Skip to content

11/30/22 04 PM: JeffCo Forests: Ecology, Pilots, DNR Carbon, Public Input

JeffCo Forests: Ecology, Pilots, DNR Carbon, Public Input

Jefferson County meeting on forest ecosystem services, climate challenges, management program overview, successful pilot thinning projects with revenue, DNR lands collaboration options including carbon sequestration vs. timber harvest, and extensive public comments balancing conservation, economics, fire risk, and sustainable practices.

Jefferson County Forests: Ecosystem Services and Climate Challenges

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:03:34.069–00:08:53.546 (PART 1)
  • Categories: planning, operations, public safety

Summary

Dr. Catharine Copass provided ecological context for Jefferson County forests, highlighting ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, rainfall absorption, habitat provision, recreation, and economic value from wood products. Forests feature complex structures with multiple canopy layers, downed wood, and soil critical to the carbon cycle. Challenges include land conversion, climate-driven changes like increased temperatures, intense winter storms, summer droughts, and forest health issues such as dieback in bigleaf maple and western redcedar, with aerial detection of diseases and unique dry forest types in the rain shadow.

Key Discussion Points

  • Forests dominated pre-Euro-American settlement landscape east of Jefferson County; recent transformations reduced structural complexity.
  • Expected climate impacts: higher temperatures, altered rainfall timing/intensity, more summer droughts as shown in timeline graphic.
  • Local dry forests unique to rain shadow; aerial surveys detect pathogens.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational presentation.
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified.

Jefferson County Forestry Program Overview and Policy

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:08:53.546–00:16:15.376 (PART 1)
  • Categories: planning, operations, budgeting, contracts

Summary

Mallory (Chickadee Forestry) presented the county's forestry program, hired in 2019 for forest management assessment focusing on ecological, social, and economic benefits. The program manages 1,800 acres across 300 parcels (mostly small, <10 acres), with policy adapted from Kitsap County emphasizing forest health restoration, habitat protection, self-sustainability, recreation, and sustainable resource provision. Partnerships include Kitsap stewardship model, local experts, conservation district, parks, and fire department.

Key Discussion Points

  • Mallory (Chickadee Forestry): Program in infancy; policy copied from Kitsap for efficiency.
  • Advisors acknowledged: Arnold (Kitsap forester), Dr. Katherine Copass, Mike Cronin (retired DNR forester), others for mentorship, restoration, sustainability.
  • Matt Tyler (Parks Director): Pilot projects in parks successful for access, safety, health benefits; Gibbs Lake use tripled in 10 years.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

Packet mission statement: "Restore and maintain forest health... provide natural resources through sustainable forest management to the local community." 80% of county parcels forested; dominated by ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir.

Financials

No financial information discussed in this section.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational.
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified.

Pilot Forest Management Projects and Results

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:21:07.478–00:25:30.451 (PART 1)
  • Categories: operations, planning, public safety, budgeting

Summary

Mallory detailed variable density thinning (30% volume removal) on overstocked sites like Silver (mosaic gaps mimicking natural disturbance), pre-commercial thinning (PCT) on young post-fire stands (Trailhead County Park), canopy opening at Chimacum Park (hazard tree removal), and thinning at Gibbs Lake (35-40 years old, conifers regrowing 6 months post-harvest). Pilots tested economic viability; one site cost money, others generated revenue. Future: business analysis, 5-10 year plan, local wood sales, internships.

Key Discussion Points

  • Mallory: Prescriptions increase diversity, health; tree rings show stress relief post-thinning.
  • Chimacum wood sold locally to Portland airport (2024 showcase).
  • Brett (Fire Chief): Aligns with CWPP for wildfire risk reduction; coordinate access roads.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

Packet pilot summary (2019-2021): 188 acres, 902.80 MBF harvested, $85,776.55 revenue, $56,000 contract cost, ~$29,000 net. Chimacum: $86k revenue (9.9 MBF/acre); Trailhead: -$42k (4.0 MBF/acre).

Financials

Packet: Total revenue $85,776.55; net ~$29,000.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational; pilots successful ecologically/economically.
  • Vote: None.
  • Next Steps: 2022 business analysis; Jan 2023 report; refine variable density thinning.

DNR Lands: Collaborative Management and Quimper/Cape George Case Study

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:25:30.451–00:43:37.508 (PART 1)
  • Categories: land use, planning, operations, public safety

Summary

Discussion pivoted to DNR lands after community concerns over Beaver Valley/Pennywise sales with legacy forests (>100 years old). Options: no action (DNR sales), reconveyance/TLT to county parks, carbon project, co-management. Case study: 245-acre Quimper/Cape George parcel (dry, high recreation/fire risk, near homes, includes Quimper Lost Wilderness, G2 imperiled forests, DNR carbon area). Stands: young (10-35 years), legacy; DNR assessed ages back to 1710s.

Key Discussion Points

  • Mallory: Prioritize dry/remote parcels for county; align thinning with fire access.
  • One Beaver Valley unit pulled; Pennywise proceeds.
  • Brett: CWPP-ready; fire dept capacity concerns for reconveyed lands.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

Packet: Quimper options - No action: 5 MBF/acre Stand 1 (2027); Carbon: 50 acres Stand 3; County selective: 30% thin 70 acres Stand 1 (350 MBF), PCT 50 acres Stand 4 ($500/acre).

Financials

Transcript est. Stand 1: 175 MBF saw ($113k) + pulp ($40k); PCT $25k; net ~$5k gain. Packet matches.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No action (DNR harvest).
  • Carbon sale.
  • County selective harvest + PCT.
  • Reconveyance/TLT/co-management.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Exploratory; DNR paused sales for collaboration.
  • Next Steps: Jan 2023 report analyzes carbon/no-action/county options.

DNR Carbon Project Overview and Financial Analysis

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:43:37.508–00:54:33.845 (PART 1)
  • Categories: budgeting, planning, land use

Summary

Peter Bails (Northwest Watershed Institute) overviewed DNR's Phase 2 Carbon Project (10k acres statewide, ~4k Jefferson, 14% East Jeff DNR lands), including Dabob Bay (rare rhododendron forest, imperiled types). Economics: 917k credits first 10 years; proportional county share. At $20/credit + $2/10yr escalation (40yr lease), Jeff share ~$33M (82-101% standing timber value, timber remains post-lease). Compared favorably to timber; protects G2 forests.

Key Discussion Points

  • Peter Bails: Dabob expansion aligns with carbon; excludes legacy/imperiled via TLT.
  • Mallory: Recent info (4 wks prior); ~4k acres in county.
  • High-quality credits demand; equiv. longer rotations + annual payments.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

Packet: 3,911 acres Jeff; $10/credit: $18.6M; $20: $33M (40yrs). Standing timber $40M; end-lease ~$80M. Sources: Csenka Favorini-Csorba (DNR).

Financials

917k credits/10yrs (10k acres); Jeff 39% share. $20/credit +$2/10yrs: $33M (40yrs), 82% timber value (101% excl. G2). Timber doubles post-lease.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Timber harvest.
  • TLT permanent protection.
  • No carbon (status quo).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational; speculative estimates.
  • Next Steps: Commissioners workshop on math; concrete parcel analysis.

Public Comments on Forestry Management

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:54:46.406–01:52:04.201 (PART 1)
  • Categories: planning, land use, budgeting, public safety, operations

Summary

~30 public comments (2 min each) addressed balancing economics (timber revenue for schools/fire, local jobs, industry impacts), conservation (protect legacy/old growth, biodiversity, habitat), carbon sequestration (old vs. young trees, non-timber benefits), fire risk, alternatives (community forestry, diverse economy, monitoring). Concerns: revenue uncertainty (10-20% vs. Peter's est.), industry inclusion, post-40yr logging pressure, funding diversification.

Key Discussion Points

Limited; comments summarized in Public Comments.

Public Comments

  • Marsha (industry stakeholder): Include industry; carbon loses harvests forever; import wood reliance.
  • Unnamed neighbor: Link parcels/species; monitor treatments; email carbon info.
  • Donald (fire volunteer): Timber offsets taxes; fire dept needs $6M/yr best practices.
  • Unnamed: Economic development via diverse small-scale wood industry.
  • Brandon: Forests key GHG sink.
  • Bill: Carbon economics beyond stumpage (hauling/milling/jobs); young forests sequester faster.
  • American Forest Resource Council rep: Sustainable mgmt for wood products displaces fossil fuels.
  • Patricia: Inventory by district; Olympic Forest Collaborative.
  • Katya Kirsch: Protect old growth/Quimper/Dabob.
  • Chief Manley: Historical basis for carbon est.?
  • Others (Mary Bond, Danielle Fedor, etc.): Preserve old growth, diverse uses (mushrooms/medicines), equitable benefits, next gens, non-carbon services.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No new references.

Financials

Comments cited timber decline, carbon 10-20% return uncertainty vs. Peter's 101%, fire/school needs.

Alternatives & Amendments

Community forestry, local wood priority, inventory assessment, working lands post-carbon.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action; workshop for input.
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified; notes taken for responses.

Background Materials

Contents

AI Information