HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Committee of the Whole January 29 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
January 29, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Kathy Kershner called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
(9 :35:37 AM)
Present: Barbara Brenner, Sam
Kremen, and Ken Mann.
Absent: Carl Weimer.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Crawford, Kathy Kershner, Bill Knutzen, Pete
1. DISCUSSION OF FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR THE LAKE
WHATCOM TRUST LANDS PROPOSED FOR RECONVEYANCE (AB2012 -066F)
(SECOND OF THREE MEETINGS TO BE SCHEDULED TO DISCUSS VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF THE RECONVEYANCE PROPOSAL)
Kershner stated this is the second of three meetings on the Lake Whatcom
reconveyance. This meeting is regarding timber management.
Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, submitted and read from
handouts (on file). There are incredibly steep slopes and thin soils in the reconveyance
area. When an area is clear cut, the soils accumulate more moisture during rain and snow
events. There are no trees to absorb the moisture. After a clear cut, it takes 30 to 40
years to develop an adequate root mass. This affects how they lay out the trails and
manage the forest in terms of lake water quality. He described past landslide events.
There are options for managing the forest. The State manages it for timber harvest. If
reconveyed, some of the tree cover would be maintained. He described the different forest
management options between the State and County. If the State manages the forest on
behalf of the County, the State would review the park plan and manage the harvests
accordingly. Revenue would be distributed to the junior taxing districts, State, and
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as it is distributed now. Now, the State generally
gets 22 percent of the revenue.
Crawford stated the County Comprehensive Park Plan doesn't get into this level of
detail regarding timber management. The County must have a new park plan, which hasn't
yet been done, specifically for this new park. McFarlane stated that's correct. A plan could
be developed using a consultant, community representatives, or the Parks Department
staff. They have a quote of $16,000 to hire a consultant to develop this plan. It would take
time. If the reconveyance were approved, they could begin work on a park plan the third
quarter of 2014 with completion in 2015.
Special Committee of the Whole, 1/29/2013, 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
Brenner stated the purpose of the landscape plan was to allow recreation and other
uses on the land and also to protect the land. She asked if that plan would be set aside
while the County creates another plan. McFarlane stated the park plan is not the landscape
plan. The landscape plan applies to State management on those lands. Whatever plan the
County puts together would have a greater level of lake protection than the landscape plan
and would accommodate the habitat conservation plan (HCP) and recreation plans. The
landscape plan would transition into the park plan.
(10: 02:34 AM)
McFarlane continued the presentation regarding the proposed reconveyance concept
after exchange between trusts. The landscape plan would still be in effect on State lands
not included in the reconveyance that will continue to be managed by the State. Those
lands will continue to generate revenues as they are today. They will continue to be
managed according to the landscape plan. Land reconveyed would be managed according
to a park plan. The County is still bound by forest practices. The plan would not be less
restrictive than the landscape plan. The State has 15,000 acres, and the County requests
reconveyance of 8,844.
Under a park plan and County management, a park plan would provide better
protection than the habitat conservation plan because they would be creating more habitat.
When applying for the forest practice permit, the State considers whether the County is
considering habitat for the marbled murrelet.
Regarding fire protection, the County does not take over that responsibility. The
State will remain the primary agency for fire protection. The State provides protection for
current County park lands. The County will pay $.31 per acre. There is a method to
reimburse local districts if they respond.
Kershner asked about management options. She asked if the County could decide
how to actively manage without the DNR involvement. McFarlane stated it could. There will
be a charge to whatever the DNR does for the County.
Kershner asked if the County could come up with a harvest plan that comes up with
revenue that would pay for park management. McFarlane stated the County could on a
small basis if it's not very profitable. However, a 15- or 20 -acre clear cut would be done by
the State to come in and manage the cut and distribute the revenues. The County would
get about 25 percent of the revenue generated from the cut. It's up to the County how to
use those funds. It's not like a third option. It's embedded. On some things the County
may want to pay the State because there is no commercial value, and the purpose is just to
benefit the landscape. To generate revenue and do small cuts in certain areas to maintain
timber production, using the DNR is an option.
Knutzen asked about a geological survey for slope stability. McFarlane stated this is
the database someone would use if they do a geologic survey on the watershed.
Jack Louws, County Executive, stated there was a question at the last meeting about
having a geologist speak about landslides. With direction from the Council, he can make
that happen.
Knutzen stated he would like to know the specific issues with stability. Louws asked
if the Council wants to contract with a professional to provide the Council an overview, or if
the Council wants interested community members to give input.
Special Committee of the Whole, 1/29/2013, 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
Knutzen stated folks in the community can provide input. He would like to know the
County's liability and what the Department of Ecology (DOE) will require of the County in
terms of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) permit requirements. McFarlane stated these
are naturally occurring events. The County doesn't have control over them. They can try
and change the cover on top of the slope areas and try to reduce the risk. They will always
have these things happen during large storm events. This geology comes from the State's
database. The geology doesn't change. He has a high level of confidence in the State's
geology. Many of these slides are in areas that have the most problems. Those areas
would be checked regularly for debris dams. Even without any timber harvesting, those
areas will still be most prone to problems.
Kershner stated those areas would be excluded from timber harvest according to the
landscape plan anyway.
Knutzen stated he would like to have a meeting dedicated to the geological condition
of the areas that will be reconveyed and have a risk assessment.
Kershner stated add a discussion to the next meeting about the cost of the risk due
to unstable slopes.
Louws stated he hopes to find a couple members of the community who can come in
and have a conversation with the Council, but it won't be an official report. Regarding the
TMDL, the reconveyed land, once touched, will create a link to responsibility similar to what
exists at Swift Creek. That is something to think about in terms of management of culverts,
slides, trails, bridges, walkways, and other things. The responsibility won't be to the level
of responsibility of Swift Creek, but certain situations are parallel. The County is responsible
for the land, the work done on it, and any damage done as a result of that work.
Brenner stated those were natural landslides. None were proven to have anything to
do with logging. The County can't stop existing natural landslide areas.
Crawford stated the comparison with Swift Creek is different. The best option for
Swift Creek in terms of health hazards is to do nothing. The question is what to do with all
the development that's been done down the road in the last 100 years. In this case, they
are doing nothing. Last year, there was video documentation of the diversion input into
Lake Whatcom. The TMDL estimates the diversion puts in 22 percent of the phosphorous
loading in to the lake. The DOE is not going after the City of Bellingham or the diversion.
The DOE is not going after an indentified point source. He can't image they would go after
a nonpoint source from a landslide.
Brenner asked the percentage of areas that will still allow revenue to the Mount
Baker School District, and the percentage of timber land that is decreased. She would like
clarification on whether they have been using the landscape plan. The landscape plan
prohibits logging near critical areas, steep slopes, and bodies of water. The Council should
hear from the logging community about how those hazard areas are managed. Also, the
information should indicate that the reconveyance area is proposed. She asked how people
are going to get in and out without roads. The information regarding commercial versus
natural forest management is not fair. Commercial management replants the land, and
does not clear cut. An old growth condition can't be developed without some thinning and
management, which has a cost. She doesn't understand how the landscape plan is much
different. The DNR must do the landscape plan. It doesn't have a choice. Regarding the
marbled murrelet habitat, it would have the buffer areas as habitat. McFarlane stated the
Special Committee of the Whole, 1/29/2013, 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
53
slide illustrations indicate what is happening in those areas. It may not be directly related
to timber management. The commercial versus natural management, when replanted,
trees planted are for value of harvest, not diversity of species and tree ages. The landscape
plan is specific to the State, and he's said that before. It sets guidelines and limitations,
and the State abides by those guidelines. The marbled murrelets nest in mature trees and
then fly to the saltwater when they're mature. The State says that it's not necessary to
pass on the HCP restrictions if the County takes of the land, because the intent is that the
forests would grow larger as a park environment, which would benefit the marbled murrelet
habitat. He hopes that the DNR considers the hazard areas and doesn't plan cuts in the
hazard areas. The County would avoid those areas. Cutting or removing timber and
building roads farther up impact those areas. A number of informal trails would need to be
abandoned or moved to more stable areas.
Mann stated the County undertakes liability for all its properties and facilities,
including roads. The County has insurance for that. Parcel reconfiguration was intended to
get the steep slopes out of forest management. McFarlane stated these are natural events
that occur, and the County is not responsible for them. The County has protection under
the recreational use statute. Anything above and beyond that must be discussed with the
County's risk manager. The County already deals with those things all the time. The
County already practices good maintenance of culverts and all infrastructure. It's not
different from any other County park area. The intent of the reconfiguration was to
minimize active harvesting and roads on those most critical areas.
Kershner stated they don't have a park plan for this area yet. She asked the thought
process when this started, about putting that plan in place first so there would be less
controversy about what this reconveyance would look like. It seems like the park plan
should be done before the reconveyance. McFarlane stated the County can spend a lot of
time putting together a plan for property which the County doesn't own or control, and then
decide not to do the reconveyance. Typically, the County only develops a conceptual plan
until land is acquired. With State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and permit requirements,
they would be planning on another agency's property. They typically don't do that.
Determining trail locations, for example, takes a lot of resources. They must balance what
resources the County spends before and after the process.
Kershner stated she has ideas for recreation and managing timber resources,
including creating a road to views for people who don't hike, implementing all the
recreational activities the Council talked about at its last meeting, and managing the timber
resources to generate revenue that will pay for some of these things. She is inclined to vote
for the reconveyance, but there is no guarantee that her ideas will be implemented. She
may need to get some guarantees. McFarlane stated the permit process also influences
where things are located and how much things cost. They could find ways to generate
revenue to pay for amenities.
Brenner stated the land is all State land. There is no private land in this area. They
have not heard anything about Galbraith Mountain in over a year. She asked why the
County isn't also dealing with something that has already been improved and needs money
from the County. It's easy to get the recreation community excited about this if they don't
focus on Galbraith Mountain. McFarlane stated that property is off the market.
Brenner stated it wouldn't be off the market if the County was interested in doing a
deal, but this came up instead. The County could end up losing Galbraith Mountain. She
doesn't understand why the County isn't talking about buying that land, which already has
recreational uses on it.
Special Committee of the Whole, 1/29/2013, 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
Kershner asked if the timber industry was consulted about today's presentation.
McFarlane stated his information comes from the DNR, which manages those lands. Today
is about moving forward with the forest management aspect, without getting into the depth
of timber sales options and details.
Kershner stated Councilmember Knutzen was going to work on a timber advisory
committee to get input formally from a timber industry group.
Crawford asked for a pro and con discussion on the removal of the acreage he
discussed. There was concern that certain viewpoints in the area would be removed or
compromised, and the ability to create public access to those viewpoints might be a
concern. Another concern was that the tower peaks are taken out in some of the areas. It
brings up the question of the revenue that comes from those. He hasn't come up with a
summary of his proposal, other than there were fewer landslide areas. Another concern
was making the trail easement contiguous with the trail system at Squires Lake. His intent
was to condense the area that would be better for preserving as park land and leave the
area that is best left under DNR control. McFarlane stated it's easier for the County to put
trails through for recreation as property owners rather than go through a State agency.
However, it's an option. The County could also reconvey the areas and manage the areas
under the same prescription they're managed now with the DNR. The Council could ask the
DNR to stay away from certain hazard areas. The timber harvest revenues would be
distributed as they are today.
Brenner asked if it would not cost the County any more to reconvey and have the
State manage the land than leave it under State management. McFarlane stated the State
still gets the 22 percent of the revenue. The State's fees are paid from that revenue.
Brenner asked if there is no charge to have the State manage the lands differently.
McFarlane stated that if there is another prescription without any revenue, the County will
have to pay for the management.
Brenner asked why the County would reconvey those areas. McFarlane stated the
purpose of the reconveyance of those areas is for ease of creating and managing recreation
and trails.
Brenner stated they can already do that with the landscape plan. McFarlane stated
that isn't the mechanism the State or County uses.
Brenner stated she was involved in the landscape plan. That was one of the uses.
The State initially didn't want to agree to it, but the DNR voted to do it. The County has
never taken advantage of it, but it's there.
Knutzen asked if the County must compensate the DNR for managing the property.
McFarlane stated the State will take revenue that comes from the timber harvest. If there
are other things for which the County contracts with the State, there will be costs. It's the
County's responsibility to put together the park plan or forest management plan.
Crawford asked about revenue from communication towers. McFarlane stated there
is only one tower site in the area. There are no towers on the east side of the lake. If not
reconveyed, the State would continue to negotiate those leases. Now, there is about
$90,000 in revenue. The State may take that money and distribute it to the junior taxing
districts. He's not sure how they distribute that money.
Special Committee of the Whole, 1/29/2013, 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
Crawford asked if the County administration has thought of the impact in annual
revenue and how it relates to the overall annual cost of running this park. He asked if the
$90,000 was considered. The public is concerned about the cost to the County of
maintaining the park. This revenue could offset the annual cost. He asked the annual cost
of operating the park. McFarlane stated the cost would be about $150,000 if everything is
ready to go. That cost is above the cost today without the reconveyance. Part of the tower
revenue goes into the road maintenance fund for road improvements, leaving about
$80,000 in revenue from the tower sites. Those are short -term leases. About 50 percent of
operating cost could come from tower site revenue.
Kershner stated they would discuss cost at the next meeting. The other discussion
item is the preferred forest option. McFarlane stated the Council may meld the options for
managing the forest.
Kershner stated she's in favor of including the amount to pay for things they want to
an
Brenner stated she would like to have a discussion at the next meeting about
Galbraith Mountain. At some point, they will close it down if the County doesn't deal with it.
That area is close to town, is already being used, and works well. Also, she hears from
many people about allowing lots of different uses on a lot of the property. She would like to
know how much property will be accessible for recreation and how the County will make
that happen.
Crawford stated all the councilmembers have to discuss all the recreation use options
that they would like developed in the park.
Kershner stated the next meeting should be strictly devoted to cost. After that, the
Council can decide on more information for the administration to bring forward.
Knutzen stated he prefers to address the risk assessment when discussing a geologic
survey.
Kershner stated she would like the administration to look at all the recreation options
that were brought forward at the first meeting, and assign a cost for implementing those
options. She would also like to know if there is enough harvestable timber land still in the
park area that could help pay for some of the recreational programs and projects.
Brenner stated she would like to have a meeting to discuss the other side of the
issue. She would like to hear from the forestry community about whether the landscape
plan solves most of the things they've been talking about.
Crawford stated the County has a geologist on staff, who may be a good person to
address steep slopes.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
Special Committee of the Whole, 1/29/2013, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
The Council approved these minutes on February 26, 2013.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Please contact the Council Office to obtain an
official, signed copy:
360- 676 -6690 or council(g-.o.w hatcom .wa.us
Special Committee of the Whole, 1/29/2013, Page 7