HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 23 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural: Resources Committee
September 23, 2008
Committee Chair Carl Weimer called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. in the Council
Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Bob Kelly
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
COMMITTEE WORK SESSION
1. WORK SESSION ON THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH
THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PREPARING AN INTER -GRANT EXCHANGE AND SUBSEQUENT RE-
CONVEYANCE PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSFER OF LANDS WITHIN AND
ADJOINING THE LAKE WHATCOM WATERSHED RESERVOIR FOR PARK
PURPOSES PURSUANT TO RCW 79.22.300 (AB2008 -074A)
Mike McFarland, Parks and Recreation Department Director, submitted handouts (on
file) and read from a Power Point presentation (on file). In 2005 and 2006, they began
looking at the need for park lands and trails as they went through the Comprehensive Parks
and Recreation Open Space Plan. They also looked at water quality issues in the watershed
and how they were going to plan for recreational use on existing properties. They
developed a strategy to link parks within the watershed with the City of Bellingham
greenways. The overall strategy determined that this area is appropriate for a large trail
system connecting the urban area to the already- existing park areas. It was heavily used.
Reconveyance is a tool for park purposes. They worked with consultants, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) staff, and Parks Department staff to refine an agreement.
The proposal is for about 8,000 acres, but that number isn't firm because the State
has to do a value- for -value exchange between the trusts through the inter -grant process.
That final number and the final boundaries won't be known until after that inter -grant
process is complete.
The State would retain smaller areas around the watershed, including the tower
sites. This proposal includes Forest Board lands only. Easements would need to be
required over private lands to make it work. The long -term goal is to provide about 50
miles in a network of hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails.
Nothing happens until the County Council approves the memorandum of agreement
(MOA). Once that occurs, the timeline begins. DNR requires $300,000 to fund the inter -
grant process. It will pay for the appraisals, administration, surveys, and other
administrative work. If approved, DNR will bill the County quarterly as the work progresses .
until the reconveyance resolution is prepared. The resolution will be the legal description of
the area to be conveyed. At that time, the County Council will have to approve that
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 1
resolution in order for the process to go forward. If the Council approves the resolution, the
DNR will hold a hearing in the Bellingham area. County staff will participate in that hearing.
The process could take more or less time than the timeline shows, given DNR staffing levels
and how fast it moves on the issues.
The County is required to pay the reconveyance costs. However, the DNR simply
doesn't have money in the budget for the inter -grant costs. The development cost can be
spread out over a number of years. That cost is based on construction estimates. The
justification for those costs are in the Council packet. The annual maintenance and
operations estimates are based on comparable to the Anacortes Community Forest, which is
about $140,000. They have additional costs built in due to water access and other
problems they deal with. Those costs are also consistent with Whatcom County costs.
Whatcom County now manages about 50 miles of trails in the County park system. He's
reviewed those costs. They've also looked at what the cost should be based on what they
would typically spend on routine trail maintenance. The estimate does not account for any
catastrophe that may happen, but they don't generally budget for those events in the
maintenance and operations budget now.
Funding could come from real estate excise tax (REET) funds and conservations
futures funds if general funds won't be used for these costs. There are additional ways to
fund ongoing maintenance, planning, and development costs. Examples include
conservation easements and recreation grants. He recommends that the $300,000 for the
inter -grant process would come from the general fund, and reimburse the general fund
upon reconveyance, or the actual transfer by the conservation futures fund.
Stan Snapp, Bellingham City Council, stated the City Council supports this
conveyance through a resolution of approval. He read from the resolution (on file),
approved on September 15.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how much the City spent in acquiring properties in the
watershed, and how many acres it's acquired. Snapp stated his estimate is that they've
protected over 1,300 acres at a cost of about $21 million. The City recently sold bonds to
add to that total.
April Markiewicz, Executive Review Panel Member, submitted and read from
information (on file). She read through the summary document of her handout on benefits,
impacts, conditions, and conclusions.
David Wallin, Advisory Committee member, submitted and read from a Power Point
presentation (on file). Increased weight and soil lubrication increases the likelihood of a
landslide.
Cutslopes along a road intercept the slow- moving, subsurface flow, brings it to the
surface, and puts it into a ditch on the side of the road. That ditch is compacted soil that is
essential impervious. The water previously moved very slow. It becomes surface flow that
moves rapidly across the landscape. Those ditches, in some cases, empty directly into
streams. If not, they empty onto the forest floor in close proximity to streams. The roads
being compacted are impervious and also create surface flow. The result is that the roads
and ditches increase the flashiness of the watershed following a rainfall event. The stream
network receives a much bigger pulse of water. The high - velocity water has a much greater
capacity to transport soil and sediment out of the watershed and into the lake. Additionally,
roads increase the likelihood of landslides.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 2
I Studies typically compare landslide rates in watersheds that have timber harvesting
2 and roads with the watersheds in close proximity that have no roads or timber harvesting.
3 He continued to read the presentation beginning with how much the risk is increased. The
4 reconveyance will result in a dramatically reduced risk of landslide sediment delivery.
5
6 Rand Jack, Whatcom Land Trust and Advisory Committee member, stated the
7 Whatcom Land Trust holds conservation easements on 15 parcels owned by Whatcom
8 County, totally almost 3,500 acres. The earliest conservation easement was done 20 years
9 ago. It's been a very productive, positive public /private partnership.
10
11 There are two primary and one secondary reason to put a conservation easement on
12 the reconveyed land. First, limit activities and facilities to make sure use is compatible with
13 maximum protection of water quality. Second, assure the public and partners that those
14 limits will remain in place. If the DNR makes future claims that the land is not being used
15 as a park, a conservation easement and the Land Trust's involvement will provide the
16 County an ally when dealing with those claims.
17
18 The Land Trust will monitor and enforce the conservation easement. The Land Trust
19 generally ask the person making the easement donation to also make a contribution to the
20 Land Trust's dedicated stewardship fund for monitoring and enforcement. Without
21 resources for monitoring and enforcement, the easement is worthless. This is the largest
22 conservation easement in terms of acreage that the Land Trust has accepted. Previously,
23 the largest was the Canyon Creek Community Forest, and the Land Trust also received a
24 contribution of $30,000 for the stewardship fund. If the reconveyance and conservation
25 easement goes forward, the Land Trust will ask for a one -time contribution of $50,000 to
26 the stewardship fund. If the County can't make that contribution, the Land Trust will seek
27 the money elsewhere. The reconveyance and conservation easement are too important to
28 let go because. the County wouldn't be able to make that contribution. The contribution is
29 necessary, but the Land Trust will find a way to do it if the County can't.
30
31 Russ Pfeiffer -Hoyt, Mt. Baker School District Board Member, submitted handouts (on
32 file).
33
34 Richard Gantman, Mt. Baker School District Superintendent, stated that in the 2008-
35 2009 school year, the district was able to balance its budget only by making $200,000 in
36 cuts. The district also had to spend down its fund balance by using $478,000, to the
37 minimum legal limit. The district has a pending financial crisis. Every dollar counts.
38
39 There are many issues with the reconveyance. The district's issue is financial. There
40 are other perspectives on the issue, such as the use of natural resources connected with
41 funding public efforts, such as schools. The County Council should not try to resolve that
42 issue by small actions. The issue of global warming cannot be solved by denying school
43 districts tax revenue from an oil refinery in the district. Though there is an effort to
44 disconnect public endeavors from timber harvest revenue, they cannot solve that issue with
45 this issue. Please consider that.
46
47 Pfeiffer -Hoyt stated revenues from Forest Board lands contribute to the district's
48 ability to help students. A role of the Council is the Trust responsibility. He read from the
49 handout on the Washington Attorney General opinion. Counties hold lands as trustees for
50 the taxing districts. They were held in trust for the various tax funds before they were
51 deeded to the DNR. They remain so held. The nature and purpose of the Trust has not
52 materially changed.
53
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 3
1 The Mt. Baker School District believes the reconveyance of all Forest Board lands in
2 the Lake Whatcom watershed will result in a loss to the district of over $10 million. Of that,
3 $3.5 million would have gone to their bond fund. Annually, the reconveyance will cost the
4 bond fund $100,000, in addition to revenue already lost due to the Lake Whatcom
5 Landscape Management Plan. Work with the district to complete a framework for
6 compensation of those losses before taking further action on reconveyance.
7
8 He served on the Executive's Review Panel for the reconveyance. The panel's
9 examination of several key impacts of reconveyance were superficial. Not one single
10 County action will have as great a financial impact on Whatcom County governance as this
11 reconveyance. Because of the magnitude of this proposal, a thorough and independent
12 vetting is necessary. Delay the MOA until the proposal is vetted.
13
14 Caskey- Schreiber asked the number of acreages used in his calculation. Pfeiffer -
15 Hoyt stated the Forest Board lands total 8,000 acres. His losses are calculated on the
16 transfer lands within the school district, about 5,300 acres.
17
18 Tom Westergreen, Executive Review Panel Member, stated make sure this
19 reconveyance gets public discussion. He did not agree with the Panel's recommendation,
20 and wrote a minority report, which outlines key points that need further discussion.
21
22 Forest practices have changed a lot since the 1970's. They've become more and
23 more restrictive, as they should, to minimize risks of landslides and to maintain water
24 quality. The Landscape Plan purpose was to minimize the impacts of forest practices and
25 potential for landslides. However, there will still be landslides, even if the reconveyance
26 goes through. If the reconveyance goes through, the County will be liable for damage from
27 any landscape that does happen. That's a difference.
28
29 As a professional forester, he disagrees with many of Mr. Wallin's comments in his
30 presentation. Things have changed in the field. Some of the information Mr. Wallin
31 presented on hydrologic maturity is misleading.
32
33 When it comes to agricultural lands, they all understand how important it is to
34 preserve that base and infrastructure. He asks for the same protection for forestry lands.
35 They are important. They must have a large- enough forestry base that can be managed to
36 support mills and timber crews.
37
38 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, A.)
39
40 Westergreen continued to state that all the federal land is gone from timber
41 harvesting. Many other areas have been preserved. Land is taken out of production for
42 buffers and other things. He understands they need preservation, but they need to have a
43 balance. The balance is tipping too far the other way. Under the Landscape Plan, half of
44 the 8,400 acres in the reconveyance is unstable and won't be logged. The other half is
45 suitable for timber production. He doesn't agree with taking that out of the base for timber
46 harvesting. Promote a working forest.
47
48 This reconveyance sends a message. Private forestland owners own 23 percent of
49 the watershed. There is a disincentive that some of these actions send to the landowners.
50 If they don't have an incentive to keep the lands forested, they will convert the lands to
51 urbanization.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 4
The watershed has been actively managed for over 100 years. It's naive to believe
that doing nothing with those lands is okay. Much of the land is hardwood. Part of the
Landscape Plan proposal was to convert some of those to conifers, a better species for the
watershed. There are many over - stocked stands that were planned for thinning to keep
them healthier. If that isn't done, there will be insects and disease. There are many new
plantations that need maintenance to remain healthy. Responsibilities come with owning
those lands. The County is not in a position to do that. He doesn't support the
reconveyance. He will talk about costs tonight at the evening Council meeting.
Tom Pratum, citizen, stated he appreciates the invitation to participate. He wasn't
allowed to be a member of Mr. McFarland's committee. He was asked to talk about impacts
of parks on the watershed.
The City of Bellingham land acquisition can't be compared to reconveyance. The City
of Bellingham is buying land that can be developed. This land being reconveyed is zoned
commercial forestry and can't be developed. He disagrees with Mr. Wallin's numbers.
There is no support for his high -end numbers given. The landslide comparison of what will
happen in Lake Whatcom with the information given on that presentation slide is not likely
to happen in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
There are direct and indirect impacts from this proposal. Direct impacts are from
park facilities, such as boat moorages, boat launch ramps, parking lots, and community
centers. There will also be parks operational impacts, such as allowed camping and fires,
which are currently proposed in this area. In the future, the County could allow off -road
vehicles to use the area. They must address these things in the conservation easement. It
must be certain that watershed damaging facilities and operations must not occur. He has
an idea about how to work that certainty out now, before the reconveyance occurs.
Indirect impacts include fiscal impacts, such as development, maintenance, and
operations costs. They need an independent look into the costs, not by a County person.
Other impacts include loss of revenue. If they are going to use a 200 -year average for loss
of revenue that DNR provided, think about how realistic that is. Have a carefully -done,
independent financial analysis. Study revenue impacts through an independent financial
analysis.
Another direct impacts include transportation access. The Lookout Mountain park
has access. The only way to get to the Stewart Mountain park is to drive more than ten
miles through the watershed on Northshore Road. The connection to the Y Road is a joke.
People won't use it to access this park. It's too far to go.
There are also indirect land use issues. They don't know what will happen to the
zoning when the land becomes a park. Many parks are zoned recreational open space
(ROS), which may be the plan for this land eventually. He asked what happens to adjacent
land that is zoned ROS.
Finally, there are liability issues. Consider those issues before approving the MOA.
They need to do a few things before moving forward. Look at it more carefully.
Dick Whitmore, Forester, described his background as a forester. Forest
management can increase water quality and quantity. That's a fact, according to credible
science. Open this discussion, to be more credible. Many people's minds are made up
without looking into all the questions. This is a significant decision, and should be made
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 5
1 through an environmental impact statement. Otherwise, people won't listen to their side of
2 the story.
3
4 Del Lowery, Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Commission Chair, stated the
5 Commission voted to approve the reconveyance. It's an incredible opportunity. The
6 legitimate concerns can be addressed and satisfied. It's an opportunity that few
7 generations have. Establish a low- impact park, not including boat launches, campgrounds,
8 athletic fields, or anything else like that. It will be an open -space wilderness. Nothing will
9 benefit the County Parks system more than this proposal. The parks program in this County
10 is highly - valued by everyone in the county. This park will be the envy of all, far into future
11 generations. Approve the MOA.
12
13 Brenner asked about plans to develop camping facilities. Lowry stated campgrounds
14 for recreational vehicles (RV's) and such are not the case, to his knowledge. There will be
15 backpacking and things of that nature.
16
17 Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, 'Bellingham, handed out information (on file) and
18 stated his photographs are of slopes of 30 degrees or less. They're not steep.
19
20 He served on the Landscape Planning Committee. They went through an
21 environmental impact statement (EIS) process. When they received public comment, it was
22 overwhelmingly in support of no harvesting at all. That was not the alternative the
23 committee selected because of other constraints. Fifty percent of this land is off -base,
24 according to the Landscape Plan, presuming that certain areas potentially inaccessible are,
25 in fact, inaccessible. There are lands that could possibly be harvested, which points to
26 geologists making Russian roulette decisions in the field in the watershed.
27
28 Look at that environmental impact statement, especially the tables and numbers.
29 Compare those numbers to the revenue loss numbers presented today. They are pretty far
30 apart. They don't take into account the deduction the State does anyway.
31
32 Brenner asked the location of the areas in Mr. McShane's photos. The photos are
33 from southwest Washington and northwest Oregon.
34
35 Marion Beddill, Executive Review. Panel Member, stated she is also a member of
36 People for Lake Whatcom Group and runs the website LakeWhatcom.org.
37
38 A park is okay as long as its properly managed. Her big concern is the watershed
39 and drinking water protection. Impose constraints for the areas outside the park at the
40 same time they agree to make a park. Concerns are roads, vehicular traffic, and their
41 impacts to water quality. She is concerned about a high risk for business, residential, and
42 commercial development near the park within the watershed, which would be a detriment to
43 water quality. Make any environmental impact study done extend beyond the limits of this
44 proposed park, and include the donut of land around it that will likely be impacted.
45
46 Ken Bell, Executive Review Panel Member, stated he sent a letter of dissent (on file).
47 He came into this process with no preconceived notion. He'd hoped that to hear that
48 reconveyance would stop phosphorous pollution in the lake. The DOE report that said the
49 impacts of this park were neutral made the most impact on him. Mr. Wallin referenced a lot
50 of studies about landslides, but he didn't see an equal comparison. Talk to DOE about those
51 neutral impacts.
52
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 6
I Also, he would hate to see $3 million removed from the economy. The Landscape
2 Plan went a long way to get the industry in a program to minimize damage.
3
4 The public should not think that this is a solution, because development in the
5 watershed is really the problem. The real problems are lawns and debris. If it's publicized
6 that they just took acreage out of development and they've done enough, that's not correct.
7 That's not where the problem began. The real issues haven't been addressed by this
8 reconveyance. The phosphorus levels that are big issues today will require attention. This
9 reconveyance should not be a diversion.
10
11 Seth Cool, Executive Review Panel Member, stated this is a golden opportunity for 25
12 percent of the watershed. He disagrees with estimate of $3 million that Mr. Bell mentioned.
13 It is the high estimate of DNR logging, which is not sustainable, multiplied by an arbitrary
14 number that economists will not stand by. Multiplier factors should be around two, not five.
15
16 According to the DNR, the revenues generated by logging are about $187,000 per
17 year on a sustainable level. They would be higher the first 20 years, because they are
18 front - loaded. Of that amount, $46,000 goes to school bonds, split between the Mt. Baker
19 School District and Bellingham School District. The number is more about $23,000, not
20 $100,000.
21
22 These are the County's lands. It's the County's decision on how they're managed.
23 They can let DNR manage the lands for a little bit of revenue, or allow this land to be a
24 place for recreation and to protect the drinking water watershed.
25
26 Weimer asked if they get answers to questions now or after they sign the MOA.
27 Questions include whether or not they need to rezone the land to allow trails and parks.
28 He asked if they need a legal opinion before spending $300,000. Another question is
29 whether they need to see an easement before they go forward on a $300,000 MOA, so they
30 know what they will protect and how it will be done. He asked if they should figure these
31 things out before they spend $300,000 or not. McFarland stated they now have parks
32 zoned commercial forestry. In this instance, they are not developing a park, but the
33 recreation component is there. The DNR indicates that those lands are used for recreation.
34 Trailheads and development are on property the County already owns. He can check into
35 the terminology. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) says that it is for park purposes,
36 not a park. Park purposes can occur on a piece of property that isn't technically designated
37 as a park. Not changing the zoning is consistent with what they've done in the past. The
38 Canyon Lake Community Forest is both a forest and a community park.
39
40 Brenner stated Rand Jack made her nervous about legal challenges if it isn't used for
41 a park. She asked the real purpose of the reconveyance, protecting the watershed or a
42 park. McFarland stated Mr. Jack's reference was about what may happen if the County ever
43 decided to not use the property for park purposes. The DNR would be able to take those
44 lands back, potentially for timber harvesting. On top of that would be a conservation
45 easement that would prevent that.
46
47 Weimer asked about selling the easement to someone and if it would cost the
48 County. McFarland stated the cost is to monitor and provide oversight to the easement.
49 The Council decides the value of the easement and how they deal with it. Legal staff said it
50 can't be given away. For other properties, the County has acquired properties with the
51 condition that an easement come with it or that the easement is put on it after the fact. In
52 some instances, the County has traded , lands in exchange for having conservation
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 7
easements put on park properties. There are options, such as the Anacortes Community
Forest model. The Council will have to make that decision.
Weimer asked if an easement is the only way to do that, or if there could be some
kind of interlocal agreement for enforcement with the City of Bellingham. McFarland stated
that is a question for legal counsel.
Fleetwood stated today was very helpful. He asked about whether there was a
sufficient economic vetting. An advisory group finding related to the financial condition.
There is a notion of compensating folks. He asked if they can do an economic vetting
through the MOA or after the MOA, or if it should be done before the MOA. McFarland
stated the MOA is a commitment between the County and DNR to move forward. The DNR
already provided its estimates. The Council has seen reports and values from the.
Landscape Plan. If that needs to be expanded, the Council can do that. He showed the
Council the breakdown of their costs. He has experience with those costs. It would not be
a good use of funds to study operating costs. If they want to study recreational value over
time and timber revenue losses over time, they can do an economic analysis. His numbers
on the reconveyance are as a straightforward real estate transaction. It wouldn't be tied to
the MOA. It would be done before. Once they enter into the MOA, it becomes the
mechanism to commit to that $300,000 to prepare the paperwork to approve the
reconveyance resolution and move forward.
Kelly asked if the State statute requires an economic analysis. McFarland stated the
DNR will do value- for -value analysis. It looks at making the various trusts whole. It will not
look at job losses or impacts to local industry.
Kelly stated he would be interested to see the DNR quantify the economic impacts of
not having clean water.
Weimer stated he heard the committee wasn't comfortable with the economic
analysis in terms of forest thinning, failing logging roads, and mass wasting event liabilities.
He asked how the County or DNR has those liabilities into the future. No economic analysis
has answered that.
Fleetwood asked to continue this question and answer session on October 7.
Weimer stated he would support holding this item in committee and rescheduling it
on October 7. He wanted to ask the administration if it has a plan to cut the conservation
futures fund, and if that would affect reconveyance.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she thanks everyone for attending and giving their
perspectives. It sounds like everyone wants to do the right thing for the lake and the
reservoir. The reconveyance won't solve everything, but it won't add to Lake Whatcom
problems. There are some things to work out. If they continue this discussion, invite the
State Department of Ecology to give more background information on its stance on the
neutral effect. From what she was told, the basis level for the lake is a logged lake. Going
back to a pristine state would require a lot more modeling work. What they said was
misleading, but they'll get there. This is a fantastic opportunity for the community and
future generations. It's a worthy pursuit.
Brenner asked for written information on liabilities from Mr. McFarland on who takes
care of fires, the difference in costs if they reconvey, and who takes care of landslides
naturally caused. She would like to know the liability differences compared to the liability
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 8
I now. McFarland stated legal counsel and the risk manager will put together a response.
2 He's had those discussions with the Prosecuting Attorney early in the process.
3
4 Brenner stated she would also like to know from where funding would come, what
5 they've got in the conservation futures fund, and how this compares with the urban issues
6 in the watershed. McFarland stated councilmembers should email him their questions.
7
8
9 OTHER BUSINESS
10
11 There was no other business.
12
13
14 ADJOURN
15
16 The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
17
18
19
20 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcriptio
21
22
23 ATTES T%&% ��ti11►►in► ►l� 1
24 J'C Y CO�,
25 Hgrc ,
26
27 •
28 -
29 [Fa na $6vwfq'%r C60ncil_--Clerk
sy /N GI •.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Carl Weimer, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 9/23/2008, Page 9