HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole February 26 20131
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Committee Of The Whole
February 26, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(10:31:19 AM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Ken Mann,
Carl Weimer and Pete Kremen.
Absent: None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH MARK MAUREN, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF DRAFTING A RECREATIONAL PLAN FOR
WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2012 -066H)
Kyle Blum, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Deputy Supervisor of State
Uplands, submitted and read from a presentation (on file).
Brenner asked if the DNR partners much with private organizations or local
jurisdictions.
Mark Mauren, Department of Natural Resources Recreation Manager, stated they
have many different types of partnerships across the state, including volunteers, local towns
and jurisdictions, and private user groups. He concluded the presentation beginning with
the planning process and timeline. Because the amount of recreation land available is
shrinking, the number of people who want to recreate is increasing, and there are different
recreation needs, they can no longer practice a multiple use concept. Off road vehicles
(ORVs) can no longer share trails with equestrian, mountain bike, and hiking uses. Instead,
they've gone to a concept of motorized and non - motorized zones. Within the motorized
community, they have to develop separate trails for 4x4's, all terrain vehicles (ATVs), and
single track. Different user groups are looking for different experiences.
Kremen stated there has been a lot of interest in ORV use in Whatcom County for
decades. A gas tax has been collected for decades that is supposed to go into an ORV fund.
To this day, the DNR has yet to come up with an area for ORV use. Whatcom County is one
of the largest counties in the state. Whatcom County pays more per capita into the ORV tax
fund than any other county in the state. He asked why Whatcom County doesn't have an
ORV recreational area. Mauren stated most recreational facilities were developed before the
1980's, and then funding was shut down. Washington state has not developed any new
recreational facilities, such whole trail systems, in decades. The ORV community needs a
trail system or network. Other ORV facilities in the state were developed early on. The first
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/26/2013, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
new one developed was at the Reiter area in Snohomish County. It's not just an ORV
facility. It includes trails built in the forest environment. All the regulations for urban
development criteria don't translate to a forest environment without becoming cost
prohibitive. Snohomish County had to rewrite its county code to reflect trail construction for
the DNR and also for the County and private landowners in the forest environment.
Kremen stated the ORV tax is still being collected. The funding hasn't gone away.
Mauren stated the legislature made a change to the ORV tax in 2002. The gas tax rebate is
redistributed. One -third each goes to ORVs, non - motorized, and non - highway category.
The ORV community is the only recreational community that self- taxes. On top of the gas
tax, they pay their license tabs, which generates another $2 million per biennium.
Kremen stated that underscores his point. Through the decades, Whatcom County
gas users and ORV owners have generated all this money. He asked why they don't have
an area for these people who have been paying the taxes for years. Mauren stated they
have been relying on the ORV accounts to pay for maintenance of the existing facilities.
The planning process is beginning to open new areas in different parts of the state. The
users and DNR recognize that there is a void for ORV use, mountain bikers, and equestrians
in Whatcom County. Whatcom County and a few other places across the state are short of
trail -based recreation opportunities.
Brenner asked if there is a new emphasis on trying to do that. Blum stated there is
a new emphasis on planning processes. The emphasis has been on money provided by the
legislature for planning. That major shift allows the DNR to fund these recreational planning
opportunities. DNR makes a considerable amount of money off its trust land management,
but it's not money that can be spent on recreation. The DNR is allowed to provide
recreation opportunities on its land when it's consistent with their trust responsibility. The
DNR doesn't use monies generated from timber revenues to pay for recreation planning.
Brenner asked if the State would consider reallocating the one -third of gas tax
allocated to ORVs back to the counties. Money raised in each county would go back to that
county. Blum stated that is a question for the legislators. Allocation is not controlled by
DNR.
Mauren stated it's considered a statewide resource. Part of the money, about $2
million per year, goes directly to DNR for management of recreation facilities. The rest goes
into the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) non - highway and off -road vehicle
activities (NOVA) grant program. Anyone in the State can apply for that grant money.
That's for maintenance, development, and enforcement.
(10:53:19 AM)
Knutzen stated he is encouraged by how receptive DNR is about working with
partners in the community. He asked where Whatcom County ranks in terms of a
recreation plan. Blum stated there isn't a ranking process. There are a few areas with
considerable demand but no recreation plan. This area is a high priority. When the DNR
gets planning money for the next biennium, they will sit down and assign priorities
statewide.
Brenner stated she is interested in working better with the DNR. The North Fork
area was with DNR. She asked if, in the future, the DNR can contact the County before
closing areas down to see if the County is interested in participating. Blum stated the DNR
could potentially do that in certain situations. The DNR needs to identify areas it can
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/26/2013, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
enforce and manage and where soils and stabilities make it the right place for the planning
process to occur. There isn't a lot the DNR can do about user -built illegal trails they aren't
aware of. When the DNR becomes aware of an area being used for trails, they must shut
down the use, per the trust mandate.
Brenner asked if the County can work toward reopening the areas with a plan, if
there is money. Blum stated that if the DNR can get planning money, they will. In
assigning priorities, if the DNR determines that Whatcom County is the next place for a
landscape, the DNR will look at all the areas that exist in Whatcom County to determine the
right place. the DNR will work in partnership with the county. If they determine Whatcom
County is the next area for a recreation plan, they will be eager to work with the County in
appropriate areas.
Brenner stated prioritize the North Fork area. Mauren stated they look at all uses
and pick a landscape in which they can accommodate all the uses. They try to consolidate
all the uses into one area. They pick the landscape best suited for the uses. It's costly to
maintain existing facilities because people have created unauthorized, unsustainable trails.
They won't continue to perpetuate problems. They take a more systematic and scientific
approach that will last over the years.
Crawford asked where they are at today and where they are headed. DNR suggests
that planning money isn't certain, but is probable. He asked if the next step is to get the
money for planning, and if the DNR has already gone through a prioritization process that
puts Whatcom County at the top, or if the DNR still has to go through a statewide
prioritization process. He asked the timeframe and process if Whatcom County is at the top
of the list. Blum stated that if DNR gets planning money, they will go through a
prioritization process, which they haven't done yet. Once they determine a landscape is
next in line in Whatcom County, it's a two -year process to identify the recreation area, get
the money, and go through the six steps described in the presentation slide. There is a
scientific process and a process to talk to users to meet demand.
Crawford asked if a resolution to the legislature and a petition to the DNR would be
helpful if the majority of the Council feels these recreational opportunities are important and
should be supported. Mauren stated counties haven't played a role in the legislative
process. They invite the County to participate in planning. They partner with counties and
other agencies.
Blum stated they are acutely aware of the recreation pressures in Whatcom County,
in terms of lobbying the legislature. The County may encourage the department to make
it's next plan here.
Crawford stated it would be odd to pick a location elsewhere in the state where the
commissioner may be neutral about recreational planning with DNR over Whatcom County,
which really wants DNR recreation. He asked what the Whatcom County Council can do to
create the opportunity for proposals and public input to be at the top of the consideration
list. Mauren stated it would help to make sure the County Code is conducive to trail
construction in a forest environment. That burns up a lot of time. Once a plan is done,
they can start implementing it. Show that the County is actively trying to get ready and be
prepared.
Blum stated the two -year timeline is just the planning process. There is also the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), grant application, and permit processes.
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/26/2013, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Crawford asked how long the statewide prioritization process takes. Mauren stated
the DNR can make that decision in a few weeks.
Crawford asked if that is an internal process with a hearing process. Blum stated it
is internal. They don't typically have a public hearing process, but is in constant
communication with the user base. The final decision is made by the Commissioner.
Knutzen asked if user groups are overwhelmingly in favor of Whatcom County. Blum
stated Whatcom County is a high priority for the users.
Mauren stated the user base includes ORV, equestrian, mountain bikes, and other
users.
Knutzen asked if the DNR would be willing to work with the County if the County can
provide funding for a recreation plan or to open a property. Blum stated it would be happy
to talk about how to make that happen.
Mauren stated the Commissioner of Public Lands made it clear the issue isn't land.
The issue is that they must have money to plan, construct, develop, maintain, and enforce.
They are open to working with partners to make that happen.
Knutzen stated it's been said that DNR has been difficult to work with, particularly on
easements and at the South Fork. He asked if that's valid. Mauren stated he doesn't have
the details. There are communication issues on both sides. It's not an easy thing to work
through.
Blum stated it's not an issue he's familiar with. He can look into the situation with
his staff.
Knutzen asked if the DNR can work out trail easements with a willing partner.
Mauren stated floating trail easements are easy to work out. They have to compensate the
trust to pay for the use of land that is taken out of timber production. If the trails are
floating around the landscape and timber sales so there is no impact to the trust, then no
compensation is needed. Port Angeles wanted a fixed, long -term trail, so they had to pay
for the use of the land. That's the caveat.
Kremen stated the DNR policy of an all- inclusive recreational area is a flawed
concept. The ORV aspect of any kind of plan is a limiting factor. It limits the areas that
could be used. It's like having a bicycle lane and walking path next to a freeway. The three
uses aren't compatible. In Whatcom County, DNR has a void of ORV opportunities. A
universal plan for everything is limiting. Mauren stated they are talking about landscapes
that are 30,000 to 90,000 acres. That's a lot of area that can accommodate a lot of use.
The Reiter area was 10,000 acres. Only 2,000 of those acres were suitable for use. There
will be 34 miles of ORV trail, but the ORV users said that would not be enough. There are
ways to design the trail to provide for a variety of needs. They can't provide all the needs
everywhere. From a statewide perspective, they can provide for different ORV uses. Of the
seven plans done to date, six have ORV components. The seventh was tied up with
conservation easements. In his experience, they can accommodate all those uses as long
as they are segregated and designed for the experiences the users are looking for.
Blum stated the DNR has limited staff and resources. If they put the uses far away
from each other and don't create opportunities for all different recreation uses, who knows
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/26/2013, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
how long it will be to come back and accommodate whatever use they decided to leave out
when they did the first one.
Mann stated he thanks Mr. Mauren and Mr. Blum for talking to the Council. The DNR
primary mission is for timber trusts, and here they are trying to work with the County and
recreation groups. He advocates for recreation on any land possible. Regarding the DNR's
working reputation, the DNR took a public relations hit with the North Fork and in Alger.
The DNR isn't obligated to outreach when it decides to shut down illegal trails. He asked
whether or not the DNR is willing to work with the user groups who built the trails. Blum
stated the DNR outreaches to the groups. Before the DNR shut down the North Fork, they
had extensive conversations with the mountain bike community.
Mauren stated he hasn't heard about Alger. They know users are actively building
trails. The DNR has 1,000 miles of designated trail systems, and there are 3,000 to 6,000
miles of undesignated trail systems. The DNR can't ignore it when it becomes aware of
environmental damage, safety issues, and liability issues. The DNR met with users of the
North Fork ahead of time. The agreement in 2007 was that there would be no new trails.
By 2012, there were many new trails, including structures. There were liability,
environmental, and safety issues. The DNR had lost control of that landscape. It talked to
the local users about working together.
(11:19:15AM)
Mann stated he understands the environmental and liability issues. He's discovered
that no matter how much outreach they do, people generally think it wasn't enough. They
can never do too much outreach. He's encouraged by what he's hearing. It will take three
to five years for a park plan and to build anything. He understands that. He supports
working with the ORV, equestrian, mountain biking, and hiking user groups. Blum stated it
is a couple of years to get a plan through the process once they identity a landscape.
Barring any challenges, it becomes a battle to get funding. When trails show up depends on
their ability to work together and get grant money.
Brenner stated Whatcom County has specific funds available for a portion of the
parks. She asked about the cost. Blum stated Reiter will take about $10 million to build
out all the way. That is 10,000 acres, which is one of the smaller landscapes they have.
Mauren stated there are 1,100 acres of motorized and 1,100 acres of mountain bike
trails. The planning process is about $200,000. Trailhead construction is $500,000 to a $1
million. Campgrounds are $800,000 to $2 million. ORV Trail systems are more expensive
because they have to be more durable. Hiking trails will cost less.
Brenner stated she understands the safety and liability issues when people are doing
things illegally. She asked if they are absolved of liability issues if they are allowing
something legally. Mauren stated the Recreation Immunity Act technically covers them, but
all bets are off in front of a jury trial. They try to minimize exposure as much as possible.
Brenner asked if conservation easements make it difficult or impossible to allow ORV
use. Mauren stated it depends on how the conservation easements are written.
Knutzen stated it was said the DNR doesn't focus on recreation, but Mr. Mauren's
title is Recreation Program Manager. Blum stated he didn't mean to indicate that recreation
isn't a priority, but they have to separate the sources of money they use when funding
recreation.
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/26/2013, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Mauren stated the agency was focused on its mandate to generate income. The DNR
ignored the recreation community to some extent. In the mid- 2000's, they realized they
were also in the recreation business. The DNR created his position and began working on
these recreation plans and getting funding. They have to catch up to 30 years of non -
funding of recreation. They are just starting to provide opportunities to meet the demand.
(11:27:50 AM)
Brenner asked if the County may get bumped to a higher priority if it is willing to
financially cosponsor the recreation. Blum stated it would not be within the prioritization
process. Whatcom County would not get bumped higher, but it is a different category. It
could potentially happen quicker.
Tom Westergreen asked if DNR property is in general open for low impact uses, such
as hiking and biking on existing hiking trails. He asked if they don't allow those uses when
the DNR has a recreation plan. Blum stated low impact recreation is always a possibility,
whether or not there is a recreation plan.
Westergreen asked if DNR would put its recreation plan in an area away from the
population center of Bellingham. Separate the ORV use in the county from low impact uses
nearer Bellingham. Blum stated they have to balance two planning processes, which they
haven't traditionally done.
Westergreen stated he encourages the Council to approach the legislature and let
them know the County really wants this in Whatcom County.
Rand Jack asked if the potential recreation plan is compatible with trust lands in the
Lake Whatcom watershed. Mauren stated the recreation plan can be anywhere. They will
focus on State lands.
Jack stated clarify whether the recreation plan, which includes ORV use, is
compatible in the watershed. Blum stated they don't know yet. They aren't at the stage in
the process of deciding which landscape will be chosen, because they don't know if
Whatcom County will emerge as the highest priority.
Jack asked what sources of funding are available for plan implementation, besides
the ORV tax. Mauren stated they received several grant funding from the federal and state
government and private sources. Also, volunteers do a tremendous job.
Shane Roth stated Councilmember Knutzen characterized DNR as hard to work with.
He would characterize it as slower to work with because it is a State agency. He asked if
it's easier for DNR to give a citizen their undivided attention than it is for the County Council
to give a citizen its undivided attention. Blum stated the DNR, like any government, is
limited by its staff and resources. The economic crisis has limited the DNR's ability to
respond to issues in the manner they may like to and to be as timely as they would like.
Roth stated the DNR is slower to work with, not harder to work with.
Greg Brown stated it sounds like DNR would develop a real plan and a real budget,
so the public knows where the funding comes from and what the park will be used for.
Blum stated that's correct. They also oversee plan implementation.
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/26/2013, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Brown stated they've mostly heard about vision and speculation. People have been
asking for a real plan. This sounds like what they've been asking for. He hopes the Council
hears the same thing.
Dana Johnson, Mt. Baker Motorsports Owner, stated an ORV proposal that did not
happen was made many years ago. He would love to see the County and State DNR get
together to create an ORV proposal if they're interested. The local motorcycle club owns
property that would be relevant to what could possible happen. The dealerships also give
grants for trail maintenance and building infrastructure. There are funding sources. The
County sounds interested in making that work. Whether legal or illegal, property has been
taken away.
Peggy Uppiano stated she thanks the DNR for acknowledging the ORV sports and for
a reasonable approach to planning. She asked how open the process is to the public and
how easy it is to get access to records regarding the planning process at DNR; whether the
DNR sees recreation as being a money- maker, or just recreation is just something that's
nice to have; and if the DNR can point the County to any unbiased resources for raw data in
terms of cost versus economic benefit.
Mauren stated the planning process is transparent from the beginning. Anyone can
look up the processes on the website and see all the information. The DNR actively tries to
engage the public so the plan will be more successful in the future. It's debatable whether
the DNR can make money from recreational use. The true economic benefit comes from
tourists who visit an area and spend money. A national independent study indicated
tourism creates over 200,000 jobs in Washington State.
Mitch Friedman, Conservation Northwest, stated Dave Montgomery is in town today
to make a presentation. He is a renowned geo- morphologist who has studied Whatcom
County.
Carol Perry stated the presentation today made sense and was very professional.
Many citizens have been frustrated. She thanked Mr. Blum and Mr. Mauren.
Eric Brown stated the user groups in Whatcom County have self- segregated very
well. For example, the Friends of Deming Library want to put on mountain bike races and
build more trails for mountain bikes. However, the mountain bike user group recognize that
is historically an equestrian area and may not be the best mix of user groups. Therefore,
the mountain bike community declined the offer so that it did not promote more mountain
bike use out there unless it is on DNR land or Sierra Pacific land. They've been forced to
deal with private landowners. Working with DNR and the U.S. Forest Service in the past
hasn't been terribly easy. The motorized user groups have had nothing over the decades.
They've built their own user -built trail networks, like the mountain bikers have done. The
demand is there. The demand is there, so users build their infrastructure.
The DNR has been inconsistent across the state. There are examples of the DNR
working with user groups to work out issues before closing down facilities. He understands
that his user group is culpable and guilty. However, they built a trail network built out that
cost the taxpayers nothing. They had a structure in place that got shut down. He
understands there are environmental concerns. The user community included scientific
professionals who offered their services to study trail locations and design. Most bridges
were to take them across seasonal streams or wet zones. Trails were routed around
riparian zones intentionally.
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/26/2013, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
All the user groups participated and were involved in the 2009 recreation planning
meetings. At that time, Whatcom County was the fifth or sixth in priority. Since, other
areas bypassed the County on that list. The users felt Whatcom County was in the queue,
but nothing has happened, which is frustrating. All the users are frustrated. On DNR land,
there is no authorize place to recreate.
Daniel Probst stated the trail riding community applied to DNR to have events on
Blanchard Mountain, but they have been denied. They haven't been able to get permits on
DNR permitted systems. Working with the County Parks Department has been easier.
Ellen Baker stated she's impressed with the presentation. The floating trail option
with DNR is a good option. The DNR has a strong habitat plan and is sensitive to soils. The
landscape is already in place. They can have all those things plus recreation. Whatcom
County doesn't have a plan yet. It would take a couple of years to get a plan if the
reconveyance goes through. Get a plan from DNR that meets needs in a transparent way.
It's a bonus if funding comes from the State through DNR. There are benefits to having
DNR actively engaged.
Sharon Hoefnagle stated they have tried to get the South Fork park through for 25
years. There is no DNR trailhead in Whatcom County, but they use DNR land. An object in
planning for recreational uses is to have areas for everyone, so no one has to drive a long
distance. Most user groups have established their own inexpensive parking areas. Create a
trail planning certification process for user groups to work with the DNR. Most of their trails
are safe.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
The Council approved these minutes on March 12, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council4o.whatcom.wa.us
Special Committee of the Whole, 2/26/2013, Page 8