Your browser does not support modern web standards implemented on our site
Therefore the page you accessed might not appear as it should.
See www.webstandards.org/upgrade for more information.

Whatcom Watch Bird Logo


Past Issues


Whatcom Watch Online
Transfer of Lake Whatcom Forest Board Land: Is Now the Time?


January 2008

Transfer of Lake Whatcom Forest Board Land: Is Now the Time?

by Tom Pratum

Tom Pratum is a board member of North Cascades Audubon Society, where he has been involved in forestry and Lake Whatcom issues since 2001.

In the October/November issue of Whatcom Watch, a short article appeared entitled “Park Status for Over 8,000 Watershed Acres.” This article gives the impression that the transfer of land between the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Whatcom County is a done deal, and that the transfer will result in greatly increased protection for the Lake Whatcom watershed. These conclusions are very much open to question.

As of this writing (early December 2007), the county’s plans are vague, and nothing concrete has been presented to the council. It appears that a preliminary agreement between Whatcom County and the DNR will be presented in early January. It is essential that we take time now to discuss and debate this huge land use proposal: Is this proposal good for the Lake Whatcom watershed and the citizens of Whatcom County?

Timber-Producing Watershed

The Lake Whatcom watershed (excluding its Middle Fork Nooksack input) comprises over 32,000 acres. Of those, approximately 15,000 acres are managed by the DNR for timber production — this is about 83 percent of the commercial forestry zoned land in the watershed.

This land is divided into management blocks whose timber harvest proceeds are used to benefit various state and local entities such as public schools, public hospitals, state universities and capitol buildings. One of these management blocks is known as Forest Board (FB) Trust land and can be transferred back to county control for parks purposes that are in accord with the state outdoor recreation program (RCW 79.22.300).

Over the period from 2001 to 2004, a landscape plan was developed for the watershed by the DNR. While this plan is far from perfect, it does require that timber harvest be done on the DNR land in a far more protective manner than is allowed on private land.

According to the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS, September 2003), there are 8,473 acres of Whatcom County FB land in the landscape planning area (which is slightly larger than the watershed itself. See the map at http://www.northcascadesaudubon.org/documents/lakeWhatForestBoard.jpg.)

Presumably, this is the land being considered for transfer. It is also possible for land to be traded into, or within the watershed to change the composition of the transfer. The county presented a conceptual map of the proposal to the county council on November 7, 2007, that would require some land trading1 (see http://www.northcascadesaudubon.org/documents/WC_proposal_110707.jpg.)

Aggressive Harvests

If you look at a map of DNR land in the watershed from the early 1990s, you see a very different map than that you see today. State ownership stood at slightly less than 25 percent of the watershed in 1989, whereas today it is up to nearly 50 percent.

Almost half of the land that is now managed by the DNR was originally owned by timber companies (mainly Georgia-Pacific and Scott Paper), and later purchased by Trillium Corporation. Trillium undertook an aggressive and reckless timber harvest program in the late 1980s and early 1990s, resulting in some of what are still the most visible clear-cuts on Lookout, Stewart and Squalicum Mountains. From 1987 through 1991 nearly 1,000 acres per year of clear-cut forest practices were approved in the watershed.

The aggressiveness of these timber cuts alarmed many. Eventually a large land trade was worked out involving land in the Lake Whatcom watershed as well as on Chuckanut Mountain, and in other areas of the county. Trillium traded all of their approximately 7,000 acres in the watershed for DNR land elsewhere.

Some of land traded to Trillium was subsequently sold to Crown Pacific who undertook their own aggressive cutting strategy clearly visible on the north and east side of Stewart Mountain (land that is now owned by Sierra Pacific, obtained through bankruptcy proceedings).

Historically this watershed land was put into public ownership under the management of the DNR for purposes of watershed protection. At the time of the transfer in 1993, many calls were made for the county to have a clear say in the management of these timberlands. Eventually, the DNR agreed to develop a management plan specific for this area. Unfortunately, the DNR didn’t act voluntarily, and developing the plan required the force of state legislation passed in 2000.

So, what of the idea of reconveyance, i.e. transfer? For any action, there are bound to be positive and negative aspects, so let’s look at those with regard to the transfer of Forest Board land to the county.

Local Control

On the positive side, reconveyance will give us local control. On the negative side, local control is likely to be much more volatile than state control.

Recall that in the mid 1990s, local control meant that Whatcom County had a non-protective “initiative version” of its critical areas ordinance (CAO). This was later invalidated by the state Growth Management Hearings Board.

Reconveyance doesn’t necessarily mean no timber harvest. Timber harvest on reconveyed land is clearly envisioned as possible in the statutes covering this (e.g. RCW 79.22.3102). The county’s own vague plans indicate that at least some timber harvest is planned.

Proponents point to the remote possibility that this land could be traded to a private interest by the DNR in the future and, therefore, would not be covered by the current landscape plan. It is more likely that some future and less environmentally friendly incarnation of county government will decide that increased timber harvest is needed in order to support their “park.” This timber harvest also would not be covered by the landscape plan.

A New Park

On the positive side, reconveyance could result in the creation of a very large park. On the negative side, this large park will be contained within our drinking watershed and will require substantial resources to manage.

There are a few trails in the DNR-managed part of the watershed, but they are infrequently used by a relatively small number of people. Development of a more extensive trail system would undoubtedly result in water quality degradation.

Human incursion further into these forested areas of the watershed will result in greatly increased fire danger. (Note that other publicly-owned watershed areas — such as the Cedar River watershed owned by Seattle Public Utilities — are strictly off limits to human entry.)

Currently, this land is designated forest resource land zoned for commercial forestry. Permanent structures and roads are discouraged. If reconveyance occurs, all of that will change. The comprehensive plan designation will need to change, allowing structures, roads and other accessory units to be constructed. All such development can be assumed to be detrimental to the watershed.

Conversion to park will also make it easier for adjacent property owners to argue their forestland is inappropriately designated and should be rezoned. Trillium has already tried twice to do this on its adjoining 2,400 acres of Galbraith Mountain land.

Parks are attractive amenities that make areas more desirable for both short- and long-term visits by offering attractive viewscapes and recreational opportunities. Preliminary plans indicate the county is proposing this to be a regional park, which will draw visitors from a wide area. The resulting negative transportation impacts are likely to be difficult to manage.

Creation of a large watershed park in relatively close proximity to undeveloped rural private land will make that land all the more valuable for residential development. This additional development pressure will certainly make protective public acquisition of this private land more difficult.

Costs associated with county management of this land are unknown, but are likely to be significant. These costs include: facilities development and maintenance, security and access control and fire protection.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

Without an actual proposal, it is impossible to analyze this fully, but a few things can be said. On the positive side, it is possible that parkland may be more protective of the watershed than well-managed commercial forestland. On the negative side, there are doubts as to whether greater protection would occur as a county park, and this proposal will be quite expensive.

Management as parkland will expose the area to many potentially damaging actions — both land uses and human uses — that are not allowed, or are unlikely now. In return, are we significantly reducing the total impact of forest practices in the watershed?

From the inception of the landscape plan at the end of 2004 to the present (early November 2007), there have been 36 harvest-related forest practice applications (fpas) that are at least partially in the watershed, covering about 1,250 acres (DNR FPARS, 2004-2007). Of those, four fpas covering 293 acres are on DNR land. (These include two that Whatcom County has asked to be deferred while reconveyance is considered.)

Even though the DNR manages a majority of the land that is likely to be the subject of any forest practice, most forest practices (in terms of number and acreage) occur on private land outside of DNR ownership. Reconveyance will have no effect on those.

Additionally, 60 percent of the Forest Board land is already off-limits to harvest due to the presence of wind and riparian buffers, mass wasting areas and accessibility issues (DEIS, pg.122).

Local Revenue

The FB land in the watershed currently benefits a number of junior taxing districts. These include the Bellingham School District, the Mt. Baker School District, the Port of Bellingham, the Whatcom County road fund and the Whatcom County Library System.

Local funding generated by timber harvest on this land is estimated at $489,000 annually for the next 20 years (DEIS, pg. 123). Even if some of those beneficiaries forgo payment when the land is reconveyed, the ensuing budget reductions are real costs that must be accounted for.

When this fact is considered, and added to the management costs of this large acreage, it is probable that the true cost of reconveyance easily exceeds $600,000 per year.

Is it a good idea to create approximately 8,000 acres of watershed park at an annual cost exceeding $600,000? Or, is it possible that, if water quality improvement is the real goal, we could spend that money more wisely?

Preserving Water Quality

It is well known that current water quality problems in Lake Whatcom come not from forested land, but from land in the developed sub-basins. Rather than transferring watershed land from one public entity to another, we need to make sure that all forest practices are conducted responsibly, and that we place as much developable land as possible into protective public ownership, as the city of Bellingham has been doing with its land acquisition program.

Reconveyance is certainly a useful tool to create parkland, as was done in 1998 to assist in developing the South Fork Regional Park. However, we have more pressing needs in the Lake Whatcom watershed than the creation of parkland. Let us attend to those needs first. §

Footnotes:
1. The conceptual proposal presented to the council on Nov. 7 would transfer 2,616 acres of Forest Board transfer land to other DNR trusts, and transfer 2,440 acres of other trust lands to Forest Board, yielding a total of 8,381 acres to be reconveyed.
2. This statute requires timber harvest on reconveyed land be managed by the DNR, but all indications are that the DNR will make county management of future timber harvest a requirement of reconveyance.

Back to Top of Story