When the Urban Environment Encroaches on State-Managed Land:

1. When the Urban Environment Encroaches on State-Managed Land: How Does the State Balance Interests? By Cynthia Pratt, DNR

2. DNR State Forest Trust Lands: • 2.1 million acres of state forest trust land • Provides revenue for trusts: i.e., schools, institutions, and local government services • Under laws and statutes, i.e., Multiple Use Act • Providing recreation/public access on state land • Must not impact the trusts unless compensated

3. Washington State, Property and Growth Management Act • GMA: Must reduce sprawl; Provide services; Build in Urban Growth Area; allow open space • Annexations occur from county lands to cities or towns • Must be within Urban Growth Area. • Revenue increases • As service needs increase, requires additional revenue from trust land

4. Property is a premium if: • Close to nature and • Close to recreation but also • Close to services • Development often near state forests (used as “open space”). • More “open space”, more desirable property; build bigger houses; higher taxes

5. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) • Public agencies must consider environmental impacts of their proposed actions (SEPA) • Issues: • Landowners want “aesthetically” enjoyable views and quiet (elements under SEPA) • Homes now next to timber harvesting and recreation activities on state forest land

6. Management Plans: • May result in Environmental Impact Statement (SEA) to balance all competing impacts: • Potential significant impacts to trust beneficiaries • Local government’s GMA planning and zoning • Impact to local government’s revenue sources • Potential significant impacts to landowners • Motorized, non-motorized trail planning (noise) • Visually seeing recreational users on state forest land • Potential significant impacts to recreation users • Change in a designated recreational use or area

7. Example: • Recreation plan to reduce impacts from ORV use on district forest land • SEPA DNS/checklist was issued (determined as “minimal impact”) • Study on traffic prior to SEPA determination • No noise study -used Forest Practices rule instead (buffer of ½ mile) • No Elk study: biologists agreed there weren’t impacts during early planning process (no study or backup material was provided) • Ended up withdrawing the document, doing additional noise and elk studies

8. What Emphasized Conflicts • Urban residential areas are now next to state forest trust land • More homes built in the last 5 years subsequent to early planning process for recreation planning • Planners kept the same “outreach group” throughout the process • New landowners moved to area because they wanted a serene atmosphere, next to nature • Many new homeowners were mid- to high income retirees

9. Result • Implementation is still delayed after two years • Impacts to state forest trust land from motorized vehicle use is still on-going because no plan is in place • Additional landowners are still moving into the adjacent area

10. Take-home Message: • Consider how urban planning affects other planning efforts. • Make sure your outreach constituents are the same as in the beginning of your planning process. • Be willing to do as many studies as it takes to alleviate issues.