The following article was written by guest writer Delaine Clizbe.
--
The Metropolitan Park District has squeaked its way into existence. Now it is time to move the discussion to the re-conveyance of 8500+ acres of land around Lake Whatcom for use as a "forest preserve," or in today's vernacular, a "park." I won't go into detail about the actual transaction as it is pretty cut-and-dried. Whatcom County originally received the land because folks didn't pay their taxes. The land was put in trust with the DNR to manage for timber money. The county can take the land back to use as a park. The only question that remains is whether the re-conveyance SHOULD be done. Of course, I don't think so, and here is why.
Backroom deals and stacked decks
This whole process, from the very beginning, has been conducted out of the public eye with meetings and emails between the proponents. One only need do a public records check to see the extent to which this has happened. In one email, when the proponents realize land values that are supposed to be equal are not equal, it is suggested that someone "make it go away." That attitude pretty much sums up this whole process.
In 2008, Pete Kreman, then county executive, put together a panel of "citizens" to look at the potential for re-conveyance. The original panel members were: Marion Biddell, Seth Cool (Conservation NW), Rand Jack (Whatcom Land Trust), Lois Garlick, Ken Mann, April Markiewicz, Russ Pheifer-Hoyt (Mt Baker School Board, and trail builder), Gordon Rogers (Council on Governments and Whatcom County Parks Commission), David Wallin (WWU), Tom Westergreen (forestry). When discussing the transfer of 8500+ acres of commercial forestry land you would think the forest industry would have more than one representative. Recognize another name on the citizen's group? Yes, Ken Mann sat on this group and urged the county to move forward on this deal. Fast forward a few years and now the very same Ken Mann is voting on the proposal as a county councilman. And can someone explain to me how the county executive can initiate this re-conveyance, then get elected to the council council and be allowed to vote on a plan he put forward? I thought we had a county government structure that provided checks and balances, but in this instance, that system doesn't seem to be working.
Rand Jack of Whatcom Land Trust served on the original panel. When the Mount Baker School Board started to fret about the loss of timber revenue to their school, it was Whatcom Land Trust that brokered a deal with the school board (Russ Pfeifer-Hoyt was a member of both the re-conveyance panel and the school board). What a deal that turned out to be. For $500,000 (pieces of silver) the school board sold out to Whatcom Land Trust. But "sold-out" may be too nice a term when you read the actual contract. It's more like a gag order. Notice the clause that says Mount Baker School District doesn't actually get the money until the statute of limitations runs out on the people's right to sue over the re-conveyance.
Whatcom Land Trust, Conservation Northwest and Mike McFarland of Whatcom County Parks would like you to believe a conservation easement was never part of the plan. Read it here and judge for yourself. This was being negotiated before the reconveyance deal was even done. And by negotiating I mean they were talking about how much money it would cost ($50,000). But that is to be expected since the original panel, which Whatcom Land Trust is a part of, recommended a conservation easement be put in place.
The planning and re-planning
If you spend a little time looking at the budget history for this oversized gem, your head will spin. In 2008, the 50 or so miles of trail building in the park would have cost the taxpayer $18,000 a mile. But it seems Whatcom County Parks can beat their own bid! In the Capital Improvement Budget 2013-1018 we now only need to spend $10,000 a mile. Last time I checked, EVERYTHING has gotten more expensive, so how is Whatcom County Parks pulling this off?
And how about that plan for how many acres of park we need per person in Whatcom County? Looking at the Capital Expenditure Plan again, we see that Whatcom County Parks currently has 7,100+ acres of park land. Only 1,941 acres of that is developed. Seems like we have a lot of room to develop what we already own.
Likewise, the number of trails Whatcom County Parks has built and maintains really tells the story. On 7,100+ acres of land we currently have 60 miles of trail. Compare that to Galbraith mountain where there are about 40 miles of trail in 2,400+ acres. So it looks like you could almost double the amount of trails we have on existing land and achieve the level-of-service goals Whatcom County Parks has made.
No real trail/park plan has ever been done for this re-conveyance. The original plan was carefully called a "trail survey." When County Executive Louws suggested more work be done before a vote, Whatcom County Parks sent back a better "plan".....or maybe just better pictures.
More Parks! More parks!
You would think we have the worst park system in the world from all the clamoring for more parks. The problem may very well be that we are not using the land we have. Ever heard of Dittrich Park? I hadn't either until I ran across some information in a Google search. Turns out, Whatcom County Parks completed the purchase of that 25 acres in 1970. Looking at the last two capital improvement plans, one can clearly see we were supposed to have some development in 2013. But now, likely because of the re-conveyance, the development of this land has been pushed to 2018. I can't figure out why! If you have ever driven by Lake Padden or Lake Samish on a sunny day you would see the overcrowding. Whatcom County Parks has had 42 years to develop those parks. Why is it not done? Why do we keep adding park land and then not develop the land into a park?
Save the Water, Save the Water!
Proponents are still trying to convince people this re-conveyance will have an appreciable effect on water quality. I'll leave that point to the experts, but I don't think it's likely to matter much. Especially, since Rand Jack, of Whatcom Land Trust, is now urging the county council to log the land themselves because Whatcom County would get a larger portion of the money than if DNR logged it (February 12, Open sesssion comments, Whatcom County Council).
So, what will this deal really change? The land will still potentially be logged, the land may be recreated on, (people already heavily use this area for recreation) and the water will still be blue.
The only difference is who pays the bill........ and who stands to profit.
There is a public hearing on the re-conveyance on Tuesday, March 12, at 6 p.m. in the Whatcom County Council chambers.
---
Delaine Clizbe recently retired from 30 years in the commercial fishing industry. She is a mountain biker, trail runner and likes to can the vegetables grown in her garden.
Comments by Readers
Clayton Petree
Mar 08, 2013well written Delaine. Thanks for taking the time. I suggest NW Citizens. Also read the article Mr. Kirsch wrote here as well. I think it was in 2008.
John Servais
Mar 08, 2013Greg Kirsch wrote several articles back in 2008 about the beginning efforts to create a park through a reconveyance process. You can search by clicking on g.h.kirsch in the ‘Past Writers’ box on the home page. This will bring up Greg’s last 50 articles on NWCitizen. The first I found that deals with the reconveyance is March 29, 2008.
You don’t know What you got till its gone
http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/you-dont-know-what-you-got-till-its-gone
Another is from May 2, 2008
A Park for Pete’s Sake
http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/a-park-for-pete
You can find more. NWCitizen has paid a lot of attention to this issue.
Tip Johnson
Mar 09, 2013The new TMDL report comes with a mandate to remediate over 80% of the runoff from developed areas in the watershed to forest standards.
Way bigger lakes than Whatcom have been taken down by too many nutrients. It happens very fast, usually surprising even the folks that have argued against curtailing development.
The way you fix it is to install a shoreline intercept and sent the bad stuff off to treatment. The problem with that approach here is that Whatcom has bad inflow without the Nooksack diversion, the use of which has become increasingly problematic.
It could be a pipe down to the G-P lagoon until they turn it into a marina. Then what? We’re talking big bucks.
The reconveyance lands could be the cheapest filtration solution available. Not only is closer, but it keeps the water in the basin. Furthermore, individual drainages could find their own solutions and finance them as Local Improvement Districts, thus assigning assessments where they belong and keeping the costs off the general water utility rate base where they would mostly impact people not creating the problem.
As for people meeting and trying to come up with a plan. That’s the way things always happen. You have to have a plan before you run it up the flagpole.
The reconveyance is one step toward better control and integrated management of the watershed, and that’s long overdue.
Bill Black
Mar 09, 2013I’ve lived in the LW watershed since 1989….in this current house since 1998…....and I could safely drink any water which passes through this property. My only reservation might be that my neighbor to the north and upstream does, regrettably, use herbicides as do many property owners in the watershed…..most notably the City of Bellingham. In my view the most mismanaged property, relative to water quality, in the watershed is Bloedel Donovan Park.
As much of a wacko enviro nut as I am, the notion of a big new park in the watershed, after seeing what goes on at Bloedel leaves me feeling a little jaundiced.
A ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides is sorely needed in the watershed. If and when we, as a community, ever finally get really serious about Lake Whatcom as a source of edible water it’ll need to happen. Until then we’ll just spend money, lots and lots of money, without making any significant improvements.
Delaine Clizbe
Mar 09, 2013Hi Tip,
Could you elaborate a bit more on your response? I’m not sure I understand what you mean. It looks like you are saying we could pipe the water to the top of the mountains and let the forest be the filter.
Delaine
Tip Johnson
Mar 09, 2013You’d want to use gravity where you can, but some pumping would probably be required. That’s an unfortunate expense, but piping everything to treatment in bellingham would cost, too.
Maybe it could just be piped to the creek and dumped, I don’t know, but it all takes the water out of the system.
But there’s a big advantage to keeping the water in the basin, and the forestland is cheaper than building treatment facilities if Post Point is any indication.
It should at least be studied. They have good tributary basin info and all it would take is to overlay that on the reconveyance lands and a map of development to see the potential.
Having a big forest filter in reserve seems like a good conservative decision.
Wendy Harris
Mar 09, 2013Clean water is the by-product of a healthy lake. The way to fix the lake is to holistically restore all ecosystem functions. DOE, the city and the county are offering us big, expensive engineered solutions that focus on stormwater management (and allow more watershed development to occur.) The landscape plan only addresses stormwater run-off.
We need the reconveyance because it is the only solution that restores ecosystem health. Remember the biodiversity that was so important to protect in the Chuckanut Community Forest? Well, we need that in the Lake Whatcom watershed too.
The real value of the reconveyance is being overlooked. We need old growth forest (all three layers:tree canopy, shrubbery and forest floor) and we need habitat to help the lake recover.
Delaine Clizbe
Mar 10, 2013Tip,
If what you are suggesting is in anyway a viable solution for storm water treatment, I would want that determined before the land is transferred. Personally, I think it is a long shot. Forests make great filters, but not sure they are designed to filter extra pumped in water. In addition, if this land is so steep and landslide risk is so high, I’m not sure we would want to add more surface water to the system thereby further increasing slide risk. The slide that happened on the Hertz trail in January had nothing to do with logging and had everything to do with the geology of the area, weather, and surface water. I would think ANY unnatural additions to the area increase that risk.
I also think it would be a hard sell at the DOE. Call me cynical but…..
And finally, there is but one reason the County is allowed to reconvey these lands. That is for park purposes. Not sure that zoning and codes and RCW’s will allow a “treatment plant” in a park.
Delaine Clizbe
Mar 10, 2013Wendy,
The problem is that even the DOE is not really on your side. Here is a quote taken from the Bellingham Heralds Politics blog: ““We know a natural forest is not identical to managed forest, but it’s not a (difference) we can quantify,” Hood said.
So I think the claim that it must be “old growth” to protect the lake is a bit of a stretch.
Also, I have read many articles written by you where you are questioning and disagreeing with how land use rules are being interpreted and what is being allowed. In particular, you seem to want the Whatcom County Council to follow GMA. In this case you have been very silent on the fact that this 8,800 acres of land is zoned Commercial Forestry which makes it “resource lands”. The GMA requires that County to “maintain” resource lands. If this transaction takes place, the County will need to rezone the property out of commercial forestry and will therefore, not be complying with GMA. Is there other land somewhere they are then going to zone into Commercial Forestry?
I know you are much more of an expert on GMA than I so I really would like to hear your take on how this particular transaction is in compliance with GMA.
Wendy Harris
Mar 10, 2013The zoning issue is a red herring that is not worthy of much discussion.
Bottom line… this land is also a critical area. Critical areas function as an overlay on land, even natural resource land, and require the highest level of protection. The Growth Management Hearings Board has repeatedly emphasized the need to protect Lake Whatcom and to comply with TMDL requirements to restore the Lake
Bottom line: the need to protect the potable water for the city, and the need to restore the dying aquatic environment trump the need to protect very poor quality timber land.
My question: Why is there no discussion of the $300,000 that was already spent to proceed with the reconveyance, voted for in a public meeting, or of prior written assurance to DNR of the Council’s committement to moving forward with the reconveyance? And why is there no discussion of the economic signficance of the two fish hatcheries that depend on Lake’s water quality?
Wendy Harris
Mar 10, 2013Also forgot to add that the Clean Water Act is a federal law. It supercedes state law requirements, such as the GMA, although, of course, in this case, they both require protection of Lake Whatcom, which is best achieved through the reconveyance.
Delaine Clizbe
Mar 10, 2013Wendy,
Personally I think you just sidestepped the issue. Mike McFarland from Whatcom County Parks has said the FIRST thing they will have to do is do a “critical areas’ study on the land. Not sure how you are placing all this land into “critical areas”. Has that study been done? If it has great! Then the Parks department can start building trails immediately.
Wendy Harris
Mar 11, 2013If you were aware that park lands were critical areas, why would you try to trip me up with the natural resource questions? I see now this is just some button pushing game for you. I will not be wasting my time of you in the future. Perhaps John can expalain to you again how this blog is different than the Herald blog.
Delaine Clizbe
Mar 11, 2013Wendy,
I was not aware that ALL of this land was critical areas. I was surprised that you seem to think that has already been determined since my understanding is that that particular study has not been done. I fail to see why that is trying to trip you up. But if that is your perception you are entitled too that and I apologies for making you feel that way.
Alex McLean
Mar 11, 2013I don’t have much sympathy for people who are eager to build more houses in the watershed. Likewise, I cannot fathom how even the most careful and diligent logging operation—even something as stringent as the Forest Stewardship Council’s guidelines—could not pose a menace to our already ailing water supply.
Along the same lines, I also see a developed park (trails and bathrooms anyway) as posing problems: Do we really want people driving to and from this park, within the watershed, in large numbers?
The “park option,” apparently, is part of the pill we have to swallow to get this large tract of steep and unstable forested land protected.
For that reason, and no other, I fully endorse this reconveyance as a step toward putting Bellingham into the 19th century of watershed management techniques and science.
Loggers and school children should find better ways to generate their funding than by damaging the drinking water supply that this entire city relies on, and pays for, to ensure its own fiscal future. As harsh and undiplomatic as that stance is, the fact remains that this sort of civic drama never would happen in a more enlightened place, such as New Jersey or Tacoma, where people do not play games with protecting the water that they drink and shower in every damn day.
Clayton Petree
Mar 12, 2013Wow Alex, that’s really sad. wjw.