Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources February 26 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Natural Resources Committee February 26, 2008 Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:57 a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Seth Fleetwood None Bob Kelly Also Present: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. STATUS REPORT ON THE MOA BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED RECONVEYANCE (AB2008 -074) Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated the Commissioner of Public Lands and County Executive will address the full Council tonight on the draft memorandum of agreement (MOA). He submitted and read from a presentation (on file). He read from the background, existing park lands in the watershed, and the proposal slides There are two processes. The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) handles the inter -grant process. It is an exchange of trust lands. He indicated the location of the properties and other County parks on a map. They desired to link the trails of all the nearby parks trails. They've made sure the trail routes are viable. They want to know the existing trails, paths, and roads to have a general recreational scoping plan for the proposal. He read the slide on park development. He indicated the location of major trailheads in the area. Weimer asked if the Park Plan must be approved before the reconveyance goes through. McFarland stated it doesn't. Now, they don't know exactly what the configuration will be. The DNR needs to decide on the areas it will include. They wouldn't want to start development plans until the reconveyance process is finished. He read the presentation on recreational benefits, watershed benefits, estimated costs, potential funding sources, the approval process, and timetable. There will be control of the Smith Creek watershed and areas on the west side of the lake. The 50 miles of proposed trails won't happen immediately. It will be decided ultimately in the Park Plan. The annual operating costs includes the cost of any new staff that may be required. Some general fund expenses are ones they're already incurring, such as signing. Fleetwood asked if this is Forest Board transfer land. McFarland stated they are talking about reconveying Forest Board transfer lands. However, the DNR can go through a process to block up various trust lands, to the benefit of the trust. That's the inter -grant process. Natural Resources Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 1 Fleetwood stated they are talking about getting appraisals, which suggests there would be a land swap. He thought this was land that the County owns. He asked if this is land the County gave to the State to manage, but have maintained title. Bill Wallace, DNR Northwest Region Manager, stated the trust lands were once privately owned forest lands. In the 1930's and 1940's, the landowners didn't pay their taxes. In lieu of the taxes, the titles went back to the County. That happened in many counties. The State legislature acquired those lands and said the State would manage those lands as a trust for the counties. The deed is with the State, but the lands are managed as a trust. Fleetwood asked why the County gave up the land to the legislature. Wallace stated the State legislature established the trust to manage the lands for the benefit of the local county. The revenues earned from the trust lands go back to the County and junior taxing districts, as if those properties were paying a property tax. The legislature said the lands were to be managed for long -term forest management, with one exception, which is the reconveyance for park purposes. The majority of the land in this proposal is in this trust land for the County. He explained the process to block the trust lands. McFarland stated the transfer can only happen for park purposes. If the County ceases to use the lands for park purposes, they are transferred back to the State. Fleetwood asked what the County needs from this transfer. McFarland stated make connections to existing park areas. The zoning uses are limited. They already have adjoining public use areas, so these properties make sense. There are also benefits to the watershed, even though the purpose is for parks. The County also desired to remove developable lands from the watershed. Fiscally, a buyout of these lands would be prohibitive. Other desirable options are overlooks and other access to certain areas for recreational uses. There are long -term desires to extend the trail links farther, such as down to Squires Park. The ownership patter the County has with the City in the urban growth area (UGA) was a factor. The DNR considered the areas that were best suited for timber harvest and the areas that weren't. There is mutual benefit to setting aside the two big blocks on each side for park purposes. Weimer stated the benefits for recreation are clear. He asked if they will try to look at and quantify the benefits to water quality in the lake. McFarland stated that is-difficult to do. The DNR manages land within the scope of the Landscape Plan. Some areas will never be logged. The public desires to recreate in and use those lands. Design those facilities so they have little or no impact on water quality. They are restricted by some zoning requirements. They are dispersing the trailheads to avoid concentrations of use. Walking paths and links will go into the urban core and neighborhoods so people don't have to drive to the sites. In the long - term, define the vision for those 8,400 acres. The County would not harvest timber unless they are going to meet the goal of developing the old growth forest environment faster. If the reconveyance doesn't go through, there will be continued logging and new roads built for logging purposes. They already have instances where logging interferes with public uses. They considered the long -term benefits to the watershed, but they can't do this reconveyance for watershed purposes. Weimer stated an old draft of the Parks Comprehensive Plan shows more significant development on County -owned park areas near this area. He asked if those plans are still a part of the current Parks Plan. McFarland stated the Parks Comprehensive. Plan isn't a detailed site plan. It is a document that allows the County to go after grant funds and makes general, broad statements about what the County wants. There is substantial Natural Resources Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 2 1 development of watershed properties in earlier plans. That could not happen today. They 2 don't recommend that type of development. There are recreation opportunities in sensitive 3 areas, but certain recreation opportunities aren't appropriate. Those facilities listed in the 4 Comprehensive Plan don't have to be built in those areas. None of the reconveyed areas 5 are flat enough for soccer fields, for example. The park areas will be passive, low -use 6 areas. 7 8 Kelly asked if the management control goes to the County when the reconveyance 9 takes place. They are using reconveyance as a method to address water quality. He asked 10 the minimum standards for park use to maintain water quality, and still meet the park 11 requirements. McFarland stated the minimum standards are what they've proposed, and 12 include a system of trails with overlooks and possibly some dispersed camping. The 13 facilities for this area are already developed on adjoining park lands. Collectively, this 14 functions as one large park area. What really makes this work is they have the larger 15 adjoining park areas that already have facilities. They won't have to build those amenities 16 on the reconveyed lands. They would further define the standards and uses through the 17 park planning process. They would also need to put together a resource management plan 18 to address the acreage for critical areas, developing the forest, and habitat protection. 19 Now, they're presenting the bare minimum development to allow them to use the lands for 20 park purposes. 21 22 Weimer asked if there is a way to define the level of recreation they are going to do 23 in the interlocal agreement. He asked if the land could be conveyed back to the State if 24 they do more recreation than proposed, which might harm the watershed, at some point far 25 in the future. McFarland stated nothing would prevent them from doing that. The current 26 zoning, which is commercial forestry, prevents them from doing many highly - developed 27 park uses. A park is not actually allowed in a commercial forestry zone, but restrooms, 28 parking areas, and trailheads are allowed. The uses are restricted because of zoning. The 29 zoning is the controlling factor. The County may be able to further restrict the lands with a 30 conservation easement. As long as there is park development, it won't impact the 31 reconveyance. 32 33 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) 34 35 Fleetwood stated they want some confidence that the park use is better for the lake 36 than a forestry use. He asked if they can quantify which use is better or worse. McFarland 37 stated he could try to find a way to answer that question. He would have to work with the 38 DNR on the amount of acreage harvested over time, the critical slopes, and the future 39 harvest plans. They can design a parking lot, hiking trails, and similar amenities at a very 40 low impact. The question is whether those uses are better or worse than areas logged 41 according to the Landscape Plan. He's not sure he can find a clear comparison. 42 43 Weimer asked if there would be a transfer of liability from past logging practices. 44 McFarland stated that issue is addressed through the reconveyance. They've asked that 45 question. The Smith Creek debris pile is an example. County and DNR go monitor that 46 issue. If there is no DNR ownership in that watershed, that responsibility transfers to the 47 County. There are unstable slopes and slides occurring on park slopes out there. The 48 question is whether the liability goes back to whoever did the cut. That is a question for 49 legal counsel. 50 51 Weimer asked if the $.29 per acre cost for fire suppression is realistic. Wallace 52 stated the State charges that amount to forest land owners for fire protection. It is similar 53 to the local fire districts that charge assessments to homeowners for fire protection. Natural Resources Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 3 1 Through this reconveyance process, the County would pay the DNR $.29 per acre, and the 2 DNR would provide fire protection. The DNR provides forest protection on all forest lands 3 except federal lands. 4 5 Fleetwood asked when the public will have an opportunity to ask questions about this 6 process. McFarland stated it depends on how the Council wants to handle the memorandum 7 of agreement. There could be a Council public hearing. He will make the MOA information 8 available to the public. The park planning process would be a public process with 9 community meetings. The resource management plan would bring together stakeholders. 10 11 Weimer asked why they don't have the MOA now. McFarland stated it is on its way 12 today. 13 14 Weimer asked when it will be before the Council for approval. McFarland stated that 15 is up to the County Executive. The Council won't be asked to make that decision tonight. 16 The Parks Department and DNR are available to answer questions from the Council and the 17 public about the proposal's specifics. The specific acreage and exact parcels haven't yet 18 been decided. If the process moves forward, the next step is for the State to figure that out 19 through the inter -grant process. The State would present the final configuration for the 20 actual transfer. That's what the $296,000, including the appraisal, is paying for. 21 22 Weimer asked if the MOA will address halting any planned forest cuts during this 23 process. McFarland stated it is in the MOA. 24 25 26 OTHER BUSINESS 27 28 There was no other business. 29 30 31 ADJOURN 32 33 "r a me ting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. 34 35� 36 37 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 38 39 41 J; `�1Hf1i'CO .�1i • : k �i . 42 43 44 ' O ` 45 • 46 ''Rana B R4_ 'st Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Carl Weimer, Committee Chair Natural Resources Committee, 2/26/2008, Page 4