WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Commission Meeting – Nov. 19, 2010 – Millersylvania State Park, Environmental Learning Center, 12245 Tilley Road South, Olympiay, WA 98512 (360) 725-9770

Detailed Commission Agenda Items Item E-1: John Brentlinger Memorial Item E-2: Interpretive Policy Item E-3: Nisqually State Park – Amended Road Easement-Hammond Item E-4: Amendments to Cultural Resources Management Policy Item E-5: Lake Wenatchee State Park – Timber Sales Item E-6: Successor Plan to the Centennial 2013 Plan Item E-7: Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks – Transfer to Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and Recreation District Item E-8: Klickitat Trail Classification and Management Planning Project Item E-9: Steamboat Rock State Park Classification and Management Planning Project Item E-10: Olallie State Park Area Classification and Management Planning Item E-11: Annual WAC Review Item E-12: Fee Program Review in Support of the 2011-2013 Budget Item E-13: Current 2009-2011 and Proposed 2011-2013 Biennial Budgets Item E-13A: 2011 - 2013 Budget Strategies Item E-14: Brooks Memorial State Park Item E-15: 2010 Director’s Performance Agreement with the Commission Item E-16: Findings on Small Scale Mineral Prospecting Pilot Program Item E-17: 2009-11 Capital Program Updates Item E-1: John Brentlinger Memorial—Expedited

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to approve the placement of a bench at Millersylvania State Park, honoring Ranger John Brentlinger and his years of service with Washington State Parks. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment –Stewardship” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: While still in high school, John Brentlinger knew he wanted to be a Washington State Parks Ranger. Following service in the U.S. Navy and a year in Forks with the Department of Natural Resources, John applied for his dream job. As the surprise letter from Governor Evans informed him, he posted the highest score ever achieved on the Ranger 1 exam.

John spent six years in increasingly responsible positions in the Millersylvania/Tolmie area, and grew to know and love its natural and historical features. John was a serious birder, and after a full day of official duties, he could often be found still in the park, enjoying the action on the shores of Deep Lake.

Following a year as manager at Rainbow Falls State Park, John found his niche working with youth programs. For 13 years, John was responsible for the success of the Youth Development Conservation Corps (YDCC), the Young Adult Conservation Corps (YACC), the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) and similar initiatives. These programs were a modern complement to the original Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) that constructed many of the historic facilities at Millersylvania State Park. John loved providing opportunities for young adults to learn valuable job skills while providing tangible products for natural resource agencies such as State Parks.

Near the end of his time with State Parks, John was co-author of the agency’s Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan, which continues to guide staff in making parks accessible to all. Tragically, during this time, John was diagnosed with bone cancer. He died of complications of treatment, hoping until the last to recover and return to the job that meant so much to him. John was the epitome of a State Park Ranger. Whether rebuilding a rail fence in the woods or presenting an interpretive program in his tailored uniform, he was proud to represent our agency.

Staff Recommendation: John’s family has requested placement of a bench in his memory, overlooking Deep Lake from the flagpole clearing near the entrance to Millersylvania State Park.The Commission classified this part of the park as a Heritage Area. This designation requires that the Commission approve placement of memorial features such as proposed. Staff believes that this is a beneficial addition to the park, adds to a visitor’s experience, complements the existing park setting, and complies with the agency’s Cultural Resource Management Policy. Staff recommends that the Commission approve acceptance of the facility donation in memory of John’s exemplary service with Washington State Parks. AUTHORITY and SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Commission Policy 37-03-06, Donor Recognition, Commission Policy 65-03-1, Memorials and Donations Inscriptions, and Commission Policy 12-98-1, Cultural Resource Management

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Recognize John Brentlinger’s outstanding service to the agency as Park Ranger and Program Manager. 2. Accept John’s family’s offer to participate in the installation of a bench overlooking Deep Lake at Millersylvania State Park in his memory. 3. Direct staff to work with the family to ensure the installation is fully compatible with the Millersylvania State Park setting, and meets all requirements of the Commission’s Cultural Resource Management Policy.

Author(s): Randy Person, Park Planner [email protected], 360-902-8655

Return to top of document

Item E-2: Interpretive Policy-Requested Action-Expedited

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : This item ask s the Commission to adopt an interpretive policy to guide the futur e of interpretation within the a gency. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, "Our Commitment-Stewardship" and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Previous Policy Development: The use of state park lands and resources for interpretive purposes is a long-standing activity of the Commission. An early policy initiative of the Commission was to establish an Advisory Council on Historic Sites , formed in 1949. Recommendations from this interdisciplinary team led to the establishment of the agency’s Interpretive Program in 1953, and the acquisition of several historic sites of statewide and national significance for interpretive purposes. In 1962, the Commission adopted polices to guide the statewide designation of Historic Sites (now referred to as Heritage Sites) and Interpretive Centers.

In 1984, the Legislature adopted RCW 79A.05.305 “Declaration of policy - Lands for public purposes”. This policy emphasizes the use of state park lands for interpretive purposes, which is also reflected in the Commission’s land classification system (WAC 352-16-020). In 1991, the Legislature further clarified the role of interpretation with the adoption of a series of policies (RCW 79A.05.335, 345, 355) authorizing the expanded use of the state park system for “environmental interpretation” purposes. In response, the Commission adopted a policy in 1995 specific to environmental interpretation. This policy (65-95-1) provides for the cooperative use of state park lands as outdoor classrooms and the authority to charge fees for interpretive activities. This item aims to build on these previous policy efforts as the state park system prepares for a second century of service. Public and Stakeholder Participation: In January 2010, staff presented a report to the Commission outlining the steps necessary to solicit public and stakeholder participation in the development of Interpretive Policy recommendations. A 12-member Task Force, representing a cross section of the agency, was formed to facilitate this work. The Task Force conducted a series of listening sessions at regional staff meetings and with a range of stakeholders to better understand the value of interpretation within and outside the state park system, and to identify mutual objectives. These efforts culminated in an Interpretive Policy Implications Report designed to illustrate a range of policy choices for public review and input. This report was sent to Native American tribes throughout the state, a variety of natural and cultural resource agencies, and other interested groups and individuals, including all agency employees. Staff reports, public comments and other project information can be found on the project web page at: http://www.parks.wa.gov/plans/InterpPolicy/.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Interpretive Policy: Staff recommends adoption of an Interpretive Policy as included in Appendix 1. The proposed interpretive policy provides direction to staff by:  Identifying core areas of service provided through interpretation;  Identifying the desired state of interpretation within the agency;  Clarifying the role of curriculum-based learning within the state park system;  Providing the authority to collaborate externally to maintain and enhance interpretive services; and by,  Incorporating planned interpretive activities into agency budget procedures.

During listening sessions and the review of public comment it became evident that an effective process to coordinate with Native American tribes in the development of interpretation is needed. Therefore, staff further recommends the agency coordinate with interested Native American tribes when researching and developing interpretation associated with topics of mutual interest to ensure that presented information is accurate and appropriate.

In order to provide for statewide policy consistency, staff recommends the Commission rescind Policy 50-62-1 Historic Sites. The intent of this policy when established in 1962 was to guide the statewide designation of Historic Sites and Interpretive Centers. This policy intent has been incorporated within the current Interpretive Policy proposal.

Interpretive Program Vision and Guiding Principles: The Interpretive Program currently lacks a common vision. The proposed vision statement and associated guiding principles will serve as a collective philosophy used to train agency staff and volunteers, guide the development and evaluation of interpretation, and to identify mutual goals and objectives with existing and potential partners. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of a program Vision Statement and Guiding Principles as included in Appendix 2.

Interpretive Policy Implementation Strategy: As staff and financial resources permit, staff recommends a three-phased strategy to re-establish the capacity of interpretation and implement the proposed interpretive policy.

Phase One—Program Assessment : Involves an assessment of current levels of interpretive programming and facility use in order to establish a baseline from which future service and performance objectives can be developed and measured. Using existing staff and resources, the Task Force has made significant progress towards completing this work. Phase Two—Short-Range Recommendations (2011-2015): Involves developing recommendations to increase cost efficiencies and identify partnership opportunities to maintain essential Interpretive Program functions within current and projected budgets.

Phase Three—Long-Range Recommendations: Involves developing recommendations to:  Establish administrative procedures to direct the implementation of the proposed interpretive policy.  Integrate interpretive policy into post-2013 strategic planning.  Develop a statewide interpretive framework that organizes participation of interested agencies, Native American tribes and other non-profit partners, including enhancement of Internet-based enticement, orientation and interpretive strategies.

Cooperative Partnership Agreement with the Washington State Historical Society: In 2006, the Commission entered into a cooperative agreement with the Washington State Historical Society to work in partnership in the preservation and interpretation of “Washington’s Stories” of human and natural history. This work requires collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, including Native American tribes, to determine what stories should and can be told, as well as thoughtful consideration of who is best able to ensure the venues for these stories are adequately preserved. Staff requests direction to work with the Society to update the current agreement to clarify roles in performing these tasks, including the collaborative development of exhibits and digital-based media to make these stories more readily accessible to the public.

Future Budget Considerations: Using existing resources staff has made progress towards advancing key elements of the proposed policy, including extensive public and stakeholder outreach. Staff recognizes that implementation of the proposed policy and further advancement of this work is dependant on the availability of staff and financial resources.

AUTHORITY: RCW 79A.05.305, RCW 79A.05. 335, RCW 79A.05. 345, RCW 79A.05. 355 ; WAC 352-16-020, WAC 352-32-250(7); Commission Policy 50-62-1, Commission Policy 65-95-1

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Interpretive Policy Appendix 2: Interpretive Program Vision Statement and Guiding Principles

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Adopt an Interpretive Policy as included in Appendix 1; 2. Rescind Commission Policy 50-62-1 related to Historic Sites; 3. Adopt a Vision Statement and Principles to guide activities of the agency’s Interpretive Program as included in Appendix 2; 4. Direct staff to develop an Interpretive Policy Implementation Strategy; and, 5. Direct staff to update the existing Cooperative Partnership Agreement with the Washington State Historical Society to clearly define roles in the telling of Washington’s stories.

Author(s): Ryan Karlson, Acting Interpretive Program Manager [email protected] (360) 902-8650 Return to top of document

Item E-3: Nisqually State Park – Amended Road Easement – Hammond -- Requested Action - Expedited

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to approve amending an existing 30 year road use agreement to a perpetual easement at Nisqually State Park . All other terms and conditions of the existing easement would remain unchanged by this amendment. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan elements, “Our Commitment - Stewardship, Public Service & Financial Strategy” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Mr. Miland Hammond, inherited property abutting Nisqually State Park in 2000. To reach his property from Medical Springs Road, which is a public road, Mr. Hammond uses a primitive road that crosses a small corner of Nisqually State Park. Washington State Parks granted Mr. Hammond a 30 year term easement at his request in 2006. Mr. Hammond is now requesting that the easement be made perpetual. If approved by the Commission the easement would provide access for one single family, residential, non-exclusive, non-divisible use.

State Parks staff and Mr. Hammond have agreed to compensation of $2000 for this proposed amendment to the current easement.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Authority: Commission Policy 55-06-1 “Real Estate Transactions and Non- recreational Uses of Parklands,” Section II, Paragraph I; and RCW 79A.05.070 (5) Further Powers -- Director of parks and recreation Appendix 2: Vicinity and Easement Location REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: Authorize the Director or designee to amend an existing road use agreement granted to Mr. Miland Hammond for private access to a single family residence from a term easement to a perpetual easement within Nisqually State Park.

Author(s): Shannon Stevens, Property & Acquisition Specialist [email protected] (360) 902-8584

Return to top of document

Item E-4: Amendments to Cultural Resources Management Policy Requested Action – Expedited

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This i tem asks the Commission to amend its Cultural Resource s Management P olicy to incorporate new policy guidance on collections, update terminology, and otherwise improve policy formatting to make it more user-friendly. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment – Stewardship” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Previous Commission Actions In September of 1998, the Commission adopted a Cultural Resources Management (CRM) Policy to guide staff activities related to historic buildings and structures. Adoption of the 1998 CRM Policy included an intention to expand the policy to include other types of cultural resources. In 2003, the CRM Policy was amended to include guidance on treatment of cultural landscapes, and again in 2004 to include treatment of archaeological sites. Staff now proposes amendment of the Commission’s CRM Policy to add a new section on management of collections and to improve the overall formatting of the policy. A complete version of the policy with staff’s proposed amendments is included in Appendix 1.

Public Participation Draft amendments to the CRM Policy prepared by staff were sent to tribal governments, the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), the National Park Service, contract archaeologists, archaeologists in other state agencies, museum institutions, and other stakeholders. The contact list for the outreach effort is included in Appendix 2.

Staff received comments on the proposed amendments from a number of parties, including Native American tribes, DAHP, and other interested stakeholders. Input included:  Clarifications to language and terminology throughout the document.  Suggestions that the policy more explicitly address resource protection and preservation.  Requests to improve consultation or coordination with Native American tribes.

Comments regarding t ribal coordination focused on identification and management of resources, the use and display of collections, and general concern that as a matter of policy the Commission will coordinate or consult with Native American tribes on activities affecting cultural resources both within and outside of regulatory requirements.

The draft CRM Policy amendments, contact list, and public input are posted to the planning web page at: www.parks.wa.gov/plans/CulturalResources.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission amend its CRM policy to include new Commission guidance on management of its collections, clarify existing language and terminology, and reformat the policy to make it easier to use.

Collections Management Policy Collections, like archaeological and historic resources, are non-renewable resources. The proposed policy amendments recognize the importance of the agency’s collections and their role in interpreting Washington history; provide guidance on their appropriate use and display; and set best practices for their care, storage, use, and documentation by referencing federal standards. Staff recommends the Commission adopt new policy to guide collections management as included in Appendix 1 (see Section VII.).

Language Amendments and Terminology Clarifications Staff recommends that the Commission amend its CRM policy to improve clarity and provide greater specificity where necessary. Proposed amendments include:  Adding new references and definitions to clarify how the agency coordinates its work with interested Native American tribes (see Section IV.B.5).  Adding language that affirms the agency’s commitment to resource identification, protection, and documentation (see Section IV.B.1).  Applying minor language and terminology edits throughout the policy (Appendix 1).

Formatting Improvements With the addition of policy guidance on collections, staff recommends reformatting the existing Cultural Resources Management policy to make it easier to find policies related to specific disciplines (archaeology, historic preservation, and collections). The proposed reformatted policy now includes separate sections related to each discipline, as well as an introductory group of policy points that span all disciplines.

Scope of Collections Statement Staff recommends that a Scope of Collections Statement (SCS) be prepared to guide the acquisition or disposition of any object or collection. The SCS is necessary for the agency to determine what should, and should not, be included in the collection to best preserve and interpret the state’s heritage. This Statement will result in criteria and procedures for acquiring new items, will answer the question of “why” something should or should not be in the collection, and will consider where and how agency collections are stored.

Long-term Strategy for Collections Staff recommends that a strategy for long-term care and storage of the agency’s collections be developed. The agency currently has collections on display or stored in numerous parks and in a leased centralized collections facility in Tumwater. Collections items requiring a repository that meets federal standards (e.g., significant archaeological resources) are stored at the University of Washington-Burke Museum in Seattle. The agency’s lease for the Tumwater facility expires in December 2012 and an interagency agreement with the Burke Museum for storage of agency collections expires in 2015. A long-term care and storage strategy should address collections that must be curated according to federal standards as required by the DAHP, and those of a more general nature that should be stored according to best practices. Cooperative Partnership Agreement with the Washington State Historical Society: In 2006, the Commission entered into a cooperative agreement with the Washington State Historical Society to work in partnership on the preservation and interpretation of “Washington’s Stories” of natural and human history. Staff requests direction to continue working with the Society, and other interested partners, to complete an inventory of agency collections, including recommendations to ensure their appropriate storage and care. This work will advance the identification of venues within and outside the state park system best suited to tell Washington Stories through collaborative research and exhibit development.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Amended Cultural Resources Management Policy 12-98-1 Appendix 2: Contact list of interested parties and stakeholders

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Adopt the amended version of its Cultural Resources Management Policy 12-98-1 dated November 2010 included in Appendix 1. 2. Direct staff to develop a Scope of Collections Statement to guide the acquisition and disposition of agency collections. 3. Direct staff to work with existing and interested partners to develop a strategy for the long- term care and storage of collections, including implementation of the existing Cooperative Partnership Agreement with the Washington State Historical Society.

Author(s):

Alex McMurry, Historic Preservation Planner Alicia Woods, Curator of Collections [email protected], (360) 902-0930 [email protected], (360) 902-0939

Donella Lucero, Parks Interpretive Specialist Ryan Karlson, Acting Interpretive Program [email protected], (360) 642-3029 Manager [email protected], (360) 902-8650 Dan Meatte, Archaeology Program Manager [email protected], (360) 902-8637

Return to top of document

Item E-5: Lake Wenatchee State Park – Timber Sales –Expedited

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item ask s the Commission to approve the sale of excess timber resulting from tree failure at Lake Wenatchee State Park. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment-Stewardship” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Through RCW 79A.05.035 Additional powers and duties, the Legislature directs that the Commission shall “ Manage timber and land under its jurisdiction to maintain and enhance aesthetic and recreational values ” and to “Apply modern conservation practices to maintain and enhance aesthetic, recreational, and ecological resources. ” At present, some park forests are in poor ecological condition as a result of wildfire suppression, historic cutting practices, fragmentation, insect and disease infestations, and invasion by exotic species. Changes in climate could potentially also become a factor in the health of state park forest lands. These factors alone or in combination are compromising forest health, which over time increases risk to the integrity of the forest systems and the safety of visitors recreating in them.

Staff is seeking Commission approval for a timber sale in Lake Wenatchee State Park to:  Remove standing and previously felled trees infected with root rot from developed areas of the park to reduce risk of injury to park visitors and property.  Reinvestcash proceeds from the sale into forest health activities and related interpretive efforts.

As per the Commission’s Natural Resources Policy, on October 27, 2010 staff held a public meeting at Lake Wenatchee State Park to describe planned forest health treatments and timber sale design and to hear any concerns raised by participants. Staff also notified Yakama Indian Nation Natural Resources Department staff of planned forest health activities at Lake Wenatchee. Input from the public meeting and from tribal coordination has been provided to the Commission.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Lake Wenatchee Forest Health and Tree Failure Risk Reduction At Lake Wenatchee native root rot fungi have reached advanced stages of development in campgrounds and day-use areas (Appendix 1). Trees have failed in these areas and pose significant risks of injury to visitors and staff and loss to property. The State Forest Pathologist, affiliated with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), has assisted staff in marking infected trees. Staff estimates that approximately 500 infected trees with a volume of roughly 100,000 board feet lie within the proposed + 100-acre area identified for treatment. Staff anticipates planting root rot resistant tree species in openings created by the removal of trees.

Trees marked for removal are located within and adjacent to developed day-use and camping areas. Allowing these trees to remain on the ground is incompatible with current recreational use and unnecessary for ecological purposes. Staff therefore believes that these trees exceed park needs and recommends that the Commission approve their sale in accordance with adopted agency procedure.

Reinvesting Proceeds from Timber Sales In past decades, the public raised significant concerns about forest practices in state parks. These concerns led the Commission to adopt considerable policy constraints on the cutting and removal of trees. One such constraint was to allow removal of trees only when necessary to reduce risk to people and property, as part of capital development projects, or otherwise when necessary to improve the health of natural forest systems (WAC 352-28-010 and 020). Staff believes that dedicating proceeds from timber sales to forest health-related activities provides additional protection to park forests by removing any incentive to cut timber to fund other, unrelated agency needs.

Additionally, timber sales in state parks occur relatively infrequently and at irregular intervals. Consequently, staff considers any net proceeds derived as unreliable and does not use them to fund on-going expenditures. In 2007, staff commissioned Community Forest Consultants to study the health of trees in state parks and associated risks to park visitors. The resulting report, also known as the Flott Report, demonstrated substantial risk and indicated that a multi-million dollar investment over many years will be necessary to effectively address forest health issues with the Washington State Park system. Through budget development, the Commission decided it was prudent to dedicate onetime timber sale proceeds to addressing this on-going risk. The State Office of Financial Management sanctioned that approach.

Staff therefore anticipates that the proceeds from the proposed timber sale will be reinvested in reducing risk, restoring forests, and providing forest health related interpretation in Lake Wenatchee State Park, as well as advancing similar efforts in other parks with identifiable forest health and risk reduction needs. These parks include Riverside, Schafer, Seaquest, Beacon Rock, Columbia Plateau Trail, Deception Pass, Fort Ebey, Millersylvania, Mount Spokane, Nisqually, South Whidbey, Squilchuck, and Twin Harbors.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Overview of forest health treatment at Lake Wenatchee State Park.

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 1. Approve the sale of timber at Lake Wenatchee State Park as recommended by staff. 2. Affirm that cash proceeds from the sale of timber will be reinvested into forest health activities and related interpretive efforts as recommended by staff.

Author(s): Robert Fimbel, Chief of Resource Stewardship [email protected] (360) 902-8592 Peter Herzog, Stewardship Program Manager [email protected] (360) 902-8652

Return to top of document

Item E-6: Successor Plan to the Centennial 2013 Plan - Requested Action

ACTION TAKEN: Approved with amendments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to adopt a schedule for the completion of a Successor Plan to the Centennial 2013 Plan and to affirm certain basic concepts for that plan. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment –“Stewardship” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: I n 2003, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) adopted a Centennial 2013 Vision statement: “ In 2013, Washington’s state parks will be premier destinations of uncommon quality, including state and regionally significant natural, cultural, historical and recreational resources that are outstanding for the experience, health, enjoyment and learning of all people .” In 2005, the Commission adopted the Centennial 2013 Plan which included eleven goals intended to communicate and implement the Centennial 2013 Vision and improve the state park system through increased funding (Appendix 1). While the current economic downturn will probably cause the Centennial 2013 Plan to fall short of its funding goals, the plan has been successful in raising public awareness of, and support for, Washington State Parks.

The Centennial 2013 Vision and Plan are also intended to create awareness of the centennial of Washington State Parks. Older than even the National Park Service, Washington State Parks will celebrate 100 years of service to the citizens of Washington on March 19, 2013. Prior to that auspicious occasion the Commission needs to consider the content of a Successor Plan. The Centennial 2013 Plan provided clear direction for Washington State Parks for the last decade of its first century of service. To be successful, the Successor Plan must provide clear direction for the first decade of the second century of service for Washington State Parks.

Successor Plan Schedule With budgeting done in the State of Washington on a biennial basis the timelines for Commission consideration of a Successor Plan that would be a guiding policy document for agency direction and future budget requests are generally as follows: (please see Appendix 2 for a more detailed schedule)

1. November 2010 - Commission consideration of Successor Plan schedule and basic concepts. 2. December 2010 to March 2011 - Development of more detailed concepts and options including initial Commission input and review.

3. April 2011 to August 2011 - Stakeholder and general public review and comment on concepts and options.

4. October 2011 - Commission review of draft Successor Plan with opportunity for public comment.

5. November 2011 - Commission consideration of final Successor Plan.

6. December 2011 - Begin budget preparation cycle for the 2013-2015 biennial budget request.

Successor Plan Basic Concepts The Successor Plan is an opportunity for the Commission, with input from staff and the public, to conduct an examination of the strengths of the Centennial 2013 Vision and Plan and carry those forward. It is also an opportunity for the Commission to make changes in agency focus at the policy level as expressed in revisions to the Centennial 2013 Vision or the Centennial 2013 Plan or both. Based on some initial fact gathering it is clear that both the Commission and agency staff believe that the Centennial 2013 Vision needs to be changed. What is not yet clear is how or to what desired outcome.

Because the Centennial 2013 Plan had, by its construction a term (2005-2013), a Successor Plan is required. Based again on some initial fact gathering it is clear that the Centennial 2013 Plan was viewed as successful in communicating the Centennial 2013 Vision and as an important tool in attracting increased funding. The complete content of a Successor Plan will be driven by the changes made to the Centennial 2013 Vision.

In some planning processes it is important to start with “a blank slate”. In this case with limited staff resources and a firm schedule staff recommends that the Commission affirm certain basic concepts that it wishes to see carried from the Centennial 2013 Plan to the Successor Plan. Recommendations for concepts to be carried forward are found in Appendix 3.

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the schedule for completion of Successor Plan as found in Appendix 2 and affirm the concepts to be carried forward from the Centennial 2013 Plan as found in Appendix 3.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Centennial 2013 Plan Performance Goals Appendix 2: Proposed Schedule for Successor Plan Completion Appendix 3: Proposed Centennial 2013 Plan Concepts to be Carried Forward

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 4. Adopt the schedule for completion of the Successor Plan as found in Appendix 2. 5. Direct the Director to bring a final draft Successor Plan to the Commission for consideration at its November 2011 meeting. 6. Affirms that the final draft of a Successor Plan should include the concepts found in Appendix 3. Author(s): Larry Fairleigh, Parks Development Director [email protected] 360-902-8642

Return to top of document

Item E-7: Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks –Transfer to Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and Recreation District – Requested Action

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to authorize the transfer of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks to the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and Recreation District (BIMPRD). This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment - Public Service” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND: History There are two state parks on Bainbridge Island, each offering different experiences to visitors. Fay Bainbridge State Park is a small, full service waterfront park located at the northeast corner of the island. Fort Ward State Park is a larger, most ly undeveloped day use area at the southwest tip of the island.

Fay Bainbridge State Park was purchased in 1944 for $5,000, honoring the wishes of Dr. Fay that the land would become a public park. The nearly 17 acre park includes over a quarter mile of Puget Sound beach. Overnight facilities include 36 campsites, 26 of which provide water hookups, a Cascadia Marine Trail site, and two mooring buoys. There is a full range of day use facilities, including tables, shelters, and play equipment. A residence and shop provide administrative support.

Fort Ward State Park was acquired from the Federal Government as surplus property through two acquisitions in 1960 and 1962. Located within the larger Fort Ward Historic District, the 137 acre park includes 4,300 feet of shoreline on Rich Passage. Fort Ward was one of the coastal artillery forts that guarded Puget Sound waterways against enemy craft. Historic structures within the park are mainly the concrete bunkers that housed an assortment of artillery pieces. Day use facilities include a picnic area on the upper level, a boat launch and wildlife viewing blinds along the shoreline, and an extensive trail system throughout the park. Overnight use is limited to two buoys and a Cascadia Marine Trail site. Part of a former military four-plex is used to house the Fort Ward State Park ranger.

In 1971, State Parks created a formal underwater park system and Fort Ward State Park was one of the original designated sites. The bedlands for one quarter mile offshore, and surrounding Orchard Rocks, were withdrawn from sale or lease by the Department of Natural Resources and placed under State Parks management. While no diving-specific upland facilities have been built, divers routinely park at the boat launch and enter the water a safe distance away.

Fort Ward is currently managed as a satellite to Fay Bainbridge State Park. The two sites work closely together to operate and maintain the parks. Recent Figures Ten-year average attendance figures for the parks are:

Park Camping Day Use Total Fay Bainbridge 7,857 183,486 191,343 Fort Ward - 124,323 124,323 Bainbridge Island Total 7,857 307,809 315,666

Based on the latest complete figures available (FY 2008 and FY 2010 ), the annual expenditures at these parks are:

Park Fiscal Year Expenditure Revenue Net Expenditures Fay Bainbridge FY08 $136,500 $47,600 $88,900 saving per year Fay Bainbridge FY10 $119,100 $43,100 $76,000 saving per year Average = $80,000 per year savings and 1.7 FTE

Fort Ward FY08 $68,500 $0 $68,500 saving per year Fort Ward FY10 $66,600 $0 $66,600 savings per year Average = $67,000 per year and 1 FTE

Transferring both parks would result in $147,000 per year in savings and a total of $294,000 per biennium in savings

Recent Events State Parks staff has been discussing the potential transfer of these parks with the Bainbridge Island Park and Recreation District (BIMPRD ) for the last year and a half. The Commission expressed its support of the concept with a resolution passed at their June, 2009 meeting, which states:

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission hereby expresses its support of the potential transfer of Fay Bainbridge State Park and Fort Ward State Park to the Bainbridge Island Metro Park and Recreation District contingent upon mutual agreement to such terms and conditions as required by law or imposed by the Commission.

Uncertain economic predictions kept the BIMPRD from making a formal request until last May. At their May 13, 2010 board meeting, the BIMPRD voted unanimously to request the transfer of Fort Ward and Fay Bainbridge State Parks to the District.

The purpose of this requested action item is to authorize staff to proceed with the supported transfer. It is anticipated that Fort Ward State Park may be transferred relatively soon. Fay Bainbridge State Park is a more complex park, and will likely take longer to work out the details. Nonetheless, staff anticipates that both transfers will be able to take place over the next winter, placing the parks under the operation of the Park District before the summer 2011 use season.

Transfer Conditions It is the policy of the Commission that when transferring State Park property to a local government or other entity, that the transfer document (Governors Deed) include legal and enforceable conditions and reservations that require the local government of other entity to manage and operate the park property for outdoor recreational purposes available to the general public. This deed restriction “runs with the land” which means that should the party receiving the park property ever cease to make the property open and available for public outdoor recreation, the land will either “revert” or transfer back to State Parks or the local government or other entity will compensate the Commission for the then, fair market value of the lands transferred.

AUTHORITY: RCW 79A.05.170 Transfer of surplus land - Reversionary clause required - Release

(1) Any lands owned by the state parks and recreation commission, which are determined to be surplus to the needs of the state for development for state park purposes and which the commission proposes to deed to a local government or other entity, shall be accompanied by a clause requiring that if the land is not used for outdoor recreation purposes, ownership of the land shall revert to the state parks and recreation commission. (2) The state parks and recreation commission, in cases where land subject to such a reversionary clause is proposed for use or disposal for purposes other than recreation, shall require that, if the land is surplus to the needs of the commission for park purposes at the time the commission becomes aware of its proposed use for non-recreation purposes, the holder of the land or property shall reimburse the commission for the release of the reversionary interest in the land. The reimbursement shall be in the amount of the fair market value of the reversionary interest as determined by a qualified appraiser agreeable to the commission. Appraisal costs shall be borne by the local entity which holds title to the land. (3) This transfer is contingent upon Bainbridge Island Park and Recreation District acceptance through the implementation of the transfer agreement to the reversionary clause per (2) above.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Location and Vicinity Maps Appendix 2: Schematic Park Maps Appendix 3: Aerial Photo / Boundary Maps

ACTION REQUESTED OF COMMISSION: Staff requests that the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Authorize the Director or designee to transfer Fay Bainbridge State Park and Fort Ward State Park to the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and Recreation District upon agreement to such terms and conditions as required by law or imposed by the Commission.

Author(s): Deb Wallace, Manager Planning and Research [email protected] (360) 902-8623 Randy Person, Parks Planner [email protected] (360) 902-8655

Return to top of document

Item E- 8 : Klickitat Trail Classification and Management Planning (CAMP) Project and Naming - Requested Action ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to adopt a long-term boundary, land classification plan and formally name the property now known as the Klickitat Trail. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment – Stewardship” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In December 1995, the Commission adopted a revised land classification system (found in WAC Chapter 352-16). At about the same time, staff sought to fulfill an agency Strategic Plan objective to prepare management plans for each park in the system. The agency’s Classification and Management Planning Project (CAMP) derived from dual goals: to develop long-term boundaries/classify lands and prepare park management plans.

The Klickitat Trail CAMP project The Klickitat Trail CAMP project is a unique process as a joint effort by State Parks and the U.S. Forest Service to develop a Classification and Management Planning (CAMP) project for the entire thirty one mile Klickitat Trail, including the eighteen miles managed by State Parks and the thirteen miles managed by the Forest Service. State Parks acquired the property in 1994 from the Rails to Trails Conservancy with the intention that the Forest Service would ultimately manage the entire 31 mile corridor.

The first planning process for the Klickitat Trail began when the Forest Service held a series of public scoping meetings (from July 1994 to April 1996) to determine public interest in trail development and to discuss trail-related issues. State Parks held public meetings in Lyle and Olympia in November and December 2002. In January 2003, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) decided to retain the trail property. In August 2003, after additional public outreach, the Forest Service released the draft environmental assessment with the decision finalized in December 2003. In 2005, State Parks adopted the Forest Service Environmental Assessment as the document used for the Determination of Non-significance to satisfy the State Environmental Policy Act. The Environmental Assessment (EA) has also been used by both agencies as a de-facto management plan.

In June 2007, State Parks’ CAMP planning process for the entire thirty one mile trail began with the selection of a core planning team comprised of the Goldendale Area Manager, Columbia Hills State Park Ranger, Eastern Region staff, and the U.S. Forest Service Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) Recreation Manager, with State Parks Headquarters planning staff mentoring and assisting. The process continued with a staff scoping meeting to gather initial planning information and identify new management issues raised since publication of the Environmental Assessment in 2003. In this first meeting, the planning team decided that the most useful end product of this process would be a joint document, crafted and approved by State Parks and the Forest Service that would combine the 2003 Environment Assessment and the main elements of the standard CAMP plan: land classification, long-term boundary, and management plan. This document will be used by both agencies as an overall management plan for the Klickitat Trail.

Since such an extensive public planning process has already been conducted by both State Parks and the U.S. Forest Service, the planning team decided that the first two steps of the “standard” four stage CAMP process: 1. Stage 1: Identify hopes and concerns of the community and park customers, 2. Stage 2: Explore alternative approaches to address community and customer issues) had already been addressed, 3. Stage 3: Prepare preliminary recommendations to address issues. The planning team developed preliminary staff recommendations considering the management approaches already adopted in the Environmental Assessment, adding additional issues where appropriate, and addressing new issues that were raised. Public participation and input was also encouraged by holding another public meeting on November 28, 2007 at Lyle, making personal visits, and sending emails to park neighbors, local businesses, organizations and interested parties, and by posting documents and comments on the park planning webpage (with follow-up e-mails sent each time a new document was posted).

At the September 2008 Commission meeting staff presented a requested action item regarding Land Classification and Long term Boundary for the Klickitat Trail. Testimony at that meeting led the Commission to direct staff to do more outreach with stakeholders. One outcome of that direction has been a formalization of agency practice regarding notification of tribes during the CAMP process.

The Yakama Indian Nation has expressed concerns regarding fisheries management issues. To cooperatively address issues that impact fisheries, with a goal to work towards projects that will enhance fish habitat and maintain trail function , a cooperative management group including The Yakama Indian Nation, Washington State Parks, United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and The Mid-Columbia Fisheri es Enhancement Group has been established. Stat e Parks will work towards finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding for the work of this cooperative management group.

Long-Term Park Boundary Staff recommends establishment of a long-term park boundary for the trail (Appendix 1) with the following changes from existing (currently the rail banked properties plus the Vernier and Russell properties) park ownership or management:

Klickitat County/Forest Service properties: Support a management agreement between the Forest Service, Klickitat County, and the Klickitat Trail Conservancy to improve and operate the County and Forest Service properties located 0.9 miles upriver from Lyle within the Forest Service management area (parcel #03123523000600 and #03123400000300).

Klickitat trailhead: Work with Klickitat County, the Klickitat S chool D istrict, and the local f ire d istrict to develop a shared-use trailhead adjacent to the town of Klickitat.

Haul Road: Seek to obtain use or lease the “Haul Road” as a temporary trail detour until the “Suburbia” bridge and the section of washed out trail north of the bridge can be replaced. At the present time, the owner, the Columbia Land Trust, is not interested in pursuing such an agreement.

Stanley Crocker property: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) purchased the property formerly owned by Stanley Crocker, located on the Centerville Highway, west of Harms Road. Staff proposes to enter into a management agreement to use part of the property for a trailhead.

Land Classification Plan Classification (Appendix 1) is proposed as a mixture of Recreation and Resource Recreation.

The Lyle and Klickitat trailheads are classified as Recreation Areas to accommodate the possibility of comfort stations with flush toilets in the future. Resource Recreation Areas include the other trailheads and the trail corridor.

Park Management During initial stages of planning, staff worked with stakeholders to craft a series of objectives to guide future management of the area. Later, staff developed a draft Park Management Plan.

Management plan recommendations include:  The Forest Service and State Parks agree that the trail corridor can most advantageously be managed with coordinated development, operation, maintenance, and law enforcement responsibilities.  The trail surface will be a six f eet wide compacted surface, except for a twelve foot wide hardened surface from Lyle to Fisher Hill and adjacent to the town of Klickitat.  Trailheads will be established at Lyle (mile 0.0), Pitt (mile 10.0), Klickitat (mile 13.0), Wahkiacus (mile 16.0), and Harms Road (mile 28.5- temporary- pending development of trailhead off of Centerville Highway).  Replace the Suburbia bridge and restore the original trail corridor between Klickitat and Wahkiacus.  Private vehicles (with prior written approval of Washington State Parks per State Parks Policy 55-01-1) may be allowed to cross the trail. Property owners wanting to use the trail or right-of-way as an access route to their private property will have to seek an easement from State Parks.  The management plan also recommends that additional plans be drafted to address the following issues: maintenance, emergency response, law enforcement, wildfire management, signage, cultural resources, and erosion control.

For each programmatic concept a full review including permitting will required before becoming a project.

Park Name After seeking input from various stakeholders s taff considered a series of names for the state park: Klickitat River Trail, Klickitat River Canyon Trail, Klickitat River Canyon Rail Trail, Klickitat Trail and Goldendale Branch Line Trail.

Klickitat River Trail State Park emphasizes the connection to the main nearby feature – the river. However, the majority of the state park managed trail lies on Swale Creek, a Klickitat River tributary.

Klickitat River Canyon Trail State Park emphasizes the connection to the canyon and the river features, though not addressing the Swale Canyon trail segment. Klickitat River Canyon Rail Trail State Park adds the work ‘rail’ to recognize the prior use of the property as a rail line. This is inconsistent with other linear corridors, none of which reference the historic use for a rail purposes.

Goldendale Branch Line Trail State Park incorporates the historic name of the rail line segment connecting Goldendale to Lyle. This is the name for the corridor used by the railroad company.

Klickitat Trail State Park reflects the name associated with the property since its acquisition from the railroad in the mid-1990’s. On the Gifford Pinchot National Forest an existing trail carries the same name. An on-line search found the trail along the Klickitat River referenced far more frequently than the trail on the Gifford Pinchot land.

AUTHORITY: RCW 79A.050.030(1); WAC 352-16-010(4); WAC 352-16-020; WAC 352-32- 075(3)(a); WAC 352-32-070(2); and WAC 352-04-020. Commission policies 50-62-1, 72-99-1, and 65-04-2.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Klickitat Trail Proposed Long-Term Boundary and Land Classification

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Receive staff's findings that the “Determination of Non-Significance" originally issued on January 11, 2008 sufficiently addressed the environmental impacts associated with this request, and resulted in a finding that the proposed action is minor and the environmental effects are not significant; 2. Consider the data, views, and arguments submitted by any person on the proposed long-term boundary and land classification for the Klickitat Trail property; 3. Adopt the long-term boundary and land classification as recommended in Appendix 1; 4. Approve the conditional use of non-motorized bicycles, horses, and pack animals on the Klickitat Trail property; 5. Approve the name “Klickitat Trail” for the entire trail corridor and the name “Klickitat Trail State Park” for the 18 mile portion of the trail managed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission; 6. Affirm that long-term boundary and land classification decisions are for Commission policy direction only and should not affect private property values, or be used as an indication of a property owner’s willingness to sell, or as a basis for regulatory, permitting, or zoning decisions on private land holdings, and; 7. Direct that staff work with owners of properties within the trail’s long-term boundary to voluntarily protect natural resources contiguous to park property to achieve the desired conservation effect and avoid the need for fee acquisition of these properties. If feasible in the future, acquisition of these properties should be on a willing seller basis.

Author(s): Bruce Beyerl former eastern region Environmental Planner Bill Koss, Planning Program Manager (Retired) Andrew Fielding, Environmental Planner [email protected] (509)665-4312

Return to top of document Item E-9: Steamboat Rock State Park Classification and Management Planning (CAMP) Project - Requested Action

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to schedule adoption of a long- term boundary and land classification plan for Steamboat Rock State Park at the January 2011 Commission meeting. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment – Stewardship” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Classification and Management Planning (CAMP) Project In December 1995, the Commission adopted a revised land classification system (WAC Chapter 352-16). At about the same time, staff sought to fulfill an agency Strategic Plan objective to prepare management plans for each park in the system. The agency’s Classification and Management Planning Project ( CAMP) derived from dual goals : to develop long-term boundaries/classify lands and prepare park management plans.

The Steamboat Rock CAMP project Steamboat Rock State Park covers 3,535 acres and approximately 50,000 feet of shoreline that support a diverse range of recreational opportunities and unique natural and cultural resources. The park is one of the most popular camping parks in Washington with plans to begin the first stage of campground expansion in fall/winter 2010. The Steamboat Rock CAMP planning process began in July 2008 with selection of a core planning team comprised of the Steamboat Rock Manager, Eastern Region staff, Bureau of Reclamation staff, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff, with State Parks Headquarters planning staff mentoring and assisting. The process continued with a staff scoping meeting to gather initial planning information and to identify management issues.

In two public workshops, stakeholders shared their vision of what the Steamboat Rock State Park should become. Public participation was also engaged by sending approximately 5,000 e-mails to park neighbors, local businesses, and people who had reserved campsites at the parks in the last two years. User groups and other interested parties were also contacted. The mailing list was later narrowed down to the 500 people who responded to the initial contact. Numerous documents, public comments, and meeting notices were posted on the park planning webpage, and follow-up e-mails were sent each time a new document was posted. Most of the input came via e-mail as public workshops were sparsely attended.

Long-Term Park Boundary Staff is recommending establishment of a long-term park boundary for Steamboat Rock State Park (Appendix 1) with the following changes from existing park ownership or management:

 Include the area North of Northrup Canyon to enclose the triangle of land between the cliffs and the Castle Rock Natural Area Preserve.  Include in-holding areas within Northrup Canyon that were previously under a lease from the Bureau of Land Management.  Include the area east of Northrup Canyon to provide a protection of Northrup Creek headwaters.  Include the area South of Northrup Canyon that would provide contiguous management of the upper bench including trails and rare plants.  Dispose of the Crown Point Vista property by either transfer, sale or a combination of the two

Land Classification Plan Classification is proposed as a mixture of Recreation, Resource Recreation and Natural Area.

Recreation areas include:

 Existing campgrounds and administrative areas  The boat launch areas at the main part of the park, Northrup Point and Osborn Bay

Recreation Resource areas include:

 Areas adjacent to recreation areas  Trail corridors in Northrup Canyon

Natural Areas include:

 Most of Steamboat Rock (the basalt butte)  Parts of Northrup Canyon including Castle Rock Natural Area Preserve  The SE side canyon where Northrup Creek enters the canyon  Most areas with talus slopes

Park Management During the initial stages of planning, staff worked with stakeholders to craft a series of objectives to guide future management of the area. Later, staff developed a draft Park Management Plan.

Other issues Clarify the Name of Steamboat Rock State Park : Over the years, different parts of the of the state park ha ve been referred to by different names, including Steamboat Rock, Banks Lake Recreation Area, Northrup Canyon, Northrup Point, Jones Bay, Osborn Bay and Crown Point State Park. Some of this relates to how the agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation have been developed. Staff recommends that the Commission officially recognize the name Steamboat Rock State Park to include all the above areas of the state park except Crown Point Vista.

Trail use The trai ls at Steamboat Rock State Park allow people to explore the many unique natural resources available. During the planning stage many issues relating to trails were brought up by the users. The range of issues surrounding trails are beyond the scope of CAMP and one recommendation of the management plan is to develop a long-term trail plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION On November 2, 2010 staff received a request from the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation that Commission consideration of adoption of a CAMP for Steamboat Rock State Park be delayed. Based on this request staff recommends that the Commission defer action on the Steamboat Rock State Park CAMP in November 2010 and schedule consideration of adoption for its January 2011 meeting. AUTHORITY: RCW 79A.050.030(1); WAC 352-16-010(4); WAC 352-16-020; WAC 352-32- 075(3)(a); WAC 352-32-070(2); and WAC 352-04-020. Commission policies 50-62-1, 72-99-1, and 65-04-2.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Steamboat Rock State Park Proposed Long-Term Boundary and Land Classification

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 8. Receive staff's findings that the “Determination of Non-Significance" issued on October 15, 2010, sufficiently addressed the environmental impacts associated with this request, and resulted in a finding that the proposed action is minor and the environmental effects are not significant; 9. Consider the data, views, and arguments submitted by any person on the proposed long-term park boundary and land classification for the Steamboat Rock State Park; 10. Schedule consideration of adoption of the long-term boundary and land classification for Steamboat Rock State Park as recommended in Appendix 1 for the January 2011 Commission meeting including;

 Approval of the conditional use of non-motorized bicycles and horses on designated trails in Steamboat Rock State Park (other than those within Natural Areas), and the conditional use of horses on designated multi-use trails in Northrup Canyon.  Approval of the conditional use of the rocks adjacent to the Highway 155 cut and Gibrator Rock for rock climbing.  Determination that Steamboat Rock State Park is consistent with the Centennial 2013 Vision.  Affirmation that the name Steamboat Rock State Park includes its commonly known sub- areas but does not include the Crown Point Vista property.  Affirmation that long-term boundary and land classification decisions are for Commission policy direction only and should not affect private property values, or be used as an indication of a property owner’s willingness to sell, or as a basis for regulatory, permitting, or zoning decisions on private land holdings.

11. Direct that staff work with owners of properties within the park’s long-term boundary to voluntarily protect natural resources contiguous to park property to achieve the desired conservation effect and avoid the need for fee acquisition of these properties.

Author: Andrew Fielding, region Resource Steward [email protected] (509) 665-4312

Return to top of document

Item E-10: Olallie State Park Area Classification and Management Planning (CAMP) - Requested Action

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to adopt land classifications and long-term boundaries for Olallie State Park Area which includes Olallie State Park, Twin Falls Trailhead and Mount Washington properties. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment – Stewardship” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Classification and Management Planning (CAMP) Project began in December 1995; the Commission adopted a revised land classification system (WAC Chapter 352-16). At about the same time, staff sought to fulfill an agency Strategic Plan provision to prepare management plans for each park in the system. The agency’s Classification and Management Planning Project (CAMP) was developed to identify preferred long park boundaries, classify lands and prepare park management plans.

The Olallie State Park A rea is located in the heart of the Mountains to Sound Greenway. The Greenway stretches over 100 miles along Interstate 90 from the shores of Puget Sound in Seattle, over Snoqualmie Pass and into Central Washington. The Greenway encompasses protected and working forests, farms, historic sites, lakes, campgrounds, rivers, trails, wildlife habitat, and vibrant communities. Because of its scenic beauty and easy access to nature, the stretch of Interstate 90 within the Greenway is a designated National Scenic Byway. Regional planning efforts by the Mountain to Sound Greenway’s coalition have highlighted the preservation of the visual landscape along Interstate 90 corridor and encouraged collaborative recreation planning and management among resource agencies. Olallie State Park is well situated to be a significant p art of this collaborative resource and recreation management. The land base of this park is located in the foothills of the Cascades and adjoins state and federal lands which offer many backcountry recreation opportunities. The need to proceed with this CAMP was amplified by our apparent niche as the “frontcountry” recreation connection to those backcountry opportunities.

The CAMP project for Olallie State Park Area began in November of 2008. See Appendix 1 for a vicinity map describing the location of the park and the Twin Falls Trailhead and Mount Washington properties. Staff reports, public comments, and other project information have been posted on the planning web page and are available at: http://www.parks.wa.gov/plans/Olallie/

Public outreach was extensive. The planning team sent correspondence to park neighbors, visitors, and recreation interest groups, such as the Mountaineers, The Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, Mountain to Sound Greenway Trust and other stakeholders. Articles and announcements were published in the Issaquah Reporter and Snoqualmie Valley Record and posted at the park and trailhead bulletin boards. Staff conducted three public workshops in North Bend and two stakeholder workshops in Issaquah to solicit public input. The fi r st workshop was held on November 25, 2008, to identify management issues to resolve and identify recreation opportunities during the planning process. The second workshop was held on April 14, 2009 to present alternatives to resolve issues identified at the previous workshop and receive public comment. Two additional workshops were held with conservation and recreation stakeholders. These workshops were held on April 1, 2010 and May 4, 2010. Focus group meetings were held with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Washington State Fire Training Academy, the Upper Snoqualmie Valley Elk Management Group, the Mountain to Sound Greenway Trust, the Homestead Valley Homeowners Association, and members of the Snoqualmie Tribe during the spring and summer, 2010. The third public workshop was held on September 2, 2010 for staff to present preliminary recommendations and receive public comment. Staff also mailed over four hundred e-mails and postcards to interested parties and adjacent landowners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Through analysis of facility needs and the existing natural and recreational resource base, staff recommends the Commission adopt land classifications and a long-term boundary for Olallie State Park as described and shown in Appendix 2.

Land Classification: Recommended land classifications within current Olallie State Park Area include:  Recreation – existing day use, administrative area and areas determined to be best suited for developed trailheads or expanded trailhead parking.  Natural – landscape with mature forest stands and pristine riverine environments.  Heritage – corridors encompassing pioneer highway remnants.  Resource Recreation – land base suitable for diverse trail use, trail connectors and park access trailheads and scenic corridor protection.

Park Management Issues: The issues summarized below are those that received the most attention. A draft management plan with a full list of issues and recommendations are available upon request, on the State Parks planning page http://www.parks.wa.gov/plans/Olallie, and at the Commission meeting.

Old Growth Forest Preservation: Olallie State Park and Twin Falls Trail exhibit many old- growth coniferous trees (>100 years) and undisturbed mature forest environments which are of statewide significance. The preservation of this natural resource is of primary importance to the future of the park. With an increased emphasis on old growth interpretation and recreational interaction, appropriate day-use facility development is needed to provide necessary public services. Improvements may include the addition of a day-use kitchen shelter, the addition of low -profile interpretive facilities and a formalized trail head.

Resource Management Collaboration and Recreation Trail Links: By working closely with other public land managers in the area; State Department of Natural Resources, the USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management, there are opportunities to co-create more recreation opportunities and collaborate with resource management. Being adjacent to thousands of acres of backcountry, public lands managed by state and federal natural resource agencies opens the door for a better networking of recreation facilities (e.g. trails linkages). One of the prime attributes of our “frontcountry” recreation area is that it offers the feeling of a remote forested landscape while being close-in to major highways and populations. The proximity and potential links to backcountry recreation areas, managed by other state and federal agencies, gives Olallie State Park a special niche in the outdoor recreation spectrum. Our long-term boundary properties will facilitate this recreation link.

Olallie State Park also straddles Iron Horse State Park’s John Wayne Pioneer Trail. Inter- connecting with this popular cross-state trail system will expand the attractiveness of trails planned for development within the Olallie area. Planning for recreational trail linkages to urban and suburban trail corridors can ease parking and trailhead congestion, while providing additional trail expansion and connectivity throughout the region.

Land management collaboration in the Snoqualmie Valley has successfully knit together the visual landscape, which has long been a goal of the Mountains to Sound Greenway initiatives. Our state park properties will help connect the relatively undisturbed forested landscape of the upper Snoqualmie Pass down to the lower valley, further preserving the National Scenic Byway. Camping: There is currently no camping within the existing Olallie State Park Area, nor is there any suitable land base or flat ground on which to construct overnight camping facilities. However, the location of this park along the I nterstate 90 corridor within an hour of Seattle and the ample potential for recreation access to public recreation lands directed the plan to include a 128-acre parcel of relatively level ground which is active as the State’s outdoor Fire Training Academy. This property lies within a natural forested cirque, buffered from sound and view of the I nterstate 90 freeway. The access road to the facility is a two-mile forested roadway that creates a parkway experience for travelers. Extensive areas of this training facility are paved, with power and water utilities. If abandoned for its training use, this area could provide a substantial large-scale overnight camping facility with the potential of full utilities. The nearest State Park campground is Lake Easton State Park, east of Snoqualmie Pass. This site’s prime travel location and the amount of public land involved make this a property of interest for inclusion in the long-term boundary for future development at Olallie State Park. By including this property within the long-term boundary, State Parks can explore future opportunities to provide for developed camping facilities.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Olallie State Park Area Vicinity Map & Mountain to Sound Greenway Map Appendix 2: Descriptions of Land Classification, Conditional Uses, and Long-Term Boundary Appendix 3: Map of Public and Private Lands within the Long-Term Boundary Appendix 4: Map of Public Land Ownership Adjacent to Olallie Long-Term Boundary Appendix 5: Olallie Area State Park Management Plan Draft Appendix 6: Public Comment AUTHORITY: RCW 79A.05.030(1), WAC 352-16-020, and WAC 352-16-030.

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 12. Consider the data, views or arguments submitted by any person on the proposed land classifications and long-term park boundary for Olallie State Park (including Twin Falls Trailhead and Mount Washington property); 13. Adopt land classifications, conditional uses, and a long-term boundary as described in Appendix 2 and depicted in Appendix 3; 14. Authorize the director to work with interested public agencies, conservation groups and other parties on transfer of ownership or the development of management agreements for the public lands designated in the long-term boundary; 15. Affirm that long-term boundary and land classification decisions are for Commission policy direction only and should not affect private property values; be used as an indication of a property owner’s willingness to sell, or be used as a basis for making state or local government regulatory, permitting, or zoning decisions on private land holdings; and, 16. Affirm that working with owners of properties within the park’s long-term boundary to voluntarily protect natural resources contiguous with those on park property may achieve the desired conservation effect and avoid the need for fee acquisition of these properties. If feasible in the future, acquisition of these properties should be on a willing seller basis.

Author: Steven Starlund, Northwest Region Steward [email protected] (360) 755-9231

Return to top of document Item E-11: Annual WAC Review – Requested Action

ACTION TAKEN: Approved amended revision.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Commission to adopt proposed revisions to two chapters of Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Chapters 352-32 Public Use of State Park Areas and; 352-37 Ocean Beaches. This item complies with the Centennial 2013 Plan elements, “Our Commitment –Financial Strategy, Public Service, and Stewardship,” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of an ongoing biennial WAC review which considers suggestions from park visitors, user groups, and field staff, staff asks the Commission to adopt the following proposed WAC changes. Following are brief explanations of each proposed change. To see the complete WAC language for each change, see attached.

WAC 352-32: Public Use

WAC 352-32-010 Definitions A number of park signs use the word “dusk”, which is not defined in WAC. Adding a definition of “dusk” allows staff to more clearly administer WAC 352-32-215 Compliance with signs. Dusk is defined to mean one-half hour after sunset.

WAC 352-32-030 (8) Camping Staff sometimes have difficulty explaining and enforcing the rules concerning extra vehicles. The proposed change clarifies this rule, and allows some flexibility in application, provided park resources and infrastructure are protected.

WAC 352-32-030 (14) Camping This new subsection allows overnight camping in approved areas within designated Sno-Park Parking areas. Examples include Crystal Springs and Easton Reload Sno-Parks where low impact overnight use by self-contained recreational vehicles (primarily snowmobilers) has occurred for years, but is technically not allowed. Staff seeks to accommodate this use in appropriate areas.

WAC 352-32-050 Park Periods Staff recommends adding a new subsection (2) that provides guidance for closing park areas to public access, and clarifies the duration of emergency closures.

WAC 352-32-056 Peace and quiet. The changes proposed in WAC 352-32-030 (14) Camping, above, would allow overnight camping within designated Sno-Park areas. At these Sno-Parks, during the winter season, operation of electric generators after 9:00 p.m. is often a necessity, as sub-freezing temperatures are the norm.

WAC 352-32-080 Swimming. The proposed change clarifies what types of floating devices are permitted in designated swimming areas. The rule would allow small children’s flotation devices (other than U.S. Coast Guard approved life jackets), and one-person inflatable mattresses at swim areas, but would prohibit large floating objects (including, but not limited to, rubber rafts, rubber boats, and inner tubes). The objective is to allow a variety of flotation devices without obstructing the view of the water’s surface.

WAC 352-32-085 Technical Rock Climbing Staff recommends changing part of subsection (3) to be consistent with closure provisions recommended in WAC 352-32-050 Park Periods.

WAC 352-32-125 Fires and campfires. Staff recommends adding language to the rule that restricts campfires at Crystal Springs and Easton Reload Sno-Parks to portable fire receptacles.

WAC 352-32-210 Consumption of alcohol in state park areas. Staff recommends modifying subsection (3) regarding closures to be consistent with WAC 352- 32-050 and WAC 352-32-085.

WAC 352-32-240 Nondiscrimination certification. In response to advice of legal counsel, staff recommend removing the listing of protected classes, as this protection is inherent in the statement that the Commission is an equal opportunity employer.

WAC 352-32-251 Limited income senior citizen, disability, and disable veteran passes. Staff recommends that the eligibility requirements for establishing residency in Washington be changed from 12 months to 3 months in subsections (1) and (3); and that proof of residency can include a Washington state driver’s license, voter registration card, senior citizen property tax exemption, or other proof of continue residency as determined by the Director or designee (examples include housing rental and utility payment receipts).

WAC 352-32-252 Off-season senior citizen pass – Fee. Consistent with WAC 352-32-251, staff recommends that the eligibility requirements for establishing residency in Washington be changed from 12 months to 3 months in subsection (1).

WAC 352-32-260 Sno-Park permit & WAC 352-32-265 Sno-Park permit – Display Staff recommends that these two sections of WAC be combined, and add more detailed instructions for the proper display of parking permits. As a result, WAC 352-32-265 would be repealed. The change also eliminates permit reciprocity with other states and nations. Upon examination, staff found that there is no parity among the Sno-Park permit systems employed by neighboring states and provinces, and that the Winter Recreation programs are funded differently. For example, the Winter Recreation Program in Washington loses revenue whenever an Oregon resident buys a seasonal permit for $20 in Oregon, and then comes to Washington to recreate, while Washington residents are paying $40 or more for the same seasonal access privileges. $20 is the price of a daily permit in Washington.

WAC 352-32-270 Sno-park permit – Fees Staff recommends that the valid dates of the Seasonal Sno-Park permit be changed from October 1 to May 1 to December 1 through April 30. This is consistent with the dates that the program provides winter recreation services and more accurately reflects the actual dates the Sno-Parks are open for use. In addition, the language regarding the validity of the one day permit has been clarified. WAC 352-32-310 Penalties. Staff recommends the penalties for violation of this chapter of WAC be made consistent with the bail schedules applied by the justice system.

WAC 352-37: Ocean Beaches

WAC 352-37-105 Fires and campfires. On the ocean beaches, the agency does not provide designated campfire pits, rings or other campfire enclosures. Accordingly, a portion of this WAC section is superfluous, and staff recommends that it be eliminated. The remainder of the WAC applies to campfires on the ocean beaches.

WAC 352-37-200 Special group recreation event permit. Staff recommends the agency address in subsection (4) be changed.

WAC 352-37-325 Seashore conservation area closures. -- NEW SECTION Staff recommends that closure rules be added to Chapter 352-37 that are consistent with the closure languages changes made in Chapter 352-32.

WAC 352-37-330 Penalties. Consistent with recommendations for Chapter 352-32, staff recommends the penalties for violation of this chapter of WAC be made consistent with the bail schedules applied by the justice system.

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 1. Declare this meeting to be a public hearing to adopt proposed changes to Chapters 352-32 and 352-37 WAC as shown on Appendix 1 and 2. 2. Consider the data, views, and arguments submitted by any person on the proposed rules as published in the Washington State Register and as further modified herein. 3. Formally adopt the proposed changes to Chapters 352-32 and 352-37 WAC as shown on Appendix 1 and 2. 4. Authorize the Director to file the regulations and to comply with all necessary procedural requirements.

Supporting Information: Appendix 1: Chapter 352-32 WAC Public Use Appendix 2: Chapter 352-37 WAC Ocean Beaches

Authors: Pamela McConkey, Manager Winter Recreation [email protected] (360) 902-8595 Robert Ingram, Chief Visitor Protection and Law Enforcement [email protected] (360) 902-8615

Return to top of document

Item E-12: Fee Program Review in Support Of the 2011-13 Budget – Requested Action ACTION TAKEN: Approved as requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : This Requested Action responds to Commission direction to staff to develop a market-based pricing strategy for agency fees. Recommendations are provided primarily for camping, due to the central role of camping in the agency's mission and business model. The nine- month camping reservation window creates additional urgency, as many reservations have already been made for next summer. Staff will present additional fee recommendations in the first half of 2011. This item complies with the Centennial 2013 Plan elements, “Our Commitment-Financial Strategy and Partnerships” and with our core values.

The effects of the r ecession continue to challenge Washington residents and their state park system. Accordingly, care has been taken to make recommendations that correct under-pricing while preserving opportunities for an accessible camping experience for families impacted by the economy.

This proposal would generate additional net revenue of approximately $1.5 million, including $170,000 in Fiscal Year 2011 and $1.4 million during the 2011-13 biennium.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has statutory authority to charge fees for public use of state parks under Chapter 79A.05.070(6) RCW, and its fee r egulations are published at Chapter 352-32-250 WAC. The C o m m Feei sPolicys i stateso n in ’part:s “Fees should strive to meet revenue targets established by the legislature and fee program objectives established by the Commission…Fees will not be charged for basic parkland access. Fees will be charged for services delivered, and will be increased, proportionately, as such service becomes more specialized and as park usage becomes more exclusive…”

Fair Market Value Pricing campsites at Fair Market Value has many important benefits. It avoids undue price competition with private providers; it ensures that Parks as the dominant provider does not unintentionally suppress prices in local markets; it discourages over-use of a park’s natural resources by value-driven consumers; and it provides a non-tax funding stream for park maintenance and operations.

State Parks periodically compares its fees with those of public and private providers of similar services. Traditional market comparisons often fall short when measuring against parks considered "premier destinations of uncommon quality, including state and regionally significant natural, cultural, historical and recreational resources. ” The intrinsic value of camping at the heart of the tourism destination, at facilities subsidized with public funds and operated by professional resource stewards and commissioned law enforcement personnel, is hard to factor into any raw comparison of price.

It is also hard to quantify the benefit of private amenities such as swimming pools or game rooms, which are not necessarily sought or valued by state park campers drawn to a more resource-based experience. Even without considering the superlative features of state parks, a review of market comparables suggests that Washington state park camping is priced below average, compared to other providers around the state.

Staff compared prices while controlling as much as possible for variables such as number of people and pets, length of RV, electrical capacity, etc. A statewide survey of standard campsites found a Peak Season price range of $21 to $35, compared to this review's proposed rate of $25. Full-utility sites ranged from $28-$55, compared to the proposed rate of $36. Tent camping at Oregon State Parks next summer will cost $17-$21, and RV camping will be $22-$28. Idaho State Parks will charge $13-$20 for tents and $26-$45 for RVs next summer. (Both states have day-use fees.)

The last Washington state park camping fee increase became effective in July 2009. Since fees are not adjusted annually, it is important to establish rates that allow room to grow until the next fee review.

Fee Recommendations

1. Off-Peak Camping: No Change . Staff proposes no increase in the price of camping during the Off-Peak ( shoulder ) season of mid-September to mid-May, to ensure that a state park camping experience remains within reach for most Washington State residents. About 1/4 of camping nights at reservation parks occurs during the eight-month O ff- Peak season, which represents 2/3 of the year. An added benefit of Off-Peak camping is that Premium sites are discounted to Non-Premium prices. The price of camping at all 334 primitive campsites would remain at $12 year-round, providing another option for camping at low rates.

2. Peak Season: 1-2-3. A nightly increase is proposed of $1 for standard , $2 for partial utility, and $3 for full utility sites during Peak Season. The increase for full-utility sites includes a $1 repositioning increase in the differential between partial- and full-utility sites, to a total of $2 difference between the site types during Peak Season. A full utility site has a sewer connection in addition to a partial utility sites’ electric and/or water service. The value of a nominal differential between site types has eroded as a percentage of the base price, from 6% in 1990 to only 3% today. An additional $1 repositioning fee on full utility sites during Peak Season, atop the proposed $2 camping fee increase for all utility sites, would restore the 6% differential and consistency with the policy of charging more for specialized services.

This recommendation extends the graduated increases from Premium sites to Non-Premium sites, which have previously been exempt from Peak Season pricing. Concentrating the fee increases during the period of highest demand and better weather will realize the most financial benefit in the shortest time, and limit inconvenience to campers. The Peak Season 1-2-3 plan would take effect by January on reservations for camping in mid-May 2011 and thereafter, and would generate up to $1 million of additional net revenue per biennium from reservation camping, and an additional $100,000 per biennium from non-reservation camping.

3. Non-Resident Recreation Fee: A new Non-Resident Recreation Fee would compensate Parks for a portion of the cost of park operations that is not covered by user fees. Residents currently subsidize this cost through sales tax and other taxes. Most other states distribute this cost to non- residents through day use fees, which are prohibited in Washington. The fee is proposed at five dollars ($5.00) per reservation, based on the Net Park Operating Cost per Visitor as established by an annual internal analysis. The fee totals the per person cost for an average camping party of four, adds a provision for sales tax, lodging tax, and annual variances in the average subsidy, and then rounds to the nearest whole dollar for administrative simplicity. It will be assessed year round per non-resident reservation on camping, yurts, cabins, marina slips, etc., and is expected to raise about $200,000 net revenue per biennium. 4 . Mount St. Helens Visitor Center at Silver Lake. An increase is proposed to bring admission fees in line with the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center (LCIC) at Cape Disappointment State Park. Basic access to the Mount St. Helens Visitor Center is provided at no charge for building entry, browsing the bookstore or using the restrooms. A fee of $3 per adult, $1 per child, or $8 per family is charged for enhanced access, such as watching the interpretive film, touring the exhibits and attending sessions with Park Interpreters. This fee has not increased since it was established by the U.S. Forest service when the center was built in 1986, almost 25 years ago. Had prices kept up with inflation, they would be double those charged today. The Forest Service’s Johnston Ridge Visitor Center, some 45 miles closer to the volcano crater, charges $8 per adult -- the same fee that State Parks charges per family. The Commission recently increased the admission fee at the LCIC to $5.00 per adult, $2.50 per child, and $15 per family. (There is no charge for school groups.) Bringing the tax-exempt admission fee to par with LCIC will raise an additional $200,000 net revenue per biennium.

Summary This package of proposed fee enhancements and adjustments is projected to raise u p to $1.5 million of additional gross revenue in a typical biennium. Revenue from price changes can be affected by factors such as existing reservations, price resistance, embedded sales taxes and the effect of passes. After accounting for these factors, State Parks may expect to realize an additional $17 0 ,000 net revenue in FY11, and an additional $1. 4 million in net revenue during the 2011-13 biennium . Taken together, the effect of the proposed fee revisions is approximately equal to the additional net revenue potential that may be expected in a typical full biennium.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix A – Summary of Fee Schedule Changes

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission: 1. Adopt the amended Fee Schedule as recommended in Appendix A for camping, non- resident recreation, and Mount St. Helens Visitor Center admissions. 2. Direct staff to continue efforts to develop a market based pricing strategy for agency fees and return to the Commission in the first half of 2011 with additional fee recommendations.

Author: Mike Sternback, Assistant Director, Operations [email protected] 360-902-8660

Return to top of document

Item E-13: Current 2009-2011 and Proposed 2011-2013 Budgets This item was replaced by Item 13A.

Item E-13A: 2011 - 2013 Budget Strategies — Requested Action

ACTION TAKEN: Approved as modified. Contact author for details. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This agenda item proposes a response by the Commission if the General Fund is no longer available to the agency’s budget. This item complies with the Centennial 2013 Plan elements, “Our Commitment-Financial Strategy and Partnerships” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As we approach the biennium that will mark the 100-year birthday of Washington’s state parks, a crisis unprecedented in modern times looms. The Office of Financial Management, faced with historic budget shortfalls, may recommend to the Governor that State Parks receive nothing from the General Fund. If such a budget was passed by the Legislature during the upcoming session, it would mean a reduction of State Parks budget by one half and elimination of $66 million.

As bad as the loss of General Fund would be for operation of the parks, the impact on the other half of the budget could also be extreme. Reducing services to a minimalist level (zero service) could mean that parks might no longer be open for camping and other activities that produce revenue for the agency. How much such service reductions could affect vehicle registration- related donations is unknown, but it is safe to say that donations probably would decrease.

The cascading affect caused by elimination of the General Fund jeopardizes the state parks, and we must be creative about our strategy. We also must move quickly. The 2011-13 Legislative session is nearly upon us. Our budget and the laws that will govern our actions will be developed between January 10 and April 24, barring special sessions.

The strategy is based on focusing all agency resources towards the following three goals. The important policy-level elements are discussed below.

1. Prepare a legislative package that will replace General Fund in the agency budget. 2. Protect existing revenue in the Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account (PRSA). 3. Reduce the size of the state parks system and increase the revenue streams from remaining parks.

Legislative Package to replace General Fund: As we consider a legislative package that would replace General Fund, foremost in our consideration must be the recent passage of Initiative 1053 . The initiative takes effect on December 2 and requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to pass laws that would raise taxes. Alternatively, a new tax could be sent to the voters as a referendum and passed with a majority. The general opinion at this time seems to be that either effort would be difficult, and because there is so much at stake, the agency should focus its efforts where the chances for success are highest.

Washington State Parks is comprised of 119 diverse state parks and accompanying properties. Many of the parks generate revenue from fees for camping, overnight accommodations, watercraft launches and other services. While some of the day use parks don’t generate substantial revenue, they are nevertheless considered valuable natural and recreational resources. The Commission has been reviewing its pricing on camping, overnight accommodations , land leases, concessions and cell towers and has made increases in these areas during the last several years.

In the current economic climate , with revenues falling far short of what the state needs to run various government services, the park system is at risk unless new sources of revenue are captured. To keep the system viable long-term, it is important to keep at least some version of it up and running in the short term. We need to maintain properties and protect the bank of knowledge and expertise available for recovery.

State Parks must change the way it operates the park system and must institute new user-related fees in order to sustain the park system in the short and long term. The strategy to sustain the park system needs to include the following package of actions. These actions work together and will not be effective if separated.

 Annual Pass for parking in state parks : Institute a new $10 annual parking pass fee payable at time of vehicle registration. This would replace the voluntary donation program. Citizens will be encouraged to continue to dona te funds though other avenues. Under the annual pass fee, the citizen would have the opportunity to deduct the fee by certifying that he/she does not use state parks. Department of Licensing (DOL) would administer the collection of the pass fee as it does the current donation. DOL would send the fee payment information to State Parks, which would then issue the annual parking pass. The pass holder would have free parking in all State Parks during that year.  Day Parking Fee : If no annual pass is purchased at time of vehicle registration, a $5 day parking fee per visit will be charged at the park gate for those who park vehicles in the parks. The out-of-state user would pay the $5 fee at the park or could purchase a $25 annual pass.

Together, the pass and parking fee would generate an estimated $60 million per biennium, based on 50 percent participation between those who pay at the time of registration and those who pay the parking fee at the gate. This approach requires that the following statutes be changed: RCW 79A.05.070 (6), (“Charge such fees for services, utilities, and use of facilities as the commission shall deem proper. The commission may not charge fees for general park access or parking.”)

Additionally, State Parks would propose the following strategies to raise revenue for operations:

 Transfer of Development Rights : This could generate approximately $10 million a biennium for the next five biennia. Designation of sending and receiving areas – inclusion of certain lands in programs for agricultural, forest or park land conservation. Amend RCW 43.362.040.  Eliminate or reduce fee and reduced passes , which previously had their costs covered by General Fund tax dollars. Passes for disabled , disabled veterans, senior citizen limited- income, off-season senior and foster family passes currently supplant approximately $2 million a biennium in earned revenue.  Include NOVA and Recreational Boating funds in the State Parks base budget, for approximately $20 million. Without these funds, marine parks used by boaters would be closed.  Reduce expenditures in parks, regions and headquarters and maximize revenue opportunities. This may result in the downsizing of the park system.

The scenarios above would together generate $92 million. With the $44 million already generated in the Parks Renewal Stewardship Account, the agency would reduce expenditures by approximately $10 million and continue to operate without General Fund. It is importan t to note that there will be start- up costs to implement the annual pass and parking fee program. In addition it will take time for the revenue to be generated. State Parks proposes that it use its fund balance first and then reserve fund if necessary to continue funding until the new revenue stabilizes.

The agency recognizes that the park system may change. At present, the public has access to 119 developed state parks located statewide in 36 of Washington’s 39 counties. Ranging in size from the 13,000-acre Mount Spokane State Park to parks of only a few acres, each park has a particular attraction to one or more user groups.

That said, it is highly probable that budget constraints and/or a restructuring of state government will require that the state park system be reduced in size by removal of parks that are of primarily local or regional attraction. Creation of a smaller state park system will require Commission direction on criteria, outreach to stakeholders and ultimately, adoption of a list of parks to removed from the system.

For the remainder of the 2009-2011 biennium and into the first part of the 2011-2013 biennium, where it is expected that budget constraints will be significant, Parks staff can continue to work on several transfers that are in process, develop procedures to encourage and enable stakeholder partners to support management of certain parks, work with the Commission to create a list of parks proposed for removal from the state park system and prepare to place a number of parks in “zero service” status to achieve immediate cost savings.

In general, state parks that generate a significant percentage of their operating cost and parks that contain unique natural, cultural, historic or recreation resources best managed by Washington State Parks would be candidates for ret ention. Parks most subject to removal from the state park system are anticipated to be those that host primarily local or regional users with limited revenue generation capacity and/or parks that contain no unique features of statewide significance.

Protect existing revenue in the Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account (PRSA): The agency can’t be expected nor is it likely to replace the $66 million in General Fund through traditional parks fees collected in the PRSA account. However, without General Fund replacement, the ability to continue to collect those fees could be greatly diminished, causing further reductions in the agency’s budget that could necessitate service reduction at more parks.

Camping is the largest single source of revenue generated by PRSA for the agency. A key element of this strategy is to keep open as many camping parks as possible during periods of high demand. This will mean that the parks will need to operate differently, which will include a change in the model of staffing. Park staffing will need to more closely reflect use patterns, which will result in more emphasis on seasonal and temporary staff. Law enforcement resources may be targeted to areas of greater risk or known issues. More parks would be managed under an area concept, and sharing of resources between individual parks would increase.

Reduce the size of the state parks system and increase revenue streams: In reducing the size of the park system as it is envisioned that each of the current 119 state parks will fall into one of the following four categories:

1. Park to be retained - open and available for public use at current or reduced service levels. 2. Park to be retained - open and supported by partners/stakeholders at reduced service levels. 3. Park to be retained - available for public use with “zero service” until budget levels allow re-opening or the park becomes supported by partners/stakeholders. 4. Park to be remove d from the state park system - open for public use with “zero service” and available for transfer at any time to an entity who will continue to make the park avai lable for public recreation use.

In general, state parks that generate a significant percentage of their operating cost and parks that contain unique natural, cultural, historic or recreation resources best managed by Washington State Parks would be candidates for retention. Parks most subject to removal from the state park system are anticipated to be those that host primarily local or regional users with limited revenue generation capacity and/or parks that contain no unique features of statewide significance.

In general, income producing options that have resource or visitor experience impacts may need to be re-examined to determine whether, in a new context, some options may become acceptable. Parks staff is actively exploring other income producing options that do not involve resource impacts. These options are technology based and fit well into societal changes in communicatio ns and information gathering. Staff believe that significant income potential exi s ts via technology-based options.

Finally, the Commission has, over the years, granted hundreds of leases, easements and permits for non-recreational uses of state park lands. The Commission has been under great pressure from holders of these agreements to keep rates low and often well below market rate. External acceptance of the need to bring all leases, easements and permits to market rate would generate significant and reliable new income with no new impacts on park resources or visitor experience.

Summary : These are unprecedented times, and the crisis is potentially greater than we have previously faced. We are a nimble agency with the mission of the state parks in our hearts. If there is a way to retain a state park system into another 100 years, we will help the Commission find that way.

AUTHORITY and SUPPORTING INFORMATION: RCW 79A.05.030 (1), RCW 79A.05.070 (6)

REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Authorize the Director or designee to submit a proposal to the Office of Financial Management that would guide the agency if the General Fund became unavailable to the agency’s budget.

Author/Contact: Ilene Frisch, Administration, Technology & Finance Director [email protected], (360) 902-8521

Return to top of document

Item E-14: Brooks Memorial State Park-Transfer — Report

ACTION TAKEN: Report only, no action requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item provides the Commission a report on the agency’s progress toward the transfer of Brooks Memorial State Park. This complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element, “Our Commitment – Financial Strategy” and with our core values. SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Central Klickitat Conservation District (CKCD) submitted a proposal expressing an interest in the transfer of Brooks Memorial State Park, in June 2010.

Prior to that, Director Derr met with the Land Committee of the Yakama Tribal Council, in August 2009, following up to a letter of interest submitted by the Tribe. The Tribe was invited to submit a formal proposal for presentation at the previously schedule September 2010 Commission meeting.

A letter was sent in June 2010 and a phone call to the Tribe’s legislative liaison, followed by an e -mail, occurred in September 2010, attempting to determine if there was continued interest by the Tribe. There was no response from tribal leadership to any of those communications.

CKCD has a strong interest is seeing Brooks Memorial remain open for public use. They are willing to accept a transfer of the park, if that is necessary to achieve this outcome. State Parks staff met with representatives of CKCD, in October of this year, to discuss the potential of mutual benefits of cooperative ownership and / or management.

As a result of that meeting, a joint Parks / CKCD assessment of the structures and facilities was completed. CKCD will develop a list of desired outcomes that may include both programmatic and capital improvements, which they hope to achieve if they are involved in the park’s operation. They will then identify areas of assistance that would be desirable to achieve their goals.

Following that effort, both parties will meet again to identify what each could bring to a joint operation and the supportive efforts each could provide to a successful operation. The objective being, to determine if a joint venture is beneficial and desired, or is a unilateral operation by one party the best approach, to achieve the requirements of success.

Future Commission Action Any resulting requested action will be brought to the Commission at a future date.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Criteria for Transfer of Properties Not Consistent With the Centennial 2013 Vision – Item E-2, August 6, 2009

Author(s): Jim Harris, Eastern Region Director [email protected] (509) 665-4315

Return to top of document

Item E-15: 2010 Director’s Performance Agreement with the Commission-Report

ACTION TAKEN: Report only, no action requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item reports on the status of the Director’s Performance Agreement from January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010. The final year-end report will be posted on the agency’s web site in 2011. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan, Our Commitment – Public Service and our core values.

SIGNIFNICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Beginning in 2003, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has had an annual performance agreement with the Director. The agreement identifies areas of emphasis and specific activities to be accomplished during the year. The agreement provides a mechanism for evaluating the Director and agency’s performance.

This agreement for the calendar year 2010 (Appendix 1) highlights accomplishments and work underway from January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010. The agency will continue to work on tasks indentified in the 2010 Performance Agreement until December 31, 2010 and post a final year-end performance report on the agency’s web site.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: 20 10 Performance Agreement between the Director and the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

Author/Contact(s): Brian Hovis, Governmental Relations and Performance Measurements [email protected] (360) 902-8504 Valeria Evans [email protected] (360) 902-8597

Return to top of document

Item E-1 6: Findings on Small Scale Mineral Prospecting Pilot Program – Report

ACTION TAKEN: Report only, no action requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item provides a final report on the pilot program to examine the impacts of small scale mineral prospecting on ocean beaches. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan elements, “Our Commitment – Stewardship” and “Our Commitment – Financial Strategy” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During its 2008 session, the Washington State Legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 6343, which established a pilot program to examine the impacts of small scale mineral prospecting on coastal areas. The pilot project was set up to run between July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2010. Placer mining was to be allowed on defined beaches year-round during this period. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was directed to monitor the prospecting and mining activities through their permit authority and to report on the impacts of the pilot program to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Parks) by October 1, 2010. Parks and WDFW are to report to the Legislature by December 2010 with their findings and recommendations on the activity and potential impacts of small scale mineral prospecting and mining on ocean beaches.

With stakeholder assistance, Parks and WDFW staff selected pilot areas and worked out provisions for the hydraulic project approval (HPA), required by WDFW. Ultimately, four pilot areas were established, including: Long Beach – from Ocean Park Ocean Beach Access (OBA) to Klipsan OBA; South Beach – from Bonge OBA to Grayland OBA; and North Beach – from Ocean City OBA to Oyehut OBA, and a one-half mile stretch of North Beach, centered on the mouth of Boone Creek in the Iron Springs area.

To begin, all participants were required to obtain an HPA from WDFW. Over the course of the pilot, WDFW issued a total of 81 HPAs to 62 applicants. The HPA required that miners notify WDFW and Parks staff prior to starting work. In lieu of a permit from Parks, miners were requested to voluntarily report where each mining activity occurred, the number of people participating, number of days per activity, quantity of material removed from the beach, type of equipment used, and any difficulties encountered. Parks received information from 25 individuals or groups who spent a total of 82 days mining on the beach. The vast majority of the activity took place in the Iron Springs pilot area because this site was the only one that provided access to freshwater. Participants used a variety of equipment, including high bankers, pans, sluice boxes, and suction dredges. Not all participants provided information on the quantity of sand/ore they removed, but reported quantities were very small, ranging from 1 tablespoon to 5 gallons. During the course of the pilot project, no significant user conflicts were observed by Parks staff. Participants were generally easy to work with and in compliance with the conditions of the HPA. A few local residents in the North Beach area had voiced some initial trepidation about the activity, but their concerns seemed to wane as the pilot project progressed. Overall, holes on the beach created by prospectors appear to cause no more impact than holes created by recreational razor clam harvesters.

In its “2008-2010 Small Scale Mining and Prospecting on the Ocean Beaches (SSB 6343) Pilot Program Report” (September 2010), WDFW stated that only minor HPA violations occurred and no impacts to fish life were observed. However, if beach placer mining were allowed in the future, WDFW recommended that impacts to bird, wildlife, and migrating adult salmonid species should be more thoroughly considered during the SEPA review. Because little is known about where and when forage fish spawn on the Washington coast, spawning inspections need to be conducted prior to including areas in any future beach prospecting. HPA timing and geographic restrictions could likely minimize species impacts.

Based on results of the pilot, Parks staff is open to continuing to allow the activity. However, a statute or rule change would be needed. Under RCW 79A.05.165, people are prohibited from removing natural objects from any park or parkway, unless specifically allowed by the Commission by rule SSB 6343 to set up a short-term exemption to this statute for the beach mining pilot project. However, this exemption expires on December 1, 2010. In order to continue to allow the activity, the legislature would need to make a permanent statutory change or the Commission would need to allow the activity by rule.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Substitute Senate Bill 6343

Author(s): Don Hoch, Southwest Region Director [email protected] (360) 725-9774 Lisa Lantz, Southwest Region Resource Steward [email protected] (360) 725-9777

Return to top of document Item E-17: Capital Program Updates - Report

ACTION TAKEN: Report only, no action requested.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report updates the Commission on Capital Development Program results and progress for the 2009-2011 biennium. Included within this report is the status of the Southwest Region Parks Development Team projects. This item complies with our Centennial 2013 Plan element "Our Commitment – Facilities and Your Legacy ” and with our core values.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Since reorganization of t he State Parks Capital Program in 2002, program management has continued to explore ways of improving performance, customer satisfaction, and product delivery. In 2006, OFM conducted a performance audit of the Capital Program. The resulting Berk Report made 30 recommendations for improvement, including the creation of an Agency Improvement Plan. The Agency Improvement Plan was adopted by the Commission in September 2007 and includes a recurring status report on the Capital Development Program at each Commission meeting. A set of Capital Development Program measures for the 2009-2011 biennium has been established and is reported in Appendix 1.

The Legislature and Governor approved 2009-2011 biennium Capital Budget is $ 78 , 062 ,000. This is comprised of new appropriations, with a focus on the facility preservation element of the Centennial 2013 Plan, re-appropriations from earlier biennia, grants, donations, and pass- through funds. Appendix 2 shows $ 44 , 678 ,000 in spending and contractual obligations for the 2009- 2011 biennium as of September 30, 2010.

Funded 2009-2011 capital projects have been assigned to each of the three regional Parks Development teams for design and development. This month the Southwest Region Parks Development Team is featured and project status is included in Appendix 3.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Appendix 1: Capital Program Agency Leadership Measures Appendix 2: 2009-2011 Capital Program Expenditure Summary Appendix 3: 2009-2011 Southwest Region Parks Development Team Project Status

Author(s): Larry Fairleigh, Assistant Director [email protected] 360-902-8642

Return to top of document