HomeMy WebLinkAbout051324 City Council Workshop Meeting PacketPORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 540 WATER STREET
Workshop Meeting 6:00 p.m. May 13, 2024
Attend in person or virtually via computer or tablet atenter
the Webinar ID 98187633367
Phone only (muted listen -only mode) United States:—1(253)215-8782„98187633367#
• View live stream: htt s:llcit of t.us/cit counncill a vela endasminutesvideos.
...............
• Submit public comment to be included in the meeting record to:
p1ttnL.//paibliccomment.lillout.com/cit of t
If you are experiencing technical difficulties, please attempt all methods listed above before
reporting any issues to: )eA.s A. grrh cit of t.u,;
I. Call to Order/ Roll Call
IL General Public Comment (regarding items not on the agenda)
III. Discussion Items
A. Solid Waste Update: "All Things Solid Waste" with Jefferson County Solid
Waste and Olympic Disposal
a. Staff Presentation
b. Public Comment
c. Council Discussion
B. Climate Pollution Reduction Goals Presentation with the Climate Action
Committee
a. Staff Presentation
b. Public Comment
c. Council Discussion
IV. Adjourn
Americans with Disabilities Act
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodation for this meeting
should notes the City Clerk's Office at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at (360) 379-5083.
Cl.
C
N L
A O d
L =
?i U U
y ._
L L
N 7 J
� N d
C
(D d
E U
3 OsC'.
L U 7 O
7 U D
N Q 2
Z
d @
td
T
O C
.L.. p
O C
d 0
00 o
C U
U N
d U
d
T U
@@ N N
U N
_
O C
a E N d
m O L
@
o 0
.� d 0
c o o
- O d
a
a
-. d U
° x
a
w�2 o
c m
maw
C y
O
a i r
a 0
co
O
L
N
N>
T
(6
U
L-'
C
- °
r
d
N 3 d
J p Y
C d
o
y d@
T p a
ai 3 L
aai
V 3 0
Zz
C
L N
a
E
V
E
U
N
o N d U
@
L L O
@- d
r
O@
E
N
N
42 -
a d
N>@
T J L
d O U
d
d
K
- d
C
O JO @
C-
O
= E
Od
mL
y U
Y d
d
a�mdJ°
�N�L..�a
J
�`
O i J
U@ L
9 j
OI V@
U '= N
L y N
.� 02
O
d
L L N
_
o
E .�
U Q LL
�' J@
a
G
d@ EO
L
E
3
J O
p
3
3❑
O L
i
U
L 0>=
J O
m L
U C
d@ L
i N 0
J 9 N
od
a �
a ..�.
o&
of
N �
•� E
m L�
Y�
U
y
U y p
a'a
R
O C y
a 0
2-0
Q N
6 N
@
�
N
d 3 d@
O' O]
@ 0 3
° 0 'N a
c
d °
dL
�- d
o d
E y
o �. i.E
'o °
a m
m .� @
n m
u E
u E
c 3 3 Y
o E
E
L n N
o L
U
C J
N C @
a@
7
Q J
p L O@
U U_
a d
a .>
@
@ O
E p
y
N w C C
'E O
O
-.w J d
O
C
O
w.
L
N L
.-
O-
J+ N
L U N
@ -
j C
9
N w '�
C
d
o
N N
d d
C O
y N N
dO O '
E O@ V
,C
L
E
`
E N
m° d
N
d@ N
O_ E d
°+L+
r Ear
d
E
o a
a
@
QEAa
maE2
N O
m H
0 U d
_ E
U
U
Q E
d E d
0
F Q U
o N
r U
300N.
ao
T O C J
E N
>
E
U
H
� U
N
- o
,a
E
d (��J�
W
L U O
rC
d O
W.a
T i
d O
w-
Z p
d
J 3
Ho6iU'
odOH
n�
(�' 1 �,
ityof port
���fi11N@INO�llo�4
'10wn e n
Submitted By: Steve King, PW Director
Department: Public Works
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Workshop
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
010
Staff Report
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
Agenda Bill AB24-084
Meeting Date: May 13, 2024
Agenda Item: III.A
❑ Regular Business Meeting
❑x Workshop/Study Session
❑ Special Business Meeting
Date Submitted: May 9, 2024
Contact Phone: 360-379-5090
BUDGET IMPACT: N/A
Expenditure Amount: $
Included in Budget? Yes ❑ No ❑
Contract Approval ❑x Other: Work Shop
Public Hearing (Legislative, unless otherwise noted)
3-Year Strategic Plan: 4 - Ensure sustainable future for public services and facilities
Cost Allocation Fund: � i ^� an rt irn,
SUMMARY STATEMENT:
Solid Waste is a core function of cities necessary for public health and safety.
Sanitation including solid waste management and sanitary sewers have created some
of the most serious challenges in terms of disease control and environmental
stewardship.
The topic of solid waste is dynamic with changing regulations, implementation of best
management practices, and cost/market conditions.
This workshop will include a staff brief and two presentation from Joey Deese of
Olympic Disposal and Al Cairns of Jefferson County Solid Waste.
Solid Waste for the City of Port Townsend is managed by the City in partnership with
Jefferson County who is the designated solid waste agency and Olympic Disposal who
provides pickup services for municipal solid waste (MSW), yard waste, and recycling.
Olympic Disposal was awarded a contract effective 2020 for 10 years.
Garbage service in the City is a mandatory per the municipal code PTMC 6.04.
Mandatory participation is required in order to promote a clean and healthy community.
Participation is also mandatory for the greater good of the City to help with the fixed cost
of disposal service.
This work session will provide an update "all things solid waste" and is an opportunity
for Council to ask questions directly of staff, Olympic Disposal and Jefferson County
Solid Waste.
ATTACHMENTS: Presentations
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No Action.
ALTERNATIVES:
❑ Take No Action ❑ Refer to Committee ❑ Refer to Staff ❑ Postpone Action
❑ Remove from Consent Agenda ❑ Waive Council Rules and approve Ordinance
❑ Other:
'Rftkb�..�
13
...........
aw,
c
a
L
u
c
0
c
0
cq
N
C �
� L
T .a
_a
V
i
N
O
V
N
h
a ri
N N
L O
U N
c
- o
a }
N
N
_ O
N
a c-
O
N L
N �
a 3
S
U)
W
W
U.
p
lok
ZA
m
RMS
p
lok
ZA
i
9
O)
00 M ti N �
1
U
�
U
.-�
> 1
O
O
+
U
>%
3:
3:
CJ)
C/)
(
O
+
N
U)
Cn
O
N
(D
Cl)
C%)
L
L
O
+r
O
+r
a)O
cn
(n
E
E
U
U
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
4t
4t
ZA
421)
4(
E
E
E
E
E
E
40
,.
w
m
RMS
p
lok
ZA
40
w •'
0
I
U)
x
0
CD
Im
>
CL
LU
o
MEN=
0
0
0
CL)
No
AW
0
0
M
U
L-
CD
o
LU
N
CD
U)
0
cn
0
0
CL
0
0
>
r.
0
0
0
w
cn
cn
m
a
OR
MR,
1811
f//l
V/
■
MtifINIIIH11 if tit
Z9
im 6 9 ( ;x f J. �w
it
O
N'rc '�!�" tf if MR11, tf tit f I
ON! lit i l000lt, H H it
W�1pp1y
w
i tit t titlItt"w, tit tit
LL
U)
LL1
—j
I ill i lit ON I i I i I ill
oli 10,11 11 it'll t i 1i i ll
_
a 4 � ���µn,I a"
i MMA" I flit 1, Miff
Oil I il i WOO 10 1 ti tit
LL1
No
LU
LU
LU
LU
LL
2
z
LU
F ---
LL
LU
U)
LLJ
01-0
C)
z
LLJ
LLJ
LL
LU
0
LL
LU
co
I
P W
ima,
CN
w2 ci era 4T A w2 81
-4 f2 14 1�
7C)
yW
7C)
73
cu
0
U)
7-1
Ol
45
0
0
(f)
Ln
c
W
1
F
mm
I�u�V
ct
m:
II�
II ��
II�
0
Cut
0 C`.'?
,,r
era
IN
....,
0
0
0 0 00
O
0
M
M
m n 0
cy M
c
1n +A in
V�-
0
0
0
0 0 0
N
N
N
N N N
-Ln
'A
to
tr? V)-
0 0 0 0 O c
LL
v
J
m
w
m
-4
M
LO
Ln
N C
+,
c
m n
3
0
v
v
E
0
3
V
f0
O1
N
0
N
p
N
N
N
N
O
0
N
+S+
N
N
N
O r
C
? N C
0
E
r
C
cu
0)
3
3 U
cu
O
N
f
Z
0
�v <
LLII
ww
LIU
0
u
M
m
LIU
0
19
II�I�I�III�I�I�I�I�I�II�I�I�I�I�I�II
���
IE
P
II�I�I�III�I�I�I�I�I�I�
II�I��I�I�I�I�I�II
0
I.,
0
I�I�I�I�I�I�II
0
C,
O
O
O
O 0
0
O
c1
m
N
M
oo
0 lQ
�0 0o
M
m
u1
o0
ri
ri
Lr
to
cn
in
.n V)-
<n
of
0
0
0
0 0
0
N
N
N
N N
N
i/}
i/?
{/}
ih i/?
i/}
0 0 0 0 0 c
a
O
J
r-I
N
M
O
to C
c
3
O
V
a
E
0
3
V
f0
N
N
N
0
N
O
N
N
\
N
O N
C
ON Cr
O
E
r
3 U _
O
U
N
CU f
Z
0
9
, � <
O
U
a
Z
a
LLI
H
Q
U
LEI
w
O
LL
a
V
O
a.
Z
O
U
U)
0
LIJ
2
U
Z
O
J
0
�
r-
m
ro
4-4
rl
N
O
u
0
0o
0o
�
N
a-0
V
CL
W
v
V)
+j
.E
o
v
Q
Ln
V
O
m
O
V)
>
El
0
No
0
00
I-
C
�
r-i
LA
N
u
0
fV
00
o
�
a-+
U
H
Q)
E
Ln
o
N
Q
=
c
>-
I�
r-:
M
O
0
U)
o
. .
L U
L1J
L U
2
w
LL
O
C.)
Z
Z
_
O
F-
w
Z
O
LU-
CL
2
w Camm
w
w U
� w
LL
2 w
- 0
z L,.,
w
� J
Cn U
z
= Q
M
N
N
sm
N
O
E
Co
+�
M
N
►�
e e e e e e e e
z
3\
\
j\
(
(
J
J
3
Ln
CD Ln
j!
m m
lu
>
J
u ]
}
ƒ))
J))
/
/ \
\
7-
a (
(
)
/
C%
°
_
F
}
\
\ 5
a
: e
_
ƒ
[\j
\
{ \
_
_
g)
/
) §
7 \
2 ± B
e :
y I.
�
/ } / %
>
e
\ \ \
\ {
}
/
\
o
c
§ \ \ j
\
®
_ \
\
®*
(
-
(
\
_
\
—
}
)
\
\ }
\
/ \
\ \ /
\ \
\ } \ \
§
>
§
I
z
Elo
rH
QJ
QJ
4
-
LD
L-
I
cu
(D
(n
Ln
=3
co
cu
0
0
U
�I
0
0
C7
L
Q
�
b�
i
_Q
a
.Q
cc
O
N
'
a
O
a
O
o
cc
O
V
�..+
tq
O
%
Q
i
ate-+
i
(a
C
W
Q
V
i
4--j
■0
0
co
z
i
E
N
Qcc
W
cc
0
a�>1
a
Q
O
c
O
c
N
?�
U
o
u
a
O
-
E
E
m
cc
O
C
O
G
cc
a
U
U
o
■O
�°
=3
E
O
E
w
70
O
3:
U
—
�U
i
�
O
O
0
O
O
to
w
UJ
O
co
O
O
:3
Q
co
+'
p
co
O42.
.E
O
O
OL
.y
0
0
0
40
cn c
Tcn
i
i
ca
a_+
E
3
cu
0
O
O42
'�
O
cu
z
>cu
0
wcu
�
o
cu
cu>CL
o
o
(n
c
cocc
cc
occ
O
42,
4
o
o
L.ri
To: City Council and Jefferson County BOCC
Cc: County Administrator and City Manager of the City of Port Townsend
From: Climate Action Committee (CAC)
Date: February 20, 2024
Subject: CAC Recommendations re Updated Goal to Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
As you aware, in 2008 the City and County jointly adopted a goal to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 80% below
1990 levels by 2050, with an interim goal to reduce emissions by 15% from 1990 levels by 2020. When the 2_01.,.8.l-jG.
u_m .en.ta y was done, we found that we as a community were making great progress toward that goal, with the 2018 data
showing a 39% reduction from 1990 levels, ahead of the 2020 goal of a 15% reduction, and well on our way to the 80%
below 1990 by 2050. This was primarily driven by two factors: the change in electricity supplier from Puget Sound
Energy to Bonneville Power through Jefferson PUD, and the lower carbon footprint of the BPA power, and secondly, a
52% decrease in the Port Townsend Paper Company's emissions between 2005 and 2018.
However, as we presented those results, we noted that globally, we are not on track to reduce emissions sufficiently to
keep warming below the 1.5'C increase in temperature that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
recommends, and which was agreed upon in the Paris Agreement. To reach that goal, the IPCC states that me must
reduce global emissions by 50% by 2030, and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. In 2022, ICLEI, the Local Governments
for Sustainability that we are members of, and which provides tools for GHG emissions and sequestration modeling,
created a Science -Based target for Jefferson County that is designed to represent each community's fair share of the
global emissions to meet the Paris Agreement, with wealthy nations reducing emissions by more than 50% by 2030. For
Jefferson County, utilizing our 2018 inventory as a baseline, they determined a 58.7% absolute reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions from 2018 by 2030 is required to do our share. See attachment "High Impact Action Analysis Summary
Report: Jefferson County, WA, 2018". See also the 020._Greenhouse__..._ a.s._C rn_mn_unit...IFlrmis:sin�_ns...lf�e_duct�_on..O�pa turJ.i.ti_es
(,ba,5.gd_om.._241_1 .._unve.nt�LId report approved by the CAC in 2021.
For a 2050 goal, the IPCC recommends all organizations be net zero. However, we learned in the CAC's previously
approved ",FoLes:t.._a_In_d.._Trees._G_reenhou�u,se Gas.._p_mve_In.ta�_Ey four 200J...2016 and Next Stei�.s" that we already meet that target,
since our forests sequester many times more GHGs than the amount reported in our 2018 emissions inventory.
Therefore, the CAC discussed and agreed that a good model to follow would be s_b.umton State g which has set a goal
o.ff._a 9..5.��.._Le_d_q .t.ugm._caf._e_L u_us.sl.ons b..Y.._ Q�_aC� (with the remaining 5% offset).
Based on the above information, the CAC adopted a motion at its 12/12/23 meeting to "Recommend the City Council
and BoCC approve updated GHG emissions reduction goals based on the IPCC recommendations and science -based
targets: 58.7% reduction from 2018 baseline levels by 2030 (absolute) and 95% below 2018 levels by 2050 (absolute)
with reference to our previous goals using 1990 baseline data. " The absolute indicates total emissions, regardless of
population changes.
The 2030 goal of a 58.7% reduction from 2018 levels (275,083 metric tons of CO2e, from the 2018 inventory), would
result in reduction of 161,474 metric tons, to an overall inventory level in 2030 of 113,609 metric tons. The 2050 goal of
a 95% reduction from 2018 levels (275,083 metric tons of CO2e, from the 2018 inventory), would result in reduction of
261,329 metric tons, to an overall inventory level in 2030 of 13,754. Note that to compare the new proposed goals to
the original 1990 goals, one must first convert the community -wide emissions in 2005 to the latest IPCC 51h Assessment
parameters. That was done in the Emissions Reduction project, and the 2005 51h Assessment inventory using the ICLEI
Clearpath tool was calculated as 453,252 metric tons of CO2e (just slightly more than the 453,034 metric tons reported
for 2005 using the original IPCC 2nd Assessment parameters.) That level was "backcast" to 1990 using the same ratio
(0.974) of 1990 and 2005 emission in the original Climate Action Plan, and results in a 1990 level of 441,556 metric tons
of CO2e. The new 2030 goal of 113,609 metric tons would be a 74% below 1990 levels. And the new 2050 goal of 13,754
metric tons would be 97% below 1990 levels (as compared to the current goal of 80% below.) These are summarized in
the table below.
Year
GHG Emissions
Percent
Percent reduction
Notes
(Metric tons of CO2e)
reduction from
from 1990 level
2018 level
1990
441,560 (backcast
N/A
N/A
As modeled in 2018
from 2005)
inventory, using 2005
data, and 51h
Assessment
parameters
2018 GHG Emissions
275,083
N/A
38%
Using 5th Assessment
2030 Recommended
113,609
58.7%
74%
Goal for Emissions
2050 Recommended
13,754
95%
97%
Goal for Emissions
Therefore, the CAC recommends to the BOCC and the City Council that they adopt the updated GHG emissions
reduction goals approved by the CAC based on IPCC recommendations and science -based targets of:
• 58.7% below 2018 baseline levels by 2030 (absolute)
0 95% below 2018 levels by 2050 (absolute)
Note that the CAC will continue to follow the climate science and will review our goals as that evolves, and will make
further recommendations regarding emissions goals if and when necessary to stay consistent with the latest science.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kees Kolff, Chair, Climate Action Committee
Attachment: High Impact Action Analysis Summary Report: Jefferson County, WA, 2018
F�,-,]
Jefferson Cou ntyWA
_HIA_updated.pdf
7
LIM1ATE
'A
�IRI FIIIII�.
To: City Council and Jefferson County BOCC
Cc: County Administrator and City Manager of the City of Port Townsend
From: Climate Action Committee (CAC)
Date: February 20, 2024
Subject: CAC Recommendation re New Goal on County -wide Carbon Sequestration
As you are aware, in 2023 the Port Townsend/Jefferson County joint Climate Action Committee approved a J_ .(..(. irs2n.
o_U_01 Forests and Frees Greenhouse Gas Vnventory for 2001-201.6 and Next Ste so In that inventory, we found that the
forests and trees across our county were sequestering (or removing) more than 13 times the amount of greenhouse
gases that were being emitted, as measured in the 2018 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, our
opportunity to impact the net greenhouse gas contribution of Jefferson County — and Washington State — is highly
influenced by the forests and trees across Jefferson County.
Based on the above information, the CAC adopted a motion at its 12/12/23 meeting recommending that the City Council
and BoCC set two new targets for increasing carbon sequestration in the county:
1. By 2030: Increase carbon sequestration in Jefferson County (excluding the Olympic National Park and Wilderness
areas (ONPW)) to 2.0 Million Metric Tons of CO2 (MMTCO2)/year, a 20%increase above the 2011-2016 baseline
of 1.6 MMTCO2/year.
2. By 2050: Increase carbon sequestration in Jefferson County (excluding ONPW) to 2.3 MMTCO2e/year, a 40%
increase above the 2011-2016 baseline of 1.6 MMTCO2/year.
The rationale for the goals is based on the memo that follows below, approved by the CAC at its 12/12/23 meeting.
Thank you for your consideration of this recommendation. Please let us know if we can be of assistance in moving this
recommendation forward.
Kees Kolff, Chair, Climate Action Committee
To: City of Port Townsend / Jefferson County Climate Action Committee (CAC)
From: CAC Forest Working Group
Date: December 5, 2023 (Approved at the 12/12/23 CAC meeting)
Subject: Proposed Recommendation re Countywide Carbon Sequestration Goals
Introduction
In 2008, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend adopted joint goals for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
- 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 - based on the inventory of GHG emissions using 2005 data. At the time, there was no
inventory of carbon sequestration (removal of CO2 from the atmosphere) levels for the county. Since then, a baseline for
carbon sequestration was established in the Jefferson County ��L�s.�s ��� :�L�qs �V..� Vu��e�tp�ry, which was approved by
the CAC in 2022. Overall results from this Inventory indicate Jefferson County forests generate significant removals of
atmospheric CO2, although forest degradation from disturbances — fire, insects, and harvests, as well as forest conversion
to non -forest, reduced the total amount of removal. In addition, trends indicate reduced levels of sequestration over time.
The inventory includes a proposed next step that the county could adopt and/or advocate for goals for carbon
sequestration.' Increasing carbon sequestration reduces overall net GHG emissions and is critical to tackling climate
change. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted the worldwide imperative to
reduce GHG emissions significantly by 2030 to keep warming to 1.5°Celcius (or 2.7°Fahrenheit), and the "rapidly closing
window to secure a livable future".2 The IPCC identifies ecosystem restoration, afforestation, reforestation and improved
sustainable forest management as significant near -term options to reduce emissions.3
The CAC Forest Working Group has researched possible goals for carbon sequestration in Jefferson County, WA. This
document summarizes the recommendation, rationale and current research for potential carbon sequestration goals.
Recommended Goals
Based on the research below, the CAC Forest Working Group proposes setting two aspirational goals for increasing carbon
sequestration in the county:
3. By 2030: Increase carbon sequestration in Jefferson County (excluding the Olympic National Park and Wilderness
areas (ONPW)) to 2.0 Million Metric Tons of CO2 (MMTCO2)/year, a 20%increase above the 2011-2016 baseline
of 1.6 MMTCO2/year.
4. By 2050: Increase carbon sequestration in Jefferson County (excluding ONPW) to 2.3 MMTCO2e/year, a 40%
increase above the 2011-2016 baseline of 1.6 MMTCO2/year.
Rationale
Forests in Jefferson County have been identified as high -carbon -priority, based on their potential carbon sequestration
and low vulnerability to drought or fire.4 Increasing our forest and trees carbon sequestration is a critical component
of meeting Washington State's GHG reduction limits.
The Washington State legislature set GHG Reduction Limits consistent with the IPCC 1.5°C target:
• 2020— Emissions reduce to 1990 levels of 93.5 MMT
• 2030— 45% below 1990 levels
• 2040 — 70% below 1990 levels
2050 — 95% below 1990 levels — and the remaining 5% is offset by nature -based solutions (achieving net zero
or neutrality) 5
' In this case, "carbon sequestration" means atmospheric carbon removals (not carbon storage), usually referenced on an annual
basis.
2 ha .a s.//wwva.oi.�rcc
3 IPCC, 2023: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. See Figure SPM.7 on page 27
a Buotte, P. C., B. E. Law, W. J. Ripple, and L. T. Berner. 2020. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity
co -benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. Ecological Applications 30(2):e02039.
10.1002/ea p.2039
5 W.ashi_n. n._S1ao.e G.I..:I_ reductic.ro...liMits. were set by the Legislature and went into effect June 11 2020.
The Jefferson County Forest and Trees GHG Inventory shows a net GHG balance of -3.7 MMTCO2e/year (negative number
indicates atmospheric carbon removals) for the period of 2011-2016, for the entire county. This is equivalent to reducing
Washington State's total current GHG emissions (102 MMT in 2019) by 3.6%.6
The proposed 2030 goal for Jefferson County (excluding the ONPW) would provide an additional -0.33 MMTCO2e/year, an
additional 0.3% reduction in State's current GHG levels, or an additional 0.4% reduction in 1990 levels. The proposed 2050
goal would provide an additional -0.66 MMTCO2e/year, which is an additional 0.6% reduction from the State's current
GHG levels and an additional 0.7% below 1990 levels. Altogether, by 2050 the Recommended Goals above would provide
3.6+0.7 = 4.3% reduction in Washington State's 1990 GHG emissions, a large portion of the 5% offset needed.
The recommended goals focus on areas outside of the Olympic National Park and Wilderness (ONPW). These areas are
largely protected or unmanaged' and already store large amounts of carbon, meaning there is little opportunity to improve
carbon sequestration in the ONPW.
There is significant additional sequestration potential in Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
commercial/industrial, small private/public, and county -owned lands. The Jefferson County Forest and Trees GHG
Inventory report analyzed the per acre amount of carbon sequestration by ownership type.8 Figure 12 of the report shows
that the US Forest Service (USFS) land had the highest per acre amount of carbon removal, at 5.025 mtCO2/acre in the
2011-2016 timeframe, which included a small amount of harvesting.' Additionally, it had the highest percent forest cover,
at 93%.10 If that same per acre carbon sequestration rate was applied to the DNR, commercial/industrial, small
private/public, and county -owned areas (455,651 acres) of the county, and all other areas were held constant at 2011-
2016 levels, that would result in a 76% increase in the carbon sequestration per year for the county excluding ONPW
areas.
Relevant Research
National level recommendations for carbon sequestration goals by 2030 include:
1. Blue runt 2030: An AH-in Climate Strafe ffor Faster More Durable Emissions Reductions — led b a coalition of
.....................12................................................................................................................................................................gY................................................j............................................................................................................................................................................. Y
leaders including Mike Bloomberg, Jay Inslee, and others, this document proposes an 18% increase in annual
carbon sequestration in the US land sector from present (2021) levels by 2030.
2. The Environmental Defense Fund's Arttmbirtiious Chrmnate Mirth atiior� IPathwa s ffoir U.S„ A jjculltuire and [:: rester : Vk
g...............................................................Y.................................................... g.................................................................................................X...................
.sJoirn ffor 2030 published in 2022 notes that the forestry sector could achieve a 43% increase compared to its total
removals in 2018 by 2030.
Recent analyses and proposed goals in Oregon are in line with the proposed goals above. The 0ire gin II_gltnqll \/Vainnmi.ing
Cgim r�rnfission Natu_irall wind girlkin IL. Inds ll Viz. osgll ::::: 2021. recommends that Oregon's natural and working lands "sequester
at least an additional 5 MMTCOze per year in Oregon's natural and working lands and waters by 2030, and at least 9.5
MMTCOze per year by 2050 relative to a 2010 to 2019 activity -based, business -as -usual net carbon sequestration
baseline". It notes that "for context, net carbon sequestered in the measured forest and the wood products pools, which
dominate Oregon's total annual net carbon sequestration and storage balance, was 21.7 MMTCO2e/year between 2001
and 2016".
The Oregon proposal above references the research paper "Potential greenhouse Ras reductions from Natural Climate
Solutions in Oregon, USA" 11, which found "that NCS (natural climate solutions) within Oregon could contribute annual
eWashington._S:Iate's...20_1:9._ _H .._I_nven.[.o..a.
' The Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest Wilderness are considered "unmanaged lands" in which natural processes
such as fire may alter forest cover but direct human impacts from harvesting do not occur.
8 These include Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) managed lands, Commercial and Industrial Private Forest
land, the City of Port Townsend, Port Hadlock-Irondale urban growth area, County -owned parcels, Olympic National Park and Wil-
derness areas, Olympic National Forest areas, Public Private land within Jefferson County
' Using the higher resolution number from the original calculations.
10 The Jefferson County Forest and Trees GHG inventory shows that undisturbed forests remove the largest amount of CO2, and ar-
eas with the highest percent forest generally had the higher levels of CO2 removal rates per acre, with harvest emissions also a sig-
nificant factor.
11 Graves RA, Haugo RD, Holz A, Nielsen -Pincus M, Jones A, Kellogg B, et al. (2020) Potential greenhouse gas reductions from Natural
Climate Solutions in Oregon, USA. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0230424. hul.t s.//dui.00rglJ.0.J.37J.liournal.rrone.0230424
GHG emission reductions of 2.7 to 8.3 MMTCOze by 2035 and 2.9 to 9.8 MMTCOze by 2050" and "changes in forest -based
activities including deferred timber harvest, riparian reforestation, and replanting after wildfires contributed most to
potential GHG reductions (76 to 94% of the overall annual reductions)". Note that this modeling did not include the
potential for avoided emissions by conserving mature forests. Calculating the amount from forest -based activities, using
those percentages, results in 18-22% reduction by 2035 from the 2001-2016 baseline (a reduction in emissions in this
framework is an increase in sequestration). For 2050, using 76 to 94% of the overall annual reductions for forests results
in 33-41% emissions reduction from baseline. Both of these are consistent with the proposed goals for Jefferson County.
Another research paper, "Leveraging the potential of nature to meet net zero greenhouse gas emissions in Washington
State" 12 analyzed the potential for NCS pathways to reduce GHG (i.e. increase carbon sequestration) for each county in
Washington State. In analyzing the Jefferson County data, the dominating factor for increasing sequestration was
extended timber harvest, which is defined as a harvest deferral from a 45-year rotation to a 75-year rotation. Their model
for extended timber harvest resulted in an increase of carbon sequestration in Jefferson County by 2050 of between 0.11-
0.22 MMTCO2e/yr, for the limited, moderate and ambitious scenarios. The baseline measured in the Jefferson County
2022 Forests and Trees GHG Inventory document, in the 2011-2016 timeframe, was -3.7 MMTCO2e/year. An increase of
0.11-0.22 MMT CO2e/year results in a 3% - 6% increase in carbon sequestration from the 2011-2016 baseline, by 2050. If
that same increase was applied to the County excluding ONPW, that would result in a 7 —13% increase. Note that modeling
in that paper limited the amount of extended harvest rotation to 40% of all private lands, and to 32% of state lands;
increasing those percentages would further increase the sequestration. The paper notes that 40% was chosen as a
compromise between 100% for private non -industrial forests and 21% for private industrial forests used in earlier
modeling (the Oregon modeling noted above). For Jefferson County, where the small public/private land is larger in
acreage than the commercial/industrial forests, using 40% results in a conservative number.
The goals recommended here are also in line with the a,s .i.rl. tcog �n �epaUtnuent of NaturaV Re.souUces Strafe uc PVan 2022.
2 2_5, which sets a goal to "reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen local economies, including strategies to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from DNR's operations" and "seize opportunities to generate benefits for trust
beneficiaries and communities by incentivizing carbon sequestration on public and private lands". Given that WA DNR
manages 18% of Jefferson County lands, and 36% of the land outside the Olympic National Park and Olympic National
Forest Wilderness area, DNR is a key partner in this effort.
Other counties in Washington State are also looking to increase their carbon sequestration. King County, WA has a
ores.LCarlboin...PiE 1igjrra which aims to protect existing tree and forest canopy, and includes offering both Urban and Rural
Forest Carbon Credits. The �nt.lhatc.o.im Cr�_uu_ir7.Lyx_�/iA Ilii.im_ate ctJ..0J.n l.1.1 an.. (2021) includes a goal to "enhance carbon storage
and sequestration and create climate resilience in the County through sustainable land use and development policies that
preserve, protect, and enhance the health and function of our natural resources." Also the S_u staii_incalbirllir y 2 .3 ::::: IF�ierne
Cpuain. r�'s ireeinlhouase Gas Reduction ctiion Plain has Carbon Sequestration as a focus area with objectives to protect and
........ .......................
conserve lands for carbon sequestration, and increase the use of carbon sequestration best management practices, along
with a variety of related actions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the CAC Forest Working Group believes the proposed goals strike the right balance of feasibility and
ambition. The goals are both in line with existing analyses and doing our part to combat climate change.
Additional Opportunities
While the above recommendations, rationale and research are centered on carbon sequestration, it's important to note
that more climate -smart forest management also results in an array of economic, ecological, social, recreational, and
health related co -benefits.
The goals above were driven by research and modeling related to forests and trees. There are additional non -forest
opportunities for carbon sequestration in Jefferson County. For example, marine ecosystems like kelp forests, tidal
wetlands and estuaries also capture and store substantial quantities of "blue carbon". Additionally, regenerative
agriculture — including no -till practices, cover crops, and other methods — can increase carbon sequestration.
12 Robertson JC, Randrup KV, Howe ER, Case MJ, Levin PS. 2021. Leveraging the potential of nature to meet net zero greenhouse gas
emissions in Washington State. Peer) 9:e11802.h:i. ps:l�doi.org J.Q.T7 7/peeru.11802
a�
O
V
El
O
'i'
u
I
a
buo
W
�
a--j
O
CL
O
O
_0
m
+�
0
O
ca
>
ca
ul
},
cn
cn
O
pCT)�
U
p�
>
L—
O
010
>�
(�
-0
c-
U
c
O
Q
4�
U
=3
p
00
cn
4�
s
_E
s
00
o
O
°°°°
O
o
�,
. -
Ln
O
N
O
—
•cnO
O
N
cc
E
N
N
>
—
bn
a)
ca
—
(A
> -
00
O U +� 00
4-J Q O O
4� U +� = N O
> O N
s O
cn s w O
.0 .w
tJ) V E V N
O cv o
E 0 u N ILnCO cn
00 (n (n
c c
r-i o o
O 0 O
N v O •N 0 (n
•-
�a,� E E
+-' ' — a--' 4� W W
cV 0 UAL .. ..
p 4) 4) O O
}, > > M Ln
O O O O
Q N N
E �0
ca _ 0 0.
0o c� c6 ca
m m
9
:Tr
N
9
L
• C J 4-J
�--r U
4-J
co O 0
00
O +�
O �,
U CO =3
Q +, Ln — (/)
U V
O-
4) • — ca OJc:
0
C0
o
o � V N
E��
0
—
ca �+Q)
OE
0
0 p V >
N � O
a) . Ll) (D
Jc: V
4-1 Ul CD
•— V
O r
LL 4-J cn (�.
0
M
C7 N
i
Oo
r.o
O
N
V
3
0
IMLM
i
N
o
o
N
.
00
N
LA
a
a)
cn
-1-j
Ocn
ajp C: eq
•E N •— ca
Va--+ 0 4-1
cM O � •
4-J� O�
0 Lf) (A
4� a-'
" N
p ca 0 w E
wl ca
o E
O m— 0
ca
(D E 0U 0 =1
0 ro
u >% C: ro
o� i Q) -
a) O w -0
o
Lm
CL �s O
.V) •— O 04.
N V' cn _0 Ln
E_ � �, � E
ui 0V .� D •-
N
O E E0
ca E 4� 0o � �
Z
� r f® cn
I
E
0
i
V
a1
Q
o
0
0
a
M
N
Z
cn
00
,O
-W
�--I
V
m
N
o
w
E
Q
Q
^
o
OLn
o\°
Z
Z
Ln
cn
O
M
01
•�
•i
I'O
00
O
_
E
^
V-4
M
V
W
=
O
O
O
O
00
can
O
can
—
O
can
E
O
0
0
cn
O
0
r-I
N
W
N
W
L7
N
W V
iioum�muVl
uuu mlluuulluuuuuuum
-j
i�lll�
uuu um
d'iIIIIVIuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Iluum�iiil
LOuIIII
ouumIuuuuuuuuuuuWp
044
�piuu°uu
uuuuuuuo
00
�omiVl�°uui
uuuuu
Iouum�V
omiuu
�umiii
Al
L J
2
I
7
I
I
W
O
Q.
Q.
M
1
N
N
O
nl
101
140
CO
0
I
I
ip
4
1�
I
Vf
L
V
i
LM
O
No 4 40,
O
m.�
Qj
O
N
s �
0
L
D
U
V)
O
m
L—
Q)
D
4�
(3)
#
!
LM
0
0
E
!11
V)
(n
• !
#
0
a
u
>
m
Oa
V)
a
Lm
I=
♦ !
0
%a-wo-4--
C-
#
o
#
! .
!
o
!
>
E
LM
-00
l
0
1
EmO
E
u
0
0
#
4-j
•
0
9
m
IR
go
cr.
z
0
+0
m 0
+0 CA
(A
0
I
I
I
0
is
2
CL
E
0
CA
.3:
0
U.
IN
v
0
n
0
a
L
O
t-
O �
CLO
OE %ftommoo
LO
�4-JV)
Crb.0�
a :3_0
O--
V'-
x
L
ZO
U Co
�
°Oro
° L— O
CL(i).—
O4-4-J
a�z
w
Tool
N N
ToolO
r.i V
04.
N O N
NO
s CV
> V
O•g
.0 �o
m
w 2 C4
CO
�O4-J
SIMEN
SINEW
\O
a
Q)
mO�
N
.. (DO
°
rV
M.FEE—
O —
N
M
(1)
N
o
O
m
�
V
cn
i
i
VD
r
ql*
o—
�.r
N
MAN
a
M
M
0,
L.o
� o
O
V) Ul ui O
I� 0) O aJ •—
`J > E +� v
� �
aj
E
O u
E � o
O Cr m,v
Z O N O
�, aj " " '- N
r n _ o
v 1 EO N� CA 0 r-I
� m
O i O M
N M
O � •� � � aJ
U � � .N
Ln
U O cn
_0 Ln -W
M ro
ul
LMN
U � I
OCA r-i
= O O
1 , ^
V 7
O Q •- O 4- O
1 •-
�••�
cn � O cn � OLn i
N .0 � " w CEO N
O cn }' � obx
ai
W cn " N 0 LL Cr
},0 0"ONN G1
0 aj
U O j N
O.� v
}' ca i — LA i
ca � � M V
O O a a
O
LiO L Q , i N Cn
L-
0
Q)
4--J
�Q)
vl
D
0
Q)
0
N
4-j
0
a--j
a- j
c
0
4--j
cl
m
Cn
c
0
.Ul
C—
ate-+ O
U
L
(IJ O
4
-N
c�
--, 0
�•�U
C: �--O aj•�
E C6 G
� N
� �O
OJ Lnn
X C-O
GJ O C
"-0 Qj
0 QJ
V
-0 O GJ
O -0
ro
.� ai O
v0
.� N
•
w Ln O
V
cn
c6
0
W(
�r-I
O NO
M �
ca �
. Ln
O
4 J nl
0
>-S
4--j aso
� M
O�
U �
O '-
Q "
ca �
� O
CO ate-J
V �
•�z
CUO
E m
ate--+ V V
X
t- Q) .C:
0
+j
ate-+
a�
0
.ro
ca
0
.V)
>o
o�
� O
•O
>
4-J
•� a
-0 U
Q •S
4-
0
4-J
O�
c6
>
E
•- O
�o
�O
C6
0-O
ro
O-0
Ln
a)can
O ��
Co 0
co
�0N
�-0
�o
O X C:
Z w m
0
0
u
�,
•—
u
Co
Q)
._
O
u
Q)
CL(
L
CO
Z
N
0
4-J
U
0
-0
+,
Ll--
a)
E
4-'
>
m
Q)
O
E
4--j
C:
V)
ca
Ul
-C
co
Q)
3:
4-J
-
O
L
E
Q)
O
O
V)
Q
0
a,_0
M
�
a--'
L
i
N
O
O
4-j
a- j
0
-
p
LL
C
=3
v
O
�
._
>
O
E
E
U
�y
oc
A�)
I?
O
�MM
-,Del
mom
0
o
V)
10
u
u1i
o
>
1%
0
E
rSj
lob
po,
Q)
ryoo
LIO
0
U
E)J:)V/zo:) Jw
0
C"I -1 0 -1 p Py Y 11, LfW kZi
. O
a�
07
(L)
cn
O
C�
U
U
C6
L
0L
to
LL
V)
�r
11
n
N
4�
O
N
a
O
m
L
m
V
s
11
0
u
N
i
O
L.
Cl)
Q
N
0
L.L
0
L
fu
4— (1)
O �
V -0
ca C—
O c6
O
0.2
�
�
Lr) Ln
z �
+-
ca �
L
E
E
� O
Q V
0
•� E
C�0 0
� O
E
� O
t�A 4-j
C6 Ln
E L.L
V)
O
+-j
Q)
Ln
c�
a�
V
0
O
N
O
0
O
buo
bn
V)
L
O
Q
co
O
LL
E
O
U-
Ln
0
O
O
4-
Q
4-1
V)
X
w
z
(n
0
L
0
s%
w
0
I
w
w
Q
W
O
�
L
O
L
O
0
L
�
L
O
�
U
E
O
N
E�
V)�+
0
O
a--+
O
>,
U
a- j
tn
O
•�
E
Q
E
U
E
O
O
L)
+�
4-,
cn
Q)
O
(3)
p
4
•
Ov
V)Ln
A
m
c
O
L
i
O
V
c
O
UO
s
b�A
ca
b-A
i
W
l
c
O
s
4+
N
i
O
.
aw
m
tw
w
V
L
o
a
O
L
m
V
V)
a)
�V
O
0.
bo
Em
c
m
CL
L
O
r-
L�J
tl2m
r
0