The Whatcom Excavator
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Who's Planning Our Lives?
    • Diminishing Property Rights
    • NGO's & Public-Private Partners
    • Agenda 21
    • Buzzwords
    • Deep Thought
    • Best Available Science
    • Best Available Humor >
      • Humor Archive
  • The DREDGE
    • Gotta See This
    • How To Dredge
  • Bulldozed
    • Eco-Activism and County Policy
    • CELDF - "Democracy"
    • ALERT: Community Energy Challenge
  • Pig Trough
    • ReSources
    • Sustainable Connections
    • BALLE
    • ICLEI
    • Whatcom County Community Network
    • Big Wheels Award
  • Contact Us

Flexible DNR Forest Recreation Plan Possible, But Welcome?

3/1/2013

7 Comments

 
Picture
     On Tuesday morning, February 26th, two top recreation officials from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) made a pitch to Whatcom County Council to offer a recreational program in working forests if the county would like to see that happen.

And what the DNR described was a surprisingly fresh approach that seemed considerably more flexible than the current "park preserve" proposal that could cost local taxpayers almost $6 million or more in coming years if 8,844 acres of DNR forest around Lake Whatcom are taken out of production and "reconveyed" to the county by the state for a "park."

DNR's recreation methodology is interesting; it's forest-based to begin with. The approach has  evolved over time and it's proven.  DNR recreation has been demonstrably successful in other areas.  The officials explained that they could move quickly to make Whatcom County a high-priority recreation area.  The presenters described how productive forests could expand the recreation economy while still meeting DNR's  production goals.  Of course, this would not only keep local coffers full but help the county meet its GMA mandate to conserve productive forestry just as the GMA seeks to conserve productive agriculture.

DNR's planning process relies on local input and transparency.  A planning schedule was shown that illustrated how the process works; typically it takes only about two years to complete.  The approach is to identify popular local activities and match them to a forest's attributes and landscape plan, habitat conservation plan, and harvest schedule. In this way, the best spots for hiking, camping, and fishing are identified along with prime places for specialized uses.  DNR would accommodate active mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting and even off-road vehicles (ORV's) in separate zones because the agency understands the pitfalls that "multiuse" trails present.  While the agency would continue to manage operations and risks,  recreation would be closely coordinated with local governments.


Picture
Photo courtesy of Dave Onkels
While this overall concept seemed positive and win-win to much of the audience, the displeasure and nervousness of local "reconveyance" proponents was palpable. The hardcore partners (the Parks Department, Whatcom Land Trust, and Conservation Northwest) have worked hard to spin the "DNR as antagonist" narrative.  But that spin wobbled significantly Tuesday.

Expect an uptick in drama over the next few weeks; watch for more head over heels reports like this article in the Bellingham Herald that portrayed a DNR-rec plan as something that would set things back for years.  Would it?  Park Director McFarlane has always flat-out refused to produce a tangible plan until deeds to all this property were firmly in the county's grip.   What's to "set-back"?

Right off the bat, a DNR-recreation plan would save significant time plus a small fortune in legal expenses because no deeds would need to be changed, no tower leases transferred, and no forester hired.  No roads would have to be removed, and a tremendous amount of staff expense would "go poof."  In almost every respect, a DNR-recreation alternative would probably move faster and achieve a wider range of recreational opportunities than "park" plans.  But the Parks Department would need firm leadership (if not a swift kick) to make a sea-change.  There's the rub.

There's good cause to believe that common sense has been damned for the worst reasons - principally, politics.  It's an election year, and "the reconveyance" is perceived (wrongly, WE think) as some kind of prize that will look good listed on shiny campaign mailers.  Rumor has it that at least one wannabe candidate thinks this is the key to the kingdom.  Think again.  When water quality improvements don't materialize (they won't) and park bills start racking up, you'll find yourself (or selves) in a very bad position with a practical and political albatross around your neck - some legacy.  This council and the Executive could be downright heroic and leave nobody behind.  But with Titanic institutional momentum chugging along, voting "no" would take courage.   People do recognize and vote for courageous statesmen.

To keep this debate as broad as possible, to balance the ridiculous "save the lake" slant that this story is getting virtually everywhere else (the "epic opportunity to lose" line is entirely untrue, and council knows it) -  consider this latest appeal from these two sincere forestry leaders:


Dear Friends of Working Forests,                         February 28, 2013

We have possibly a last opportunity to convince the County Council that the Reconveyance of 8,844 acres, of trust lands managed under the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, to Whatcom County for a low impact park is not in the best interest of our fellow citizens.  The council will hold a second Public Hearing starting at 6:00 pm on Tuesday March 12 in the council chambers.  At the last hearing we had a great turn out and the Council did delay their decision.  Once again we need you and anyone else that feels this proposal is not considering the best interest of the taxpayers, to show up at the hearing and consider speaking to the council.  The following talking points are here to give you ideas for a short letter to the council and possible testimony.  The proponents of this “taking” have been actively sending form letters and will be at the hearing in force.  Please write a letter and attend the public hearing to give the council you thoughts.  Feel free to send this on to your friends.

SOME RECONVEYENCE TALKING POINTS

1.      The magnitude of this park is more than what is acceptable by the Growth Management Act    The Growth Management Act specifically protects Commercial Forest land. The withdrawal of this land is in direct conflict with GMA.  Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham continue to participate in the conversions of forestlands to preservation status.

2.      Leaving the proposed reconveyed lands under DNR management is a zero loss to all parties.  Under county management it is a net loss economically and continues the trend of a dwindling forestland base that threatens, the already raw material stressed, timber industry infrastructure.    For the last 35 years the timber industry has lost over 60% of its timber base. Less than 25% of Whatcom County forests are available as “working forests”.  Logs are imported from Canada and must be trucked longer distances to supply mills in Washington.  Taking more timber out of the forest base will impact an important industry and associated businesses.

3.      The Landscape Management Plan gave local control to Whatcom County.  Proponents say that reconveying this land to the county will give local control. The Legislation that formed the Landscape Management Plan on DNR managed Trust lands in the watershed was asked for and developed by local activists, then approved by the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and Water District #10. The ink hardly dried on this plan, when the same activist groups began the next step for reconveyance. This type of planed incromentalism must stop here. What lands will be next?  Will a Whatcom Land Trust conservation easement take control of this land as they have with other forestlands?

4.      Specific agreements must be made before reconveyance is passed; this process has been void of facts and not fully vetted.   Now proponents are talking about a forest management plan that will harvest as much timber as called for in the Landscape Management Plan. This is a smoke screen, if a written agreement spelling out exactly how the lands will be used is not done before reconveyance is passed, it will never happen. No firm park plan or plan to maintain this area has been given. The parks department can’t even keep the one latrine at the Ken Hertz trailhead maintained, how do we expect them to keep a bigger facility operating on only $150,000.00 a year?

5.      Dept. of Ecology representatives have stated that reconveyance would not result in any measurable improvement to water quality.  The phosphorous pollution in Lake Whatcom is in basins 1 and 2, that are heavily urbanized and mostly under the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County’s jurisdiction.  Basin 3 receives mostly forest runoff and is still clean.  Why are we demonizing forest practices that are a preferred land use and cause little impact on the Lake?  The limited timber harvesting (revenue creation) allowed under the Landscape Plan does not need to be eliminated to maintain clean water.

6.      A full economic analysis of the reconveyance must be made before a vote.   Especially during these economic hard times, how can the County Council approve this proposal and not know the full economic impacts?  Far too many times we move ahead on projects not understanding the unintended consequences of our actions.  The county needs to do an independent economic analysis.

7.      Currently there is a large amount of low impact recreational use in the proposed reconveyance area. The Department of Natural Resources allows hiking, biking and horseback riding on the lands they manage. What will change under reconveyance? Do we want low impact recreation or a park to draw more users to the watershed?   An inventory of existing recreation use has not been done, so we do not have a baseline for future proposals. From this baseline future rational decisions are made, without a baseline it is just speculation. If the 8,844 acres is left in the hands of DNR timber management, existing recreation could be enhanced as directed by the Landscape management Plan (Objective 19). A recent meeting with DNR officials revealed their willingness to consider a recreation plan for Whatcom County.  Instead of reconveying this property and having all the cost being the county taxpayer’s responsibility, a shared effort with the state will have many more benefits for everyone.

8.      The urban society must learn how to live with the rural society and realize the benefits that come from understanding and cooperation.    In other words, stop being so selfish and self absorbed. Start to understand your rural neighbors. We love the Earth as much as you and we want a wonderful future for our children also. We have committed our lives to the land; don’t you think we care for it as much as you do? Maybe because we are so close to the land we may know more of how to take care of it and use it wisely, not selfishly.

9.      We can have recreation and forest management at the same time, while providing revenue to the county and not the cost to maintain these 8,844 acres.  Why do we need to reconvey for a single use Park?   These trust lands can produce an estimated $ 500,000 annually revenue for the county beneficiaries, plus a 5 fold benefit to the local economy.   Cooperation between Whatcom County and DNR can create a “working forest” for all.                    

Dick Whitmore and Tom Westergreen                 

7 Comments
childofww2
3/1/2013 01:38:57 am

Thanks for publishing the DNR proposals with back up illustration of what is at stake here. I plan on circulating this futher afield so more people get a better understanding of the facts behind this reconveyance - I fault the Growth Management Act for setting in motion all this government sought regulatory control of all our natural resources.

Reply
Karl Uppiano link
3/1/2013 01:42:40 am

My wife attended this meeting. She was very impressed upon hearing from the DNR folks. The proceeding definitely exposes the reconveyance rent-seekers for what they are -- a point that everyone who attends the hearing on Tuesday, March 12 at 6:00 P.M. needs to bring up.

Reply
Lorraine Newmna
3/1/2013 02:54:03 am

This is a far better breakdown of the components to reconveyance then any article written by the Bellingham Hearld has written. I have been attending these meetings for the past year. Well Said.

Reply
Ma Bear
3/3/2013 05:05:38 pm

Why should forestry people be put out of work near their homes if DNR is willing to offer great recreation? It sounds like its the best solution all around. Nobody would lose.

We need the jail and a lot of other things taken care first, things that are a lot more important.

Reply
Riley Sweeney link
3/11/2013 04:53:13 am

This article needs some sort of extravagant flowchart to illustrate your point. Something that ties it to the dreaded McShane conspiracy or maybe has a whole box titled "Gaia". That would really show how serious you guys are.

Reply
WE Editors
3/11/2013 05:39:09 am

That quote's a matter of public record, not a fabrication. Nice try.

Reply
Riley Sweeney link
3/11/2013 09:02:50 am

What quote? I'm talking about this hilarious graph you guys made:
http://sweeneyblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/7044725_orig.png


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    WE Dredge!
    Picture
    Posting Rules:
    This forum is moderated.  Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion.  Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted.  You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address.   Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.

    Categories

    All
    Agenda 21
    Best Available Science
    Big Government
    Eco Activism
    Ethics
    Freedom
    Planning
    Property Rights
    Science
    Small Business
    Social Engineering
    Taxes
    Welcome

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2020
    August 2020
    April 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011


    Automatic Updates

    Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.