public in recent days, it's time to note that the existence or absence of that exemption is not the only part of the story that needs to be addressed. Most farm and ranch families are deeply concerned about the regulatory climate their children and grandchildren are going to have to face if and when they either wish to take over the family operation or develop one of their own. Today's farm families also wish to welcome the newcomers who are hoping to establish the organic agricultural operations that are key to the sustainability ethic of living, growing, and buying local. Because many of those new operations are still dreams for the people who would participate in them, our current agricultural families are standing up for those who are not farming yet. The exemption in the proposed changes fails to make adequate provision for these future agricultural opportunities.

The existence or absence of exemptions for ongoing operations does not address the anxiety and frustration of the Jefferson County residents who are concerned about the provisions of the proposed updates.

The default 450 foot buffers in the draft update pertains to people who wish to establish single family residences, land divisions, and utility installations for those residences and divisions. When we emphasize the agricultural exemption so often and so strenuously, we tend to leave out others who populate the rural areas . . . and they certainly should not be left out of the picture. This is not just about the agricultural community.

Yes, there is a voluntary program that provides flexibility in relation to the buffers mandated by the draft update. However, most of our farmers are already providing substantial services in conserving habitat and improving ecosystem functions. They are already managing their land in a responsible manner, so why is it now necessary to further tighten the framework they have to work within as part of a revokable voluntary program?

The perspective's author says that "extreme claims about the buffers are a ruse." Why is it extreme to publicize a few of the draft's provisions so that people will become engaged in the public process and avail themselves of the opportunity to download the document and read it for themselves? (The version we are reading from was published on May 17, 2006, and we anticipate changes based on the expressions of community concern about the proposed changes to the existing critical areas ordinance. You can download your own copy by clicking on this link to the Jefferson County website. It may take awhile to download the PDF ducument, but it will be well worth your time.)

The folks in the North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau are not saying "that this ordinance will basically take everything." Far from it. It's simply one more increment in a long trail of increasing regulation over everyday activities related to rural lifeways. We're a long way from having everything taken, but perhaps we should step on the brake and consider what we are doing to our usual and accustomed ways of life here, and just how far down this trail we really want to walk.

We invite you to visit the North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau website and link directly to downloads of the proposed changes to the critical areas ordinance, the Second Settlement Agreement between Jefferson County and the Washington Environmental Council, and to link to our web log, where we are following this and other issues as they appear in the media and other commentary. Please take Mr. Geiger up on his request to really read and understand the provisions of the draft ordinance. If they concern you as much as they concern us, we invite you to become involved in the public process of working toward solutions that will protect our ecosystems and the future opportunities of our children and theirs.

One of the things we are working hard to accomplish right now is to move from expressing our concerns into engaging the process. We are not a "shrill opposition" to the critical areas ordinance. We are a group of Olympic Peninsula landowners, some of whom are actively engaged in agriculture, some who are not. All we are asking for is the opportunity to engage in this process.

We do, however, want to engage in more than simply framing the components of the voluntary program that is only one small piece of the proposed critical areas ordinance updates. We want to participate in framing the critical areas updates themselves.

Since we are the ones that are going to be regulated by the provisions of the update, is that too much to ask?

Perspective

Local protections take a voluntary, flexible appraoch

By Tom Geiger
outreach director
Washington Environmental Council

Farming and protections for our waters and wildlife can go hand-in-hand. That is the belief of the Washington Environmental Council. That is wh we negotiated the agreement we did with the county over the last five years. The agreement exempts existing and ongoing agricultural activities from the newly proposed buffers on wetlands and streams.

So it is all the more unfortunate that the June 21 Leader article missed the mark on so many fundamental points. And it missed the mark about Washington Environmental Council's work without even a phone call to us for our position or opinion on what was being claimed.

While the county could have been clearer at the June 19 protest about what is and is not in the proposed ordinance, it is writen in black and white that existing and ongoing agricultural activities are exempt from the new rules. If this had been clarified, it seems likely that the ire of many would have been addressed and further confusion of the facts would have been avoided.

The protesters at recent meetings seemed to be repeating a chorus: "We only just found out about the 450 [foot] buffers." I don't question their claim regarding when they found out their information, but the information itself.

Not only is ongoing agriculture exempt from the buffers, but there is also a voluntary system that the county is required to develop with the input from the agricultural community to provide flexibility for farmers. The approach exists as a result of the very agreement between the county and the Washington Environmental Council, which some local farmers are railing against.

Instead of telling your readers about this innovative and flexible approach to protection, the article only mentions the "voluntary" program in its last paragraph when talking about what could happen if it doesn't work. That is a discredit to the farmers who manage their land in a responsible manner and a disservice to your readers who could have learned about what the voluntary protections could accomplish without required buffers.

I think it was Will Rogers who said it is not what you don't know that hurts you but what you know that ain't so. The extreme claims about the buffers are a ruse. A ruse developed to drum up opposition to the newly proposed safeguards for the people of Jefferson County. A ruse promoted by some in the local Farm Bureau who say this ordinance will basically take everything. That is nothing more than rhetoric. Why not read the ordinance, understand that existing agricultural practices are exempt and then participate in the development of local plans that will be voluntary for farmers? Why not engage in something positive instead of a shrill opposition that just says "no'?

We hope that The Leader continues to cover this issue, it will give people the real story about how the improved safeguards can protect the people and natural areas of the county, and respect local farmers' efforts to protect the same values.

Commissioners extend wetlands deadline

2006-06-27T10:15:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the June 27, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

We should note that the updates do reduce the width of some types of buffer, and that what we are dealing with today is an update to an existing ordinance. There is an exemption for ongoing agriculture, but the exemption does not apply to new agriculture operations, or to substantial changes in ongoing operations. In a county where a large segment of the community supports the development of new farms intended to provide locally grown produce, this is a troubling oversight.

The agreement with the Washington Environmental Council was reached in an effort to avoid litigation where the county felt there was a chance that it would not prevail. County officials felt the agricultural exemption that had been built into the update was at stake.

As we are now engaging in a more open process, where we can be involved in helping to develop the update in consultation with county government and other community organizations, we can work on designing a community-based set of science-supported solutions that will meet the needs of our ecosystems, as well as providing opportunties for those who live on our natural landscapes.

With an update meeting these elements completed, we may well find that we have a result that other organizations do not wish to bring into litigation. It's far better to figure out and settle these things locally than to have burdensome outcomes imposed externally.

Commissioners extend wetlands deadline

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily news

PORT TOWNSEND — The Jefferson County Commission has extended a deadline for adoption of an ordinance that would expand wetland buffer zones by 100 percent.

Commissioners extended the deadline for adoption of amendments to the county Unified Development Code from July 18 to Oct. 23.

The move was made on Monday in response to a barrage of public complaints at a June 21 county Planning Commission public hearing.

"We're going to take the time to come up with the right decision," said Commissioner Pat Rodgers, R-Brinnon.

The commission intends more public hearings and other measures to increase community involvement during the next three months.

Complaints summarized

During Monday's meeting, the commissioners heard a report from Rachel McHugh, county Department of Community Development long range planner, outlining the predominant points of contention expressed at the public hearing last week.

The hearing was attended by about 150 residents.

"Property rights were definitely a major factor," McHugh said.

She said many people were upset the county didn't bring the proposed critical areas amended ordinance — that would expand the current wetland buffer zones from between 25 and 150 feet to between 50 and 300 feet — to public discussion earlier in the process.

Because of this, McHugh said, many people had a distrust of county government and questioned if it had the citizens' benefits in mind when drafting the proposal.

Farmers exempt but leery

Although the proposal has exemptions for lands designated for agriculture, McHugh said, many farmers either don't understand that or don't believe it.

The proposed expansion of the buffer zones came about through a legal agreement the county signed with the Washington Environmental Council after the WEC claimed the county failed to use best available science to regulate wetland buffer zones.

The agreement mentions that WEC will work with the county to come up with proper buffers.

Many in last week's hearing interpreted this as implying the county was giving up its authority to govern itself and handing that power over to WEC.

The commissioners made clear Monday that that is not how they are interpreting it.

Rodgers said even if it means the WEC takes the county to court, the commissioners will retain authority over amending the critical areas ordinance.

"We intend to get to an answer but it's going to be from us, not some imposed force," said Rodgers.

Commissioner David Sullivan, D-Cape George, agreed:

"We haven't given up our authority to come up with our answer."

The commissioners said between now and the new deadline of Oct. 23, the main focus is to get the word out about the proposed amendments to give land owners, especially those living on wetlands, an opportunity to be a part of the process.

"The community process has got to be truly a community process and not just a performance," said Rodgers.

They directed Administrator John Fishbach to develop a schedule to ensure the county can meet the Oct. 23 deadline.

Fishbach was also instructed to write a simplified version of the proposed ordinance and the issues involved with is so that the average person can have an understanding of what's at stake.

Farm Bureau meeting is Wednesday in Gardiner

2006-06-27T09:24:00.000-07:00

The following announcement appeared on the Leader website on June 27, 2006.

Farm Bureau meeting is Wednesday in Gardiner

Organizers of a new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau, representing farm and ranch families in Jefferson and Clallam counties, host an organizational meeting for Farm Bureau members and other interested residents on Wednesday, June 28 in Gardiner.

The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. at Gardiner Community Center, 980 Old Gardiner Road.

The formation of the North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau marks the 25th county Farm Bureau in Washington state. Former dairyman Roger Short of Chimacum serves as president of the new organization.

Each county Farm Bureau is affiliated with the Washington Farm Bureau (WFB), a grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of Washington farmers and ranchers at the local, state and national level.

Robyn Meenach, WFB vice president for legislation, will attend the organizational meeting on behalf of the Washington Farm Bureau.

With more than 34,000 member families, Washington Farm Bureau is the largest general farm organization in Washington.

For more information visit www.wsfb.com.

Buffer zone talk to be continued July 5

2006-06-26T23:08:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared on the Leader website on June 23, 2006.

6/23/2006 10:41:00 AM

Buffer zone talk to be continued July 5

At least 120 farmers, ranchers, loggers and landowners came out in force Wednesday night before the county planning commission to oppose proposed environmental regulations that would protect wetlands.

The one person who spoke from the audience favoring changes in streamside buffers and wetland regulations was loudly booed.

“It's like the pastor preaching to his own choir,” said Roger Short of Chimacum, disappointed that county commissioners and Washington Environmental Council staff supporting the ordinance were not present.

“The people needing to be listening were not here,” Short said. “We are never going to accomplish anything if both parties - for and against - are not here.”

The planning commission said they would do their best to accommodate Short and others. Chairman Jim Hagen said representatives of the Washington Environmental Council, county commissioners and county legal staff would be invited to the July 5 planning commission meeting, during which people could ask questions about the ordinance.

The planning commission meeting's location is uncertain as a larger venue may be needed, judging from the audience that turned out June 21.

“This was a significant statement by the public,” Hagen said. “The commissioners will be very aware of what happened here tonight.”

The planning commission agreed to extend indefinitely the deadline for accepting written public comments in response to numerous statements by audience members complaining about a lack of public information regarding proposed regulations.

The planning commission's special meeting scheduled for June 28 is canceled because many people who would want to attend will be at a meeting of the new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau.

Josh Peters, county staff's senior planner, told the audience that existing farm buildings are exempt, but future construction would need to follow the new regulations.

Under the 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.

Audience members didn't seem so concerned about existing uses as they were about future uses, including what it meant to families. Wetland buffer changes could also reduce property values, some people said. Many voiced the fear of losing farm production. Sixty people were signed up to speak, with a general theme of the ordinance being too complicated and too severe.

Legal language and numbers contained in documents and spoken by Peters frustrated many of those in attendance.

“This is a complex issue,” Peters told The Leader following the four-and-a-half hour meeting June 21. “At this point we really need to do a better job explaining what the proposal is and what it does.”

At the end of the night Hagen said the commissioners had discussed the ordinance in prior meetings and were unhappy with it.

“We previously expressed rejection to this in our minutes,” Hagen said.

Hagen said the last meeting with a turnout this large occurred in August 2005 for the Water Inventory and Resource Area issue concerning the in-stream flow rule being developed by the Washington Department of Ecology.

“There are many parallels in the two issues,” Hagen said. “People just weren't aware of it. This proposal came real close to passing without people knowing about it.”

Amendments to the critical areas ordinance were developed as a result of a legal settlement between the county and the Washington Environmental Council, a statewide nonprofit advocacy group, and include stream buffers, which some people said could rob them of the use of part of their land.

Under the agreement, the WEC “reserves the right to seek additional regulatory requirements by appropriate means if it concludes that the voluntary compliance program is failing to meet its objective to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from impacts related to agriculture.”

Critical areas ordinance draws crowd in Hadlock

2006-06-23T10:22:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the June 23, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

A recurring theme in this discussion is that existing farms are exempt from the new provisions. What's not being said so loudly by the critical areas ordinance proposed update's proponents, though, is that new agricultural operations are not exempt from the update's provisions.

Agriculture is experiencing a transition in many areas of the county, with newly arriving people hoping to meet the rising demand for locally grown produce and other farm products. Should the new regulations go into effect as currently drafted, it will become far more difficult to establish a new farming operation in Jefferson County than it already is.

It's not just about agriculture, either, although our farming community is far more acutely aware of the potential outcomes of the update's implementation than other landowners may be at this point.

Critical areas ordinance draws crowd in Hadlock

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — In a room full of angry residents, farmers and business people, Jill Silver found herself in an unpopular position.

A watershed program manager and an evironmental scientist with the 10,000 Year Institute, Silver barely flinched as she read her statement supporting Jefferson County's much-maligned critical areas ordinance proposal.

"Recently reported inflammatory statements accuse the Washington Environmental Council of threatening the viability of local farmers and instituting Draconian 450-foot buffers on wetlands," said Silver.

"In fact, existing agricultural lands are exempt from the (critical areas) requirements."

Silver also supported the county commissioners' settlement agreement with the Washington Environmental Council. Silver was the only Jefferson County resident to come forward during a county Planning Commission public hearing Wednesday in favor of the ordinance.

150 showed up

Some 60 others spoke against the proposal.

In all, about 150 showed up to make their case before the commission in the Washington State University Learning Center.

After four hours of public remarks, the planning commission decided to indefinitely extend written public comments on the critical areas proposal.

A question-and-answer forum is also to be scheduled later, said County Planning Commission Chairman Jim Hagen.

Land use exemption

The ordinance's author, Josh Peters, county Development of Community Development senior planner, also emphasized that the county proposal came with an agriculture land use exemption for existing farms.

"You can continue to plow fields regardless of the crops you have," Peters said.

Hagen, however, expressed his delight in the public input.

Only two people registered comments at a public hearing a week ago, he said.

"We've got a few more tonight," he said, drawing laughter.

That was one of only a few light moments Wednesday night where the intensity of emotion ran high over proposed buffers in critical areas.

It was a night dominated by those protesting government regulation, with many voicing their general distrust of government's ability to govern.

"This should have been more promoted and advertised than what it was," said Mike Belenski, a Mats Mats Bay resident.

"This is not really about wetland issues. It's a county credibility issue."

Jefferson County Department of Community Development on May 17 drafted a critical areas ordinance defining the new buffers, and the department is now accepting public comments on the proposal.

Existing county buffers range from 25 to 150 feet, but the county, with the state Department of Ecology's recommendations, proposes 100 percent increases — from 50 to 300 feet.

Part of agreement

The proposed critical areas ordinance was part of an agreement struck with Washington Environmental Council, an environmental state lobbying group that went before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board last year.

WEC argued that the county failed to comply with the state Growth Management Act regarding critical areas, such as wetland, salmon migration channels and flood zones.

Preston Drew, a former logger and vice president for Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, said, "What this is is an assault on your freedoms and property rights."

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Farmers skeptical

2006-06-23T09:54:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the June 23, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Farmers skeptical

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — Try as they may, supporters of Jefferson County's critical areas ordinance are falling short of convincing many skeptical county farmers that their land use is exempt from proposed expanded stream and wetland buffers.

"Think of it as galloping goalposts," said Norm MacLeod, who learned to drive a tractor when he was 12 and who raises horses these days.

"Every time the county has one agreement, they will change it, moving the goalposts further ahead."

That is not the case, a Washington Environmental Council spokesman argues.

"I guess our statement would be that we've had the same position all along since 2001," said WEC outreach Director Tom Geiger.

Agricultural uses, even lawn and garden maintenance, are exempt under the county's proposed critical areas ordinance, Geiger said Tuesday.

"If it were some developer putting up three-story condominiums, that would be a different question."

Part of the agreement, Geiger said, "is to respect agricultural uses throughout the county. We feel strongly that agricultural uses can be done at the same time as environmental protections."

MacLeod, a founder of Olympic Water Users Association and a voice for water and property rights in the county, fears that this agreement with WEC — the second in two years — heralds more to come — and that all will take rights from the county's farming community.

Roger Short, who has banded about 250 Jefferson and Clallam County residents in a lobbying group called North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau, a chapter of the Washington State Farm Bureau, agrees with MacLeod.

Answers demanded

Monday, farmers parked tractors in protest at the county courthouse steps and Real Estate agents and residents demanded answers from the Jefferson County commissioners about the proposed ordinance they said threatens private property rights.

Geiger said WEC specifically negotiated with county leaders to include farmers' exemption.

Geiger said he fears "people are going to say anything to get their agenda across," referring to Initiative 933, a measure that would require fairness when government regulates private property.

WEC is campaigning against I-933.

West End residents at a disadvantage?

2006-06-23T09:31:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the June 23, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

West End residents at a disadvantage?

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — Carol Young, an Oil City Road resident since 1982, politely reminded Jefferson County Planning Commission members at a Wednesday public hearing that West End residents live in the county as well.

West Jefferson County residents came to the Washington State University Learning Center in Port Hadlock from as far away as the Hoh River Valley Wednesday night.

Many of them complained about a lack of notice and information about the county's proposed critical areas ordinance.

"We are at a disadvantage on the West End in that there is no courthouse, no county commissioners," said Young.

"Everyone where I Iive gets the Forks Forum."

No Jefferson County legal notices or Jefferson County news are published in the Forks Forum weekly mailed to readers.

"There are no (Jefferson County) legal notices in the Forum, where there is no Leader," said Young.

The county legal notices travel no farther than East Jefferson County because The Leader, a Port Townsend weekly that has the county's legal notices contract, rarely circulates to the west side of the county.

Young presented a petition with 16 signatures of West End residents living as far south as Clearwater Road who disagreed with the proposed critical areas ordinance.

"We only found out about it because a friend was sent a flier from the farm bureau," Young complained.

"Had we known about it, we probably could have gotten signatures from everyone out here."

Port Townsend/jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Development code's farming impact

2006-06-23T08:43:00.000-07:00

The following column appeared in the June 23, 2006 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Development code's farming impact

Martha Ireland

"Sorry to bother you," the strangers called over the portable electric line delineating my horses' roadside mowing assignment.

"No bother," I replied, leaving my manure fork and wheelbarrow in the corral.

They were a couple from Darrington, which is northwest of Everett in the Cascades, and the man's father was from Chicago.

Bound for Neah Bay, they paused Tuesday at Ireland Farms, drawn by the giant horse mushrooms.

"How do you get them to grow?" the younger man asked.

"God plants them," I smiled, pointing the way to the mushroom pasture. "Of course, you've got to have horses."

While they collected their gourmet bounty, I deposited the barnyard accumulation from the previous night into our manure bin.

Later, it will fertilize our fields, spawning those delectable mushrooms.

Months ago, I was scooping when Clallam Conservation District Manager Joe Holtrop dropped by and observed, approvingly, our too-small-to-require-a-permit manure-handling system.

I heard from Haltrop again regarding my June 16 column ('Does ecoo-farming really help farms?'), which quoted Chimacum farmer Roger Short's concerns about regulations that ostensibly protect the environment but actually stymie ecologically beneficial agriculture.

"You could substitute Steve Johnson of Lazy J Tree Farm for Roger Short and it would be almost the same column," Holtrop said.

However, while recognizing that he and Short are both good stewards of their land, Johnson sees differences.

Short joined Monday's tractor convoy that picketed the Jefferson County Courthouse protesting amendments to the county's development code that he finds alarming.

For example, buffers swelling as much as 450 feet wide would remove nearly 82 acres — more than 25 percent — of Short's 320 acre from agriculture if imposed along the 1.5 miles of salmon stream flowing through his fields.

In contrast, Johnson said he has no buffer problems, although only 60 to 65 of Lazy J's 85 acres on Gehrke Road east of Port Angeles are farmable.

The remainder lie in the Siebert's Creek valley, where Johnson voluntarily partners with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe on stream restoration and salmon habitat enhancement.

"I'm definitely an environmentalist," said Johnson, who quietly hopes regulations restricting ecologically beneficial activities can be altered.

"I'm not on prime farmland," Johnson said, referring to his arid farm at the tail end of the irrigation line, which is 22 miles by ditch from the Dungeness River.

Applying mulch — roughly 4,000 square yards to two acres to improve one particularly bad section — builds up the soil, retains water and turns organic materials that otherwise would be burned, dumped or hauled to the landfill into a stable and useful product.

Johnson charges a small disposal fee per truckload of brush, then grinds, waters and stirs it until it becomes mulch.

He applies 80 percent of the mulch he produces to his own land but needs to sell the balance to generate cash for his very expensive equipment.

After seeking technical advice from the conservation district, Johnson is waiting to see what regulations come out of the Clallam County Planning Commission's agriculture subcommittee.

"We believe that what Steve is doing serves the interests of the community and the environment and want to encourage it," Holtrop said, "but the rules are rather rigid."

For example, the state Department of Ecology and Clallam County want the entire area where composting is done to be paved.

Johnson doesn't want to concrete his farm and is frightened by other farmers' horror stories about spending tens of thousands of dollars on studies and plans in vain attempts to meet permitting requirements.

He's backed off from seeking a permit.

"If it cost $40,000, it would sink me," he said. "I'm just squeaking by, and looking to the future, I want to do more than squeak by.

Martha Ireland was a Clallam County commissioner from 1996 to 1999. She and her husband, Dale, live on a Carlsborg-area farm. Her column appears every Friday. E-mail: irelands@olypen.com.

New Farm Bureau

2006-06-23T07:41:00.000-07:00

The following announcement appeared in the June 23, 2006 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

New Farm Bureau

GARDINER — Organizers of a new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau, representing farm and ranch families in Jefferson and Clallam counties, are hosting an organizational meeting for Farm Bureau members and other interested residents on Wednesday, June 28.

The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at Gardiner Community Center, 980 Old Gardiner Road.

The North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau would be the 25th county farm bureau in Washington.

Former dairyman Roger Short of Chimacum will serve as president of the new county Farm Bureau.

Each county farm bureau is affiliated with the Washington Farm Burea u, a grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of Washington farmers and ranchers at the local, state and national level.

Robyn Meech, WFB vice president for legislation, will attend the organizational meeting on behalf of the Washington Farm Bureau.

With more than 34,000 member families, Washington Farm Bureau is the largest general farm organization in Washington.

For more information, go to www.wsfb.com.

Peninsula Daily News

Letter to the editor

2006-06-22T08:25:00.000-07:00

The letter following these comments was published in the June 22, 2006 Jefferson county edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Just about everyone who is questioning the proposed changes to Jefferson County's critical areas legislation and regulations fully understands the crucial role wetlands and riparian areas play in our ecosystems. For many, it's an ingrained understanding that comes from years of close interaction with those natural systems.

The letter's author misses several very important facts in his criticism of the agricultural community. Chief among those is the idea that a farmer must be a good steward of the natural resources surrounding him or her. If the farmer is a poor steward, the farm will fail. If you don't treat your soils, vegetation, and water right, they won't work together to produce healthy crops and animals.

Jefferson County's farmers have worked with the best science available for generations. They do so because that science combines to help them optimize crop yields, animal health, and ecosystem protection. The science helps them to reach optimal levels of production through the use of the lowest possible use of chemicals (which generally tend to be hideously expensive), while working in the regulatory regime already on the books. The regulations we presently have are protective of the natural resources that exist in our region, but it's still possible to make a living. Of course, for many of our farmers, having a non-farming job on the side is also a part of the life picture.

During a planning commission meeting on June 21, best available science was a topic of conversation. We do not feel that the science used in building the new proposed changes to the Jefferson County critical areas governance represents more than a portion of the peer reviewed science that's available. Two research studies, both conducted in the state of Washington, were added to the process during the public meeting in front of a room full of local citizens. They know it's there, and will expect that it be used.

Personal financial gain and a healthy environment are not in fundamental oppostion to one another. It's only in those nations and regions where excess financial resources are widely available that funding for environmental protection efforts is also widely available. You cannot indulge in ecosystem improvement projects when it's a serious challenge to make sure your kids have food every day. In the economically challenged parts of the world, it's money from the wealthier parts of the world that brings environmental protection projects to communities. Limit personal gain and you will see habitat enhancements wither on the vine.

Farmers in this nation should never be required to limit their farming in order to satisfy the demands of an outside special interest non-profit organization that has no accountability to the people it seeks to force local government to regulate. This nation was founded on the idea that government must be fully accountable to its citizens. Governance power without such accountability does not go down well with most rural landowners.

It's wrong to harm farmers or other landowners through government regulation in the name of wetland and riparian zone protection, particularly when that regulation comes at the behest of an organization that is not accountable to the people it demands that government control. Our farmers have worked in this landscape for generations on a tiny portion of the lands located in Jefferson County. The live and work where they do because that's where the soils are productive. We cannot say on the one hand that we want to keep agricultural land in agricultural production, and on the other that the farmers should not be allowed to farm in the manner that modern science tells us is optimal for both production and for the environment.

We do not believe that any of our farmers suppose that they have the "right to continue to damage wetlands and riparian areas simply because they have been doing it for a long time." Indeed, they have been working hard with the Conservation District and a broad range of groups to conserve their lands and to restore ecosystem functions in areas where the "best practices" of days gone by damaged those areas. Science changes, and so do the best practices. Farmers are usually at the leading edge of adopting both.

Not all that long ago, a local farmer attempted to convert a portion of his land to swan habitat as part of the mitigation for the removal of the Elwha Dams. He was trying to do the right thing for a species of significance that was going to lose part of its usual and accustomed habitat by providing the swans with a place to go. County regulations and permitting issues frustrated his attempt to do the right thing. Far from doing the wrong thing through ignorance or malice on his part, he was trying to do something good for all.

Common sense should enter into the equation somewhere.

Perhaps the letter's author should set aside his apparent preconceived notion that we are surrounded by farm people who only want to pillage the ecosystem for personal gain, and actually get out and meet with a few of them. I'm sure that there are several who would be more than happy to have him out to the farm to learn about the good things they are doing to help salmon return and to provide opportunities for other species to share the place.

We live in a community where there are many people who wish to live sustainably. They prefer to purchase local produce whenever possible. If that's the case, it would perhaps be a good idea for them to work with the agricultural community to learn how that happens, and what role they might play to help make it possible for farmers to actually make a living through growing and providing that local produce.

Maybe then we could enter into a more rational discussion about how best to protect and enhance our natural ecosystems. If we are supposed to live local, buy local, perhaps we should also try solving environmental challenges locally, too?

Protect 'critical areas'

The important role wetlands and riparian areas play in the overall health of the aquatic ecosystems in Jefferson County is not in question.

The prposed critical areas ordinance has used the very best scientific studies to make the case for the protection of those areas.

The only effective way to protect and regain the proper functioning of the critical areas is to prevent mechanical damage such as compaction and/or chemical pollution such as fertilization.

This, too, is not in question. Private property rights do not include the right to injure resources that belong to all citizens.

As scientific understanding progresses, all manner of discoveries have caused society to change from the old ways to new practices that limit personal gain in order to promote the future health of the environment.

It is perfectly natural for farmers who would be required to limit their farming (and so, their income) to be upset and angry.

However, the plight of a few cannot be reason to limit laws or ordinances that benefit the overall current and future health of our natural world.

The argument against the retention of buffers to protect the critical resources revolves around the supposed right of property owners to continue to damage wetlands and riparian areas simply because they have been doing it for a long time.

Getting away with doing the wrong thing, whether through ignorance or malice, is not a valid excuse to continue doing the wrong thing.

Nor is it reason for our county commissioners to promote or allow exceptions to the ordinance.

Gerorge Bush,
Port Townsend

Bush is a retired U.S. Forest Service soil scientist

Balance needed in wetland laws

2006-06-21T10:53:00.000-07:00

The following editorial appeared in the June 21, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend Leader.

Balance needed in wetland laws

Tractors showed up in front of Jefferson County Courthouse on Monday as part of a protest of proposed land use rules that would, among other things, increase buffers around rivers, streams, and wetlands.

A hearing is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Wedmesday, June 21 at the Washington State University Learning Center, 210 West Patison St., Port Hadlock. We encourage anyone with questions or opinions about these proposed regulations to attend.

After a review of the maps available online at
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/CriticalAreas.htm,
it is easy to see why some people might be alarmed by the proposal. The maps show large swaths of Jefferson County that will come under regulation if the proposal is approved as written. Of course, a property owner would have to go further than the maps to determine what the real impact would be. There are lots of different kinds of wetlands and streams, and not all carry the strictest protections. And, of course, current regulations protect many of these areas now, and it would take more than a few minutes for any property owner to determine just how the proposed changes will alter current regulations on a particular parcel. That lack of certainty has always been the place where growth restrictions have faltered.

On the other hand, there are real costs to all of us from poor land stewardship. Strictly from a logical perspective, it makes sense to prohibit development in areas that are prone to floods and to stop people from filling in wetlands. Keeping development away from natural wetlands not only provides great habitat for animals, birds and fish, but it assures that downstream groundwater that people rely on isn't contaminated. Unfortunately, pure logic cannot always rule because people's lives and livelihoods are inextricably rooted in some of these areas. We should be open to ideas beyond setbacks that will protect the environment we all cherish.

The county planning commission is in the process of balancing all of this information and will then present recommendations to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for consideration and additional public comment. The county commissioners are expected to make a final decision in September.

The tractor staging and the mobilization of landowners against the ordinance are somewhat reminiscent of the early days of growth management planning in Jefferson County. Then, there were rallies on the courthouse lawn, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on legal wrangling, crowds jamming commissioner meetings and more than a few harsh words. It would be good if the county can avoid that kind of rancor again.

— Fred Obee

Farm protest earns delay

2006-06-21T09:27:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the June 21, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend Leader.

Farm protest earns delay

By Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

A protest at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Monday earned local property owners a temporary reprieve from new environmental rules some fear could reduce the value of their land.
New rules proposed

Proposed changes to Jefferson County's critical areas ordinance include:
Expanding stream and wetland buffer zones to protect salmon and wildlife habitat. Some new buffers could be as much as three times larger than those under current county rules.
Requiring property owners who want to seek approval of smaller buffer zones to hire a professional to delineate wetland boundaries.
Adding a new category titled "channel migration zones" to the section covering areas to be protected with buffers.
Identifying new types of stream to be protected by buffers.
Establishing guidelines for creating designated core wildlife habitat areas or corridors that would affect applications for land division and forest practice conversions.
Adding a broader range of options for protection of fish and wildlife habitat in planned rural residential developments.
Comments can be sent by e-mail to plannning@co.jefferson.wa.us
The Board of County Commissioners agreed unanimously to add an extra 90 days to the public comment period on proposed changes to the county's critical areas ordinance.

Under the proposed changes, some streams and buffers 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 may be required to leave up to 450 feet of land oneither side of the stream undisturbed.

The commissioners' decision to seek more public input came after a small convoy of tractors festooned with protest signs pulled up in front of the courthouse and about 35 property owners crowded into the commissioners' chambers to voice their opposition to the proposed changes.

Many in the audience said they needed more time to read and understand how the changes might affect them.

The amendments, developed in part as a result of a legal settlement between the county and the Washington Environmental Council, a statewide advocacy and lobbying group, include stream buffers that some people said could rob them of the use of part of their land.

Many of those at the June 19 meeting said that because the public was left out of the settlement negotiations, the agreement essentially put the WEC in charge of writing environmental protection laws in Jefferson County.

"You've allowed them to define the rules," said Port Ludlow resident Ron Gregory.

If the WEC isn't satisfied with the revised protections, it could go to court to force the county to make changes.

Marilyn Sullivan, a property owner who traveled from her home along the Hoh River in West Jefferson County to take part in the protest, said property owners, through their elected representatives, should be in charge of establishing county environmental rules.

"Surely in America we have rights as property owners," she said.

The protest came on the heels of an Olympic Water Users Association meeting the previous week at which the possibility of suing the county was raised for signing the settlement agreement without public scrutiny.

Under the agreement, the WEC "reserves the right to seek additional regulatory requirements by appropriate means if it concludes that the voluntary compliance program is failing to meet its objective to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat from impacts related to agriculture."

Commissioner David Sullivan said the extended public comment period should clear up some misunderstandings about the new rules.

"There's a lot of clarification that has to happen," he said.

During the rally Monday, proponents of Initiative 933, a property-rights measure advocated by the Washington State Farm Bureau, took the opportunity to collect signatures in support of the measure. The measure calls for government to compensate landowners when laws reduce the value of their property.

While the commissioners voted to extend the public comment period on the critical areas ordinance by 90 days, the county still has to ask WEC for approval of the extension. That's because the settlement agreement called for the county to complete its public process on the changes by mid-July.

The WEC legal challenge began after the county missed a state-mandated 2004 deadline for review of its critical areas ordinance during the process of updating its comprehensive plan.

At the time, thecounty commissioners decided to delay the review so they could apply "best available science" that was being developed by the state Department of Ecology. The agency's work fell behind schedule, and the WEC petitioned the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board to force the county to perform the review.

While the agreement between the county and the WEC was signed in January 2006, the proposed changes developed by county planning staff weren't available to the public until May. Few local property owners were aware of the changes, and only two people turned out for the first public hearing before the planning commission on June 7.

The June 21 public hearing before the planning commission is a continuation of that first hearing.

After gathering public input on the ordinance, the planning commission will present its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, which can either accept those recommendations or opt to hold its own public hearing on the matter.

Farmers rally to protect land rights

2006-06-20T15:05:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared on June 20, 2006 in the Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Farmers rally to protect land rights

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — Angry farmers parked a convoy of sign-toting John Deere tractors in front of the Jefferson County Courthouse on Monday as they protested proposed action that they said would infringe on private property rights.

More than 50 residents packed the County Commissioner chambers in protest of proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code that would extend buffer zones for wetlands.

Among them was Bob Pontius, a Port Ludlow Republican who is running for county commissioner, who asked, "If this is implying that you're going to take our property, then how are you going to compensate us?"

Answered county Director for Community Development Al Scalf, "You have to look at the Legislature in Olympia. The laws are changing yearly. It is our professional duty to bring this forward to the public."

Outside, one of the farmers' signs read, "Property isn't safe while the Legislature is in session."

Others merely said, "no" to the critical areas ordinances and the same for the Washington Environmental Council.

Also outside the courthouse, real estate agent Richard Hild, who argued that county commissioners "gave away our rights to do anything" with land, was urging voters to sign a petition supporting Initiative 933. The initiative, which reads that it would require fairness when government regulates private property, is opposed by the WEC.

Public hearing Wednesday

The Jefferson County Department of Community Development on May 17 issued for public review a proposal for a critical areas ordinance defining the new buffers. The department is now accepting written public comments on the proposal.

The deadline for written (comment) is Wednesday. They can be sent to the Department of Community Development at 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368, or to dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us.

A public hearing before the Jefferson County Planning Commission on the proposed law is also planned at 6:30 p.m. in the Washington State University Learning Center 201 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock, on Wednesday.

Public comments will be accepted up until the conclusion of hte meeting.

Wednesday's hearing is an extension of a June 7 hearing.

The county Planning Commission is expected to develop its recommendation to the county commission either at Wednesday's hearing or at a special meeting on June 28.

Meeting on Wednesday

Roger Short, North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau president and long-time Chimacum farmer, urged county landowners to attend Wednesday's hearing.

"We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to be good stewards and we continue to get hammered," Short said, standing with fellow farmers outside the courthouse on Monday. "We used to have 300 potential building sites on farms. Now we have nothing."

Existing county buffers range from 25 to 150 feet, but the county, acting on state Department of Ecology recommendations, proposes 100 percent increases of these boundaries — from 50 to 300 feet.

The proposed ordinance states that if a landowner wants to hire a specialist to study a wetland and delineate its exact boundaries, wildlife habitat and ecological functions, the wetland buffer will fall somewhere in between 50 and 300 feet, based on these factors.

The cost to hire a specialist to survey the wetland can be thousands of dollars.

For those who don't hire specialists to delineate wetland boundaries, the proposed ordinance states buffers of 450 feet will be effective, said Scalf.

The proposal was no relief to Jim Fritz, president of Olympic Water Users Association, because it does not encourage cooperation with adjacent landowners to benefit salmon restoration projects.

"The proposed ordinance would start a civil war in Jefferson County," Fritz said.

The proposed ordinance is part of an agreement struck with the Washington Environmental Council, an environmental state lobbying group that went before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board last year.

WEC argued that the county failed to comply with the state Growth Management Act regarding critical areas, such as wetlands, salmon migration channels and flood zones.

Ultimately, the matter was settled with WEC in executive session behind closed doors. County commissioners said settlement was necessary to avoid a long-term costly legal battle with the group.

Norm MacLeod, who co-founded the Olympic Water Users Association, raised the possibility of local residents filing suit against the commission.

"In signing on to this agreement, the county has effectively ceded an enormous amount of governance latitude to WEC, and outside nongovernmental special interest group with absolutely no accountability to the citizens of Jefferson County," said MacLeod.

He said the public was not allowed to participate as much as it should have.

But the county's top civil attorney said the matter was highly publicized and required a public vote of the commission.

"It's not like this went from the mouth of WEC to an act of legislation," said county Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez.

Alvarez said the agreement was based on "best available science."

The county is required to meet the terms of the agreement this year, and Washington Environmental Council agrees to dismiss the matter once the agreement is met.

One county commissioner said he wanted to hear more public comment on the issue.

"I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do," said County Commissioner Phil Johnson, D-Port Townsend.

"There are a lot of real concerns."

Not the end of the issue

Scalf, county commissioners David Sullivan, D-Cape George, and Pat Rodgers, R-Brinnon, agreed that the critical areas controversy is likely to return in a year, after the Legislature meets again.

"Our lives are controlled by forces who are not from here and don't even live in this county," Rodgers said.

Meanwhile, Jim Morgan, who raises hogs on 10 acres in Eaglemount east of Discovery Bay, promised that farmers wouldreturn to the courthouse "next Monday and the Monday after that."

"We pay our taxes and vote 'em in," he said, "and we can vote 'em out."

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335
or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Jefferson County Farmers' Tractor Protest Gets Results

2006-06-20T14:44:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the June 20, 2006 edition of the Kitsap Sun.

Photo Courtesy of
Teren MacLeod

Jefferson County farmers head to the county courthouse on their tractors to protest proposed land-use regulations.
Jefferson County Farmers' Tractor Protest Gets Results
County commissioners extend deadline for critical areas ordinance.
By Julie McCormick, jmccormick@kitsapsun.com
June 20, 2006
Port Townsend
Dozens of Jefferson County farmers and other rural landowners brought their tractors and their anger to the county courthouse Monday morning.
They were fired up over proposed land-use regulations that snuck up while nobody was looking and had e-mails flying over the weekend as organizers rallied the troops. They also were steamed at a legal settlement between the county and the Washington EnvironmentalCouncil that no one had seen until late in the week.
On Monday, they showed up at 7:30 a.m., many chugging in at 8 mph on big-tired farm rigs from an overnight staging area at the county fairgrounds.
Protest leaders said they only learned about the seemingly draconian 450-foot buffers for certain wetlands days ago, with the planning commission set to hold a public hearing and close public comment on Wednesday.
It was just the kind of thing to set off Roger Short, whose family has farmed in the Central Valley near Chimacum for generations. He’s farming 300 acres, including parcels along Beaver Valley Road, the main highway into Port Townsend.
The way Short reads proposed revisions to the wetlands portion of the county’s critical areas ordinance, any change in current use on agricultural land with a wetlands component would trigger the so-called "default" buffer of 450 feet.
Kitsap County’s recently adopted critical areas ordinance drew fire from property rights activists and environmentalists. It includes a 250-foot buffer for some high-quality wetlands.
With Chimacum Creek running right through the center of Beaver Valley through an ancient peat bog, a farmer couldn’t decide to build a greenhouse or go from crops to cows without losing use of a huge swath.
"This affects all of my farm," said Short, who’s also president of the North Olympic Farm Bureau. He has long been active in land-use issues and he’s convinced the county’s agricultural regulations achieved by locals a few years ago should stand.
The devil is in the details, said Jim Tracy, attorney for Fred Hill Materials. Tracy attended the meeting but said the gravel company’s land is likely not affected.
The hot-button buffer issue may not mean exactly what protesters believe, Tracy said, but similar revisions are raising hackles in counties throughout the state in response to a legislative mandate approved two years ago.
That’s where the county’s settlement with the Washington Environmental Council comes in. Legislative language called for counties to review ordinances, and revise them if necessary based upon "best available science."
The state Department of Ecology was supposed to provide that science, but work was delayed.
Jefferson County commissioners decided to wait beyond the legislative deadline for more information. The environmental group petitioned the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, charging the county violated the law.
A settlement agreement reached in January but not publicized promises the county will complete its work by July 18.
Language in the low-profile settlement agreement sounded to a lot of people as if county commissioners were letting an outside group dictate the future of their land.
Not so, said County Commissioner David Sullivan of Cape George, who declared to loud hoots from skeptics that the agreement gives over no power or authority.
Faced with the hostile crowd demanding answers, commissioners quickly adjusted their agenda, unanimously approved a 90-day extension for the rule-making process and more public participation, then opened their meeting up for what became a freewheeling series of heated accusations.
Marilyn Lewis, who traveled 100 miles from her farm in the Hoh River Valley to make the meeting, called any buffer on the meandering river that sometimes floods and takes her land, sometimes recedes and gives it back, "a taking, a stealing."
The audience applauded.
County Planning Director Al Scalf said he expects the Washington Environmental Council will agree to an extension of the deadline.
Commissioners also could decide to request the state hearings board allow the county another year to review based upon the county’s own "best science," rather than state guidelines.
Critical Areas Hearing

The Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed revisions to the critical areas ordinance beginning at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Washington State University Learning Center, 201 W. Patison, Port Hadlock. Details are available on the county’s Web site, www.co.jefferson.wa.us.

Copyright 2006, kitsapsun.com. All Rights Reserved.

##TITLE##

1969-12-31T16:00:00.001-08:00

##CONTENT##