Work Session Agenda Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
September 27, 2017 Center Place Regional Event Center, 2426 N. Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Commissioners: Chair Mark O. Brown, Vice Chair Ken Bounds, Secretary Rodger Schmitt, Doug Peters, Cindy Whaley, Patricia Lantz and Steve Milner. Director: Donald Hoch
Time: Opening session will begin as shown; all other times are approximate.
Public Comment: This is a work session between staff and the Commission. The public is invited but no public comment will be taken. No decisions will be made by the Commission at the work session.
9:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER – Ken Bounds, Commission Vice Chair • Call of the roll • Introduction of Staff • Changes to agenda • Logistics
9:05 a.m. INLAND NORTHWEST AREA – Diana Dupuis, Area Manager • This item provides the Commission information on the newly established greater Spokane area management and related issues.
10:00 a.m. TEN-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN – Peter Herzog, Assistant Director • This item provides the Commission with a progress report on the effort to update State Parks 10-Year Capital Plan and sets out a proposed schedule for Commission review and approval of the plan
11:00 a.m. BREAK
11:15 a.m. 2015-2017 STRATEGIC INITIATIVES – Peter Herzog, Assistant Director • This item provides the Commission an overview of strategic initiatives undertaken for the 2015-17 biennium and an evaluation of achievements towards set performance measures.
12:00 p.m. LUNCH
12:30 p.m. RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE – Darrel Jennings • This item provides the Commission an overview of the Recreation and Conservation Office’s statewide trail coordination role and activities.
1
1:00 p.m. AGENCY TRAILS PROGRAM AND FUTURE DIRECTION– Steve Brand, Planning and Partnerships Manager and Randy Kline, Trails Coordinator • This item provides the Commission an overview of the agency’s expansive trail network, the role of the Trails Coordinator, and current trails policy, planning, and development activities.
2:00 p.m. DISCUSSION ON STATEWIDE TRAILS– Peter Herzog, Assistant Director, Steve Brand, Planning and Partnerships Manager and Randy Kline, Trails Coordinator • This item outlines current trails policy issues and provides an opportunity for Commission exploration and discussion of potential policy options.
2:45 p.m. BREAK
3:00 p.m. LEGISLATIVE PROVISO ON RECREATIONAL FEE SYSTEM– Daniel Farber, Policy & Governmental Affairs Director • This item provides the Commission an update on progress in the Ruckelshaus Center-facilitated project to prepare options and recommendations to the Legislature on how to make the recreational access fee system in Washington State simpler, more consistent and more equitable.
3:45 p.m. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE PARKS DIRECTORS CONFERENCE REPORT – Mike Sternback, Assistant Director • This item provides the Commission a report on the NASPD conference attended by Don Hoch and Mike Sternback.
4:00 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION
4:45 p.m. ADJOURN
2
Commission Meeting Agenda Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
September 28, 2017 Center Place Regional Event Center, 2426 N. Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Commissioners: Chair Mark O. Brown, Vice Chair Ken Bounds, Secretary Rodger Schmitt, Doug Peters, Cindy Whaley, Patricia Lantz and Steve Milner. Director: Donald Hoch
Time: Opening session will begin as shown; all other times are approximate.
Order of Presentation: In general, each agenda item will include a presentation, followed by Commission discussion and then public comment. The Commission makes decisions following the public comment portion of the agenda.
Public Comment: Comments about topics not on the agenda are taken during General Public Comments.
Comments about agenda topics will be taken with each topic.
If you wish to comment at a meeting, please fill out a comment card and provide it to staff at the sign in table. The Chair will call you up to the front at the appropriate time. You may also submit written comments to the Commission by emailing them to [email protected] by 5 p.m. on September 22, 2017.
9:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER – Mark O. Brown, Commission Chair • Flag Salute • Call of the roll • Introduction of Staff • Recognition of State and Local Officials • Approval of the Agenda • Approval of minutes of previous meetings: July 13, 2017 – Walla Walla
9:10 a.m. COMMISSIONER REPORTS
10:00 a.m. STAFF REPORTS
10:50 a.m. EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION
11:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pre-Arranged Speakers • Brad McQuarrie, MS2000 • Robert Yates, Friends of the John Wayne Pioneer Trail
11:30 a.m. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS: Topics not on the agenda
3
12:00 p.m. REQUESTED ACTION • Item E-1: 2018 Supplemental Budget This item asks the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to: 1) approve the submittal of a 2018 Supplemental Operating Budget and a 2018 Capital Budget request to the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and 2) authorize the Director to make changes to the dollars or items requested as needed to finalize the submittals.
12:30 p.m. LUNCH
1:00 p.m. REQUESTED ACTION • Item E-2: Mount Spokane State Park Shop Compound Relocation: Land Classification Revision This item asks the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to re-classify about 40-acres of land at Mount Spokane State Park to facilitate relocation of the park’s maintenance shop compound.
1:45 p.m. REQUESTED ACTION • Item E-3: Agency Request Legislation for the 2018 Session This item asks the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to establish principles to evaluate statutory proposals for the 2018 legislative session, approve agency request legislation subjects, and delegate to the Director authority, in consultation with the Commission’s Legislative Committee and relevant stakeholders, to submit specific agency request legislation.
2:15 p.m. BREAK
2:30 p.m. REPORT • Item E-4: 2016/2017 Winter Recreation Program This item reports to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Winter Recreation Program and highlights program accomplishments.
3:10 p.m. REPORT • Item E-5: Financial Update (Operations & Capital) This item reports to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission on the status of: 1) State Parks’ 2015-17 biennium operating and capital budget expenditures, 2) 2015-17 Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account (PRSA) revenue, and 3) a status of State Parks’ 2017-19 operating and capital budget requests.
4
4:10 p.m. REPORT • Item E-6: Natural Heritage Initiative This item provides the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission with an update on the status of the agency’s Natural Heritage Initiative.
4:55 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION
5:30 p.m. ADJOURN
The services, programs and activities of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you need special accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the commission assistant Becki Ellison at (360) 902- 8502 or [email protected]. Accommodation requests should be received at least five business days prior to the meeting to ensure availability. Please provide two weeks’ notice for requests to receive information in an alternative format and for ASL/ESL interpretation requests.
5
Revised Appendices 2 & 3 9/25/17
September 28, 2017
Item E-1: 2018 Supplemental Budget Request – Requested Action
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to: 1) approve the submittal of a 2018 Supplemental Operating Budget and a 2018 Capital Budget request to the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and 2) authorize the Director to make changes to the dollars or items requested as needed to finalize the submittals. This item aligns with Agency core values and advances the Commission’s Strategic Plan: “Adopting a business approach to park administration.”
SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Office of Financial Management issued supplemental budget instructions to agencies on August 8, 2017. These instructions included the October 9, 2017 due date for submittals and identified areas that budget submittals should focus on, which are:
. Non-discretionary changes in legally-mandated caseloads or workloads . Necessary technical corrections . Additional federal or private/local funding . Highest priority policy enhancements or resource reprogramming proposals consistent with the Governor’s priority goals . Highest priority capital budget projects needed in addition to the enacted re-appropriation capital budget
Additional instruction regarding the capital budget supplemental clarifies that projects could include a subset of the highest priority projects previously submitted, projects that were included in legislative budget proposals, and/or new projects that meet emergent needs.
Operating Supplemental Budget Request. In addition to OFM’s direction, staff worked under the following assumptions to develop a recommended operating supplemental budget request.
. Request spending authority for dedicated funds where projected fund balances are sufficient to support the request and when there are identified spending needs. . For the Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account specifically, request spending authority if fund balance projections technically support the request – recognizing that the forecast could fluctuate throughout the biennium and revenue come in higher than currently planned.
Capital Supplemental Budget Request. In addition to OFM’s direction, staff considered the following when developing the proposal:
. Time needed to complete design, permitting and project construction . Staff capacity to deliver projects . What funding amount is needed for each project . Updated project cost estimates
6
Staff also created two scenarios for a capital supplemental budget. Both of these have been combined into the attached proposal. One version assumes a 2017-19 Capital Budget is passed by the legislature by the time OFM introduces the supplemental. The second scenario assumes no Capital Budget is passed and the supplemental becomes the vehicle for a full 2017-19 Capital Budget.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the proposed supplemental requests as proposed.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
Appendix 1: Office of Financial Management Instructions for 2018 Supplemental Budget Submittals Dated August 8, 2017
Appendix 2: 2018 Operating Budget Supplemental Request
Appendix 3: 2018 Capital Budget Supplemental Request
REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION:
That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission:
1. Authorize the Director to submit operating and capital supplemental budget requests to the Office of Financial Management as proposed in Appendices 2 and 3. 2. Authorize the Director to make changes in dollar amounts and items to the supplemental requests as needed for finalization and submittal to the Office of Financial Management. ______
Author/Contact(s): Shelly L. Hagen, Assistant Director, Administrative Services [email protected], (360) 902-8621
REVIEWS: Jessica Logan, SEPA Review: Following review, staff has determined that the action proposed for the Commission by staff is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (14)(c)
Dennis Tate, Fiscal Impact Review: Approval of this item will allow the agency to seek additional spending authority and funding for both operations and capital development.
Michael Young, Assistant Attorney General: 9/12/17
Approved for Transmittal to Commission
______
Don Hoch, Director
7
Appendix 1
OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTIONS FOR 2018 SUPPLEMENTAL
BUDGET SUBMITTALS - Dated August 8, 2017
8
Appendix 1 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTIONS FOR 2018 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET SUBMITTALS - Dated August 8, 2017
9
Appendix 1 OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTIONS FOR 2018 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET SUBMITTALS - Dated August 8, 2017
10
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Appendix 2 2018 Operating Budget Supplemental Request Revised - September 25, 2017 Title/Description of Agency Request FTEs Dollars Fund
358,000 PRSA Compensation Costs 0.0 170,000 Gen. Fnd.
Costs associated with class compression and inversion pay increases resulting from the $12 minimum wage increase and specific job classification pay increases. This request brings funding levels up to those needed to pay for budgeted staffing levels.
Discover Pass Fulfillment 0.0 320,000 PRSA
Additional costs for printing and fulfillment of Discover Passes resulting from a higher demand for passes than originally projected.
100,000 PRSA - PL Spending Authority Increases 0.0 160,000 ORV
1) Raise spending authority limit for PRSA - Private/Local to expected level of spending - $100,000. 2) Increased cost of road maintenance for ORV park at Riverside - $160,000
Attorney General Costs 0.0 8,000 Gen. Fnd.
Pay State Parks' portion of attorney's fees for litigation - Boldt/Culverts case.
Forest Health & Wildfire Prevention 0.0 500,000 Gen. Fnd.
Dollars to pay for an increase in wildfire fuel reduction efforts to protect State Parks' lands by reducing the risk of wildfires.
11
Preventive Maintenance 0.0 800,000 Gen. Fnd.
Dollars to pay for additional supplies and materials for preventive maintenance projects resulting from the diversion of staff time from deferred maintenance to preventive maintenance.
Total Request 0.0 2,416,000
Fund Summary FTEs Dollars
General Fund 0.0 1,478,000
Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account (PRSA) 0.0 678,000
ORV/Non-highway Vehicle Account 0.0 160,000
Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account - Private Local 0.0 100,000
Total Request 0.0 2,416,000
12
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Appendix 3 2018 Supplemental Capital Budget Request Revised - September 25, 2017
Agency Program/ Proposed Priority Project Title Preservation Budget
1 Cape Disappointment – North Head Buildings and Ground Improvements Preservation 2,695,000
2 Fort Flagler – WW1 Historic Facilities Preservation Preservation 3,386,000
3 Dash Point – Replace Bridge (Pedestrian) Preservation 582,000
4 Fort Casey – Lighthouse Historic Preservation Preservation 217,000
5 Fort Simcoe – Historic Officers Quarters Renovations Preservation 292,000
6 Moran Summit Learning Center – Interpretive Facility Programmatic 300,000
7 Statewide – Depression Era Structures Restoration Assessment Preservation 819,000
8 Mount Spokane – Maintenance Facility Relocation from Harms Way Preservation 2,124,000
9 Fort Worden – Replace Failing Sewer Lines Preservation 2,320,000
10 Penrose Point – Sewer Improvements Preservation 450,000
11 Ocean City – Replace Non-Compliant Comfort Stations Preservation 1,606,000
12 Kopachuck – Day Use Development Programmatic 5,619,000
13 Lake Chelan – Moorage Dock Pile Replacement Preservation 1,596,000
14 Fields Spring – Replace Failed Sewage Sys & Non-ADA Comfort Station Preservation 1,167,000
16 Palouse Falls – Day Use Area Renovation Programmatic 220,000
17 Lake Sammamish – Sunset Beach Picnic Area Programmatic 2,760,000
18 Goldendale Observatory – Observatory Enhancements Phase 4 Programmatic 2,650,000
28 Clean Vessel Boating Pump-Out Grant N/A 2,600,000
29 Local Grant Authority N/A 2,000,000
30 Federal Grant Authority N/A 750,000
13
37 Statewide – Facility & Infrastructure Backlog Reduction Preservation 4,250,000
38 Minor Works – Health and Safety Preservation 1,049,000
38.1 Fort Worden Campus Fire Alarm Systems Preservation 192,000
38.2 Statewide - Code/Regulatory Compliance Preservation 857,000
40 Minor Works – Program Programmatic 1,241,000
40.1 Fort Casey ADA improvement (Battery Worth) Programmatic 359,000
40.2 Ike Kinswa ADA Dock Programmatic 298,000
40.4 Statewide - Ice Age Floods Interpretive Exhibits Programmatic 389,000
40.5 Statewide Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Programmatic 195,000
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Proposed 2018 Supplemental Budget - Revised (Continued)
Agency Program/ Proposed Priority Project Title Preservation Budget
42 Minor Works – Facilities and Infrastructure Preservation 4,146,000
42.1 Blake Island Replace Main Lift Station Preservation 460,000
42.2 Fort Casey Building 25 Rehabilitation Preservation 295,000
42.3 Fort Worden Replace Overhead Electrical Supply Preservation 479,000
42.4 Illahee Replace Failing Drainfield Preservation 807,000
42.5 Schafer Renovate Historic Structures Preservation 862,000
42.6 Statewide - Historic Window Rehabilitation Preservation 250,000
42.7 Statewide - Provide Event Infrastructure Preservation 993,000
43 Marine Facilities – Various Locations: Moorage Float Replacement Preservation 569,000
45 Statewide – Water System Renovation Programmatic 500,000
46 Statewide – Septic System Renovation Programmatic 250,000
14
47 Statewide – Electrical System Renovation Programmatic 750,000
48 Steptoe Butte – Road Improvements Preservation 466,000
49 Statewide – New Park Programmatic 313,000
51 Statewide – Trail Renovations (Footbridges) Preservation 280,000
52 Schafer – Relocate Campground Preservation 742,000
53 Birch Bay – Replace Failing Bridge Preservation 337,000
54 Willapa Hills Trail – Develop Safe Multi-Use Trail Crossing at SR 6 Programmatic 422,000
55 Twin Harbors State Park Renovation Programmatic 496,000
56 Beacon Rock – Entrance Road Realignment Preservation 366,000
57 Fort Worden – Replace Failing Water Lines Preservation 377,000
58 Statewide – ADA Compliance Preservation 1,000,000
61 Fort Worden – Pier & Marine Learning Center: Improve or Replace Preservation 734,000
78 Parkland Acquisition Programmatic 2,000,000
100 St. Edward State Park Environmental Learning Center Programmatic 75,000
Moran Summit Learning Center - Restroom (Reappropriation NA Adjustment) Programmatic 216,000 NA Sun Lakes - Lift Station Preservation 150,000
NA Steamboat Rock (Reappropriation Adjustment) Programmatic 173,000
NA Millersylvania and Ocean City - Fish Barrier Removal (Lawsuit-related) Preservation 500,000
Total 55,382,000
Note : Numbers do not contain potential, additional inflation adjustments.
15
Item E-2: Mount Spokane State Park Shop Compound Relocation: Land Classification Revision – Requested Action
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to re-classify about 40-acres of land at Mount Spokane State Park to facilitate relocation of the park’s maintenance shop compound. This item aligns with Agency core values and advances the Commission Strategic Plan: “Demonstrate all Washingtonians benefit from their State Parks.”
SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Mount Spokane State Park encompasses 14,833-acres and is characterized by forested lands, steep slopes, and sub-alpine meadows. Valuable habitat and rugged in appearance, Mount Spokane (5,883’) is a 425 million-year-old landform and southernmost major peak of the Selkirk Range.
For many hundreds of years, Mount Spokane has been significant to Native Americans and although “few ethnographic or historic sources state specific aboriginal land uses associated with Mount Spokane,” early accounts refer to the hills and mountains north of the Spokane River as “prime berry and game areas” (Luttrell Cultural Resources Investigations for the Mount Spokane State Park ... Short Report 693, Cheney: Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, 2000).
Established in 1927 as a 1,400-acre state park, the land remained largely undeveloped until the 1930s, when the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) constructed new roads, administrative, and recreational buildings including the iconic Vista House. Over the following decades, the park underwent a period of land expansion with a mix of large donations and small purchases from private and public parties.
Today, favorable climatic conditions in the summer and shoulder seasons, coupled with intense winter weather, create opportunities for a wide variety of recreational activities. The park receives 300 inches of snowfall per year making it a popular wintertime destination. Activities include snowboarding, downhill alpine and cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. A concession-operated ski area features numerous runs, 5 chair lifts, 2 lodges, a ski patrol building, and various administrative support buildings. Many trails are groomed by State Parks providing access to the backcountry. This network of trails is also popular in warmer weather and primarily supports hiking, biking, and equestrian uses. The trail network features: • 90-miles bicycling • 100-miles hiking • 100-miles equestrian • 21-miles Nordic skiing • 50-miles snowmobiling
Other park facilities include a small 12-unit campground located near Bald Knob. A recently restored cabin originally constructed by the CCC is a destination and rest area for winter
16
recreationists. The main park office is located on the entrance road adjacent to the shop compound (Figures 1 and 2).
Figure 1. Shop compound with park office (2017).
Figure 2. Contemporary aerial photograph of the shop compound showing facilities.
Flood Event at Shop Compound In August 2008, the shop compound adjacent to the park office flooded when Burping Brook overran its banks, undermining the concrete foundation of the sand shed and eroding State Route 206 (SR 206) (Figures 3 and 4). The event severed vehicular access to the buildings and equipment. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) permitted emergency repairs, but as a condition of WDFW approval, required State Parks to move the facility and restore ecological function of the stream. In response, a fish friendly 15’-wide box culvert under the main park road was installed to re-establish access in the short-term. Repair of the sand shed and shop compound, however, required a long-term solution as future flood events were likely.
17
As a result, plans were made to move the entire shop compound to an appropriate location elsewhere.
Figure 3. Flood damage at entrance of shop compound (2008).
Figure 4. Flood damage to shed building (2008).
The Mount Spokane State Park Management Plan (2003) recommends acquisition and relocation of the shop compound to the Kirk’s Lodge (Bear Creek Lodge) property. The plan further recommends the existing shop compound be “reconfigured for additional parking and stream bank rehabilitation” (Appendix 1).
Today, the shop compound remains in peril as Burping Brook runs underneath it, flowing through a 160-foot long culvert (Figure 2). The agency received a $384,000 appropriation to complete design and engineering of a shop compound during the 2015-17 biennium. Staff
18 included an additional $2.5 million to construct the facility in the agency’s 2017-19 capital budget request. While construction funds appear in all legislative budget proposals, a final capital budget has not yet been passed by the Legislature.
Alternatives Analysis Relocation of the shop compound is complicated by Mount Spokane’s topographical constraints and limited roadway access. Generally, the shop compound must be strategically located at the lowest elevation possible, outside stream and wetland buffer areas, and on relatively flat, buildable land. Maintenance equipment should be readily available near the park entrance during inclement weather to allow personnel to access it without having to first journey to the top of the mountain. In addition, the project must stand the rigor of the environmental review process while also meeting the most basic engineering requirements including adequate space, suitable soils, and proximity to utilities (Appendix 2).
In 2017, staff developed a matrix to analyze strengths and weaknesses of potential sites (Appendix 3). Specific locations were evaluated using several criteria. These included:
• Current classifications of potential sites • Elevation of proposed sites • Slopes • Adjacency to entrance road • Flat or buildable spaces • Availability of utilities • Proximity to other facilities • Distance to park entrance
Seven locations were evaluated, including the existing shop compound. The Bear Creek Lodge site, first identified in 1999 as a potential land acquisition, is ideally located at the lowest possible elevation and adjacent to the park and SR 206. However, the property remains privately owned without a willing seller (Appendix 4).
The Ridgetop site is considered the best available alternative because it has the most utility with minimal detrimental effects on the environment. Its best attributes include a lower elevation, close proximity to the park entrance, adjacent to the entrance road, near to utility sources, and buildable. Regarding the environment, the Ridgetop site is located outside stream and wetland buffer zones (Appendix 4). The most significant drawbacks of this site include a requirement to clear trees and its current classification as Resource Recreation (which does not permit these kinds of facilities).
Other potential sites have been ruled out as a result of staff’s evaluation process. The sites include lands surrounding Building #1 (manager’s house) and Building #13 (Scout residence). Despite their designation as Recreation, field investigations indicated these sites are not suitable for future intensive development. To the contrary, research showed that they retained value for ecological restoration and improved habitat. Staff is therefore recommending reclassifying much of the land that surrounds these buildings from Recreation to Resource Recreation (Appendix 5).
19
Project Description The current character of the existing shop compound will change dramatically as a result of the relocation project. It will no longer appear as an industrial area, but rather appear naturalized. Generally, the project will remove all buildings associated with the existing shop compound, remove a 160-foot long culvert, and move equipment. It will restore the embankment of Burping Brook to allow the stream to meander more naturally and to enhance fish habitat. The park’s existing administrative facility will be retained in its current location adjacent to Mt. Spokane Road. A dirt-surfaced, two track road will be retained through installation of a WDFW approved culvert that will be fish friendly. Specific actions include:
• Demolishing the existing shop compound • Dismantling the existing sand shed and above-ground fuel shed and relocating them to the Ridgetop site. Demolishing foundations of both structures • Excavating 800-cubic yards of the parking lot • Ecologically restoring Burping Brook, which is channelized in the culvert • Retaining the existing service road by installing a fish friendly box culvert over Burping Brook.
The second work site referred to as the Ridgetop is located south of the entrance road (SR 206) near Linder’s Ridge. Initial work will include: • Clearing (2 acres), grubbing, and grading activities and constructing a new access road, shop buildings, and drain field. • Retaining about 100 feet of separation between the building complex and road, and enhance landscape with a ten-foot high, planted berm for screening. • Grading an acre of land with approximately 7,000 cubic yards of cut material to create a flat construction site. • Constructing a 500-foot long, 24-foot wide road to link the proposed shop area with the entrance road. • Grading the new road bed prism with 1,500 cubic yards of native soil cuts and 6,500 cubic yards of fill.
The site will take advantage of nearby utility sources. Water will be piped from an existing well near residence #2, located 2,300’ south. An underground line will be trenched along the fire road between the two sites, which currently provides a route for phone and effluent force main from the residence. Power will be extended from Residence #2. An on-site septic system will be developed in the vicinity of the new shop (Appendix 12).
Although the proposed shop compound will accommodate up to five structures to meet future operational needs, the short term plan will install three buildings and structures, including: • Shop building 80’ x 60’ (future additions may create a larger footprint of 120’ x 60’) • Sand shed 60’ x 20’ • Above-ground fuel tank with 30’ x 12’ foundation
20
Two additional buildings may be constructed either as bid alternates or at some point in future. These structures include a covered equipment shed 80’ x 40’ and another sand/salt storage building 40’ x 40’.
Mitigations To help offset environmental impacts associated with clearing and construction activities at the Ridgetop site, staff intends to undertake several mitigation measures. These include: • Restoring natural ecological functions to Burping Brook at the original shop site. • Restoring the unnamed creek at the existing manager’s house (Building #1) and replanting disturbed areas with native plants. • Reclassifying lands from Recreation to Resource Recreation around the original shop site, manager’s house, and Scout residence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Relocation of the shop compound is vital to effective and efficient park operation. Staff recommends that the Commission adjust existing land classifications to allow for relocation of the facility to the less sensitive Ridgetop site. Specific classification recommendations are outlined below.
Existing Shop Compound Burping Brook should be primarily reclassified as Resource Recreation in this area. This designation is considered the most appropriate because it cannot be developed in the future, weighting the proposed land classification towards natural resource protection (Appendices 6 and 7). The existing shop compound, about one-half acre in size, should be ecologically restored.
Manager’s House and Scout Residence The manager’s house and Scout residence, now entirely classified as Recreation, should be mostly re-classified as Resource Recreation. As a result of analysis conducted by staff, it is evident that the manager’s house and Scout residence can be retained, while also restoring the creeks that run adjacent to them along the entrance road (Appendices 8 and 9).
Ridgetop About one acre of land at the Ridgetop site, currently classified as Resource Recreation, should be re-classified as Recreation to allow for development of the new shop compound (Appendices 10 and 11).
The park’s current land classifications, adopted by the Commission in 2015, have the following distribution:
1. 58% Resource Recreation Area 2. 25% Natural Forest Area 3. 12% Recreation Area (includes portions of the PASEA)
21
4. 4% Unclassified 5. 0.39% Natural Area Preserve 6. 0.15% Heritage Area
The vast majority of park, about 8,600-acres, is now classified as Resource Recreation; about 3,700-acres as natural forest area; and about 1,700-acres as Recreation. Staff’s recommended classification revisions will affect about 40 acres of park land. Table 1 provides a breakdown of these individual sites and highlights their current and proposed land classifications by acreage. Appendices 4 and 5 include maps depicting existing and proposed land classification changes:
Table 1: Proposed Land Classification Revisions Location Name Acreage Current Proposed Re- Classification classification Existing Shop 0.5-acre Recreation 0.5-acre Res. Compound Rec. Manager’s 36.74-acres Recreation 32.56-acres Res. House and Scout Rec. Residence 4.18-acres Rec. Ridgetop Site 1-acre Resource 1-acre Rec. Recreation
Conditional Uses Activities conditionally permitted under the agency’s land classification system may be permitted at specific sites only with the concurrence of the Commission. At this time, there are no proposals for specific activities identified by the Commission as conditional that apply to the restored shop compound, the Ridgetop site, or in the areas of land that surround the manager’s house or Scout residence. If a conditional use is proposed in the future, staff will bring forward a staff recommendation for Commission consideration.
LEGAL AUTHORITY: RCW 79A.05.030 – Powers and duties - Mandatory RCW 79A.05.075 – Delegation of commission’s powers and duties to director
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
Appendix 1: Mount Spokane State Park Management Plan 2003 Appendix 2: Mount Spokane Land Classifications (2015) Appendix 3: Shop Compound Relocation Matrix Appendix 4: Existing Land Classification - Study Area Appendix 5: Proposed Land Classification - Study Area Appendix 6: Existing Land Classification – Shop Compound Appendix 7: Proposed Land Classification – Shop Compound Appendix 8: Existing Land Classification - Manager and Scout Residences Appendix 9: Proposed Land Classification - Manager and Scout Residences
22
Appendix 10: Existing Land Classification - Ridgetop Appendix 11: Proposed Land Classification - Ridgetop Appendix 12: Master Plan New Shop Compound at Ridgetop (2017)
REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Adopt land classification revision as included in Appendices 5, 7, 9, and 11, and as recommended by staff. 2. Direct staff to seek funding for the ecological restoration of the streams and wetlands located adjacent to the manager’s house and Scout residence. ______Author(s): Michael Hankinson, Parks Planner [email protected] (360) 902-8671
Reviewer(s): Jessica Logan, SEPA Review: Pursuant to WAC 197-11-310 and WAC 197-11-350, staff issued a “Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance” on September 1, 2017 for the preliminary staff recommendation finding that, with consideration of the proposed mitigation, there are no significant environmental impacts. Chris Leeper, Fiscal Impact Review: Costs associated with implementation of this agenda item would be assessed and identified, and if needed included in future operating and capital budget requests. Michael Young, Assistant Attorney General Review: September 5, 2017 Peter Herzog, Assistant Director
Approved for Transmittal to Commission:
______Don Hoch, Director
23
APPENDIX 1
MOUNT SPOKANE STATE PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN 2003
Issue Management Approach Policy Direction
Land Classification: The main park entrance and area surrounding the shop and administrative area is classified as a Recreation Area.
Main park entrance Programmatic Activities relocation and Shop facilities Park Recreational Resource Management Program: relocation/renovation (750R16) Long-term boundary: As part of the park property acquisition/surplus program, The Kirk’s Lodge property should be acquired.
Park Capital Project: Following acquisition of the Kirk’s Lodge Property, the existing park administrative area should be relocated to this site. The existing administrative area should then be reconfigured for additional parking and stream banks rehabilitated. The existing residence should remain at its present location
24
APPENDIX 2 MOUNT SPOKANE LAND CLASSIFICATIONS (2015)
25
APPENDIX 3 SHOP COMPOUND RELOCATION MATRIX
26
APPENDIX 4 MAP OF EXISTING LAND CLASSIFICATION - STUDY AREA
27
APPENDIX 5 MAP OF PROPOSED LAND CLASSIFICATIONS - STUDY AREA
28
APPENDIX 6 EXISTING LAND CLASSIFICATION – SHOP COMPOUND
29
APPENDIX 7 PROPOSED LAND CLASSIFICATION – SHOP COMPOUND
30
APPENDIX 8 EXISTING LAND CLASSIFICATION MANAGER AND SCOUT RESIDENCES
31
APPENDIX 9 PROPOSED LAND CLASSIFICATION MANAGER AND SCOUT RESIDENCES
32
APPENDIX 10 EXISTING LAND CLASSIFICATION - RIDGETOP
33
APPENDIX 11 PROPOSED LAND CLASSIFICATION - RIDGETOP
34
APPENDIX 12 MASTER PLAN NEW SHOP COMPOUND AT RIDGETOP (2017)
35
Item E-3: Agency Request Legislation for the 2018 Session – Requested Action
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item asks the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission to establish principles to evaluate statutory proposals for the 2018 legislative session, approve agency request legislation subjects, and delegate to the Director authority, in consultation with the Commission’s Legislative Committee and relevant stakeholders, to submit specific agency request legislation. This item aligns with Agency core values and advances the Commission Strategic Plan: “Demonstrate that all Washingtonians benefit from their state parks”.
SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 2017 session of the Washington State Legislature left several agency initiatives unresolved. While the Governor did sign into law agency request legislation that established vessel impound authority for marine law enforcement, agency requests to 1) share Discover Pass citation fine money, and 2) increase flexibility in the use of boating safety card revenue, each passed only one chamber of the legislature. Uncertain too, at the time of this writing, is the status of the agency’s capital budget. Failure to pass a state capital budget froze all new State Parks capital projects. It also held back specific State Parks provisos in both the latest versions of the House and Senate budgets directing the agency what prepare reports on its budget implementation approach. Spending authority too has been held up for millions of dollars of grants the agency has received. Finally, three Commission positions have also been left unconfirmed by the Senate during the 2017 session.
One budget proviso that still is in effect from the 2016 legislative session, directed State Parks, in partnership with the Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife, to prepare a report containing options and recommendations for making the recreational access fee system more simple, consistent and equitable. This report is due on December 1. Results from that report may include relatively minor changes to access fee programs and/or a more substantial overhaul of the relationship between agencies and fee programs. The Commission will be given an update on progress of the proviso project at its September and November meetings. It is possible that specific recommendations from the report may become Governor-request legislation.
In 2016, the Commission set the following principles as a basis for evaluating statutory proposals during the 2017 legislative session:
1. Budgetary adequacy and stability. 2. Flexibility for the Commission in generating revenue or creating operational efficiencies. 3. Increasing opportunities for Washingtonians to connect with their natural and cultural heritage in state parks.
36
4. Clearing up inconsistencies in authority and procedure with other jurisdictions and with our internal systems.
Staff recommends a continuance of those principles as the basis for evaluating potential legislation during the 2018 legislative session.
Since the 2017 session, no significant policy issues have arisen which has prompted staff to recommend no new request legislation. The two remaining pieces of 2017 request legislation dealing with Discover Pass citation fine sharing and boating safety funding remain on the docket. The recreation access fee proviso may have worthy elements to support, but that report comes after the agency deadline for submittal of request legislation.
LEGAL AUTHORITY: RCW 79A.05.030(1)
REQUESTED ACTION OF COMMISSION: That the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission: 1. Approve staff recommended legislative principles as described in this agenda item. 2. Agree that no additional agency request legislation for the 2018 session is needed unless the Director determines a need is warranted. ______Author/Contact(s): Daniel Farber, Director, Policy and Governmental Affairs [email protected] (360) 902-8504
Reviewer(s): Jessica Logan, SEPA REVIEW: Following review, staff has determined that the action proposed for the Commission by staff is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (14)(h). Shelly Hagen, Fiscal Review: There is no anticipated fiscal impact from the potential Boating Program legislation. If the proposed legislation for the Discover Pass citations is the same as SSB 6297 (appendix A), the fiscal impact to State Parks would be approximately $110,000 in revenue loss per biennium. This estimate is derived from the fiscal note prepared for SSB 6297. Michael Young, Assistant Attorney General: September 12, 2017
Approved for Transmittal to Commission
______Don Hoch, Director
37
Item E-4: 2016/2017 Winter Recreation Program - Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item reports to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Winter Recreation Program and highlights program accomplishments. This item aligns with agency core values and advances the Commission Strategic Plan: “Providing recreation, cultural, and interpretive opportunities people will want”.
SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the June 12, 2008 meeting, the Commission adopted a 10-year strategic plan for the Winter Recreation Program, and directed staff to annually report progress on implementation. One of the Guiding Principles of the plan was that the program be more clearly integrated as a program of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Also, an objective of the plan was to ensure that the program has Advisory Committees that are full partners.
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, in January 2011, authorized the State Parks Director to make appointments to the Snowmobile Advisory Committee and the Winter Recreation Advisory Committee. These committees, mandated by the Legislature, represent motorized and non-motorized users throughout the state. To these ends, staff seeks to keep the Commission and the Advisory Committees well-informed about the status of the Winter Recreation Program and has prepared this report explaining accomplishments since the last report.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Appendix 1: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Winter Recreation Strategic Plan 2008-2018 Accomplishments Appendix 2: Chapter 352-56 WAC Winter Recreational Program Account Grants and Contracts Appendix 3: Snowmobile Advisory Committee and Winter Recreation Advisory Committee members
38
Author: Pamela McConkey, Winter Recreation Program Manager [email protected] (360) 902-8595
Reviewer(s): Jessica Logan, SEPA Review: Pursuant to WAC197-11-704, staff has determined that this Commission agenda item is a report and therefore is not subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Christeen Leeper, Fiscal Review: Report only, no fiscal impact. Michael Young, Assistant Attorney General: Report only, no impact at this time. Mike Sternback, Assistant Director:
Approved for transmittal to Commission
______Don Hoch, Director
WINTER RECREATION PROGRAM REPORT
39
The Winter Recreation Program consists of the following components: • Snowmobile • Non-Motorized Winter Recreation
The Winter Recreation Program consists of a total of 4.25 FTEs, a Program Manager, Operations Manager, Administrative Assistant, and Office Assistant and shared Fiscal Analyst.
Budgets: Staff working with the appropriate Advisory Committees held summer funding meetings to review the expenditures of the past Fiscal Year and recommend the budgets for the current Fiscal Year and the 2017/2018 Winter Season. Each program experienced an increase in revenue over the previous year due to an early and respectable snow fall. This snow fall resulted in an increased number of snowmobiles registered and an increase in sno-park permit sales.
2008-2018 Strategic Plan Accomplishments: The Winter Recreation Strategic Plan adopted by the Commission in 2008, included an analysis of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) of the Winter Recreation Program at that time. Appendix 1 will show the major accomplishments of that Strategic Plan.
Proposed WAC 352-56 changes: Staff will be requesting the Commission approved proposed minor housekeeping and administrative correction changes to WAC 352-56 during the November 16, 2017 Commission meeting. These changes reflect the recodification of RCW 43.51 to the current RCW 79A.05; clarification regarding funding priorities and minor housekeeping. Appendix 2
The Winter Recreation Programs: Both the Snowmobile Program and the Non-Motorized Program are self-sustaining; the snowmobile program relies on fees from snowmobile registrations and fuel tax revenue to fund operations. The Non-Motorized Program relies solely on fees from Sno-Park Permit sales to fund operations.
Snowmobile Program: The Snowmobile Program is a self-sustaining program relying on fees from snowmobile registrations and fuel tax revenue to fund operations. The fuel tax refund and registration fees collected each year will add up to approximately $94.20 per snowmobile to help fund the program. Current snowmobile registration is $50 per snowmobile per year. During the 2015 Legislative session, the legislature approved the state transportation package which increased the fuel tax refund for snowmobiles. The program continues to use the following formula: 135 gallons of fuel X the number of registered snowmobiles X $0.349. (According to statute, the fuel tax will be reviewed again in 2031) The fuel tax increase and the registration fee increase are expected to bring the snowmobile program back to an economically viable funding level.
40
49% Registrations 51% Fuel Tax
Snowmobile Registrations: Fiscal Year 2017 (ending June 30, 2017) - 25,239 Fiscal Year 2016 (ending June 30, 2016) – 25,148 Fiscal Year 2015 (ending June 30, 2015) - 20,179 Fiscal Year 2014 (ending June 30, 2014) - 24,689 Fiscal Year 2013 (ending June 30, 2013) - 28,329 Fiscal Year 2012 (ending June 30, 2012) - 28,426 Fiscal Year 2011 (ending June 30, 2011) - 31,406 Fiscal Year 2010 (ending June 30, 2010) - 29,704 Fiscal Year 2009 (ending June 30, 2009) - 32,279
Snowmobile Advisory Committee: During the Snowmobile Advisory Committee (SMAC) summer funding meeting the Committee recommended a total budget of $3,334,622 for FY18, which is $ 252,948 more than FY 17. This significant increase is largely due to the increase in snowmobile registration fees, and increase in the fuel tax rebate and the significant increase in snowmobile registrations. The budget is based on six funding priorities. The Committee recommends distribution of funds following the order of priority. The following chart illustrates the budget allocations for the Program. The largest expenditure is trail grooming which encompasses 70% of the budget.
FY 17 Budget Allocations
41
Non-Motorized Winter Recreation Program: Winter Recreation Advisory Committee During the Winter Recreation Advisory Committee (WRAC) summer funding meeting the Committee recommended a total budget of $1,488,189 for FY18, a decrease of $90,439 since FY17. This fund balance decrease represents a reduced carryover in equipment reserve due to the purchase of a new sno-cat for Lake Easton State Park. The total cost of the sno-cat was $222,480.
The budget is based on six funding priorities. The Committee recommends distribution of funds following the order of priority. The following chart illustrates the budget allocation for the Program. The largest expenditure is trail grooming which currently encompasses 23% of the budget.
FY 18 Budget Allocations WRAC Budget 2018
Admin Equipment 18% reserve 22% Snow E&E Removal 12% 16%
Trail Grooming Sanitation 29% 3%
2017/2019 Biennial Budget – Northwest Avalanche Center: During the 2016/2017 supplemental budget, the legislature directed that $50,000 be split and come from the dedicated snowmobile ($25,000) and non-motorized ($25,000) accounts rather than general fund. The Friends of the Northwest Avalanche Center, working with the Washington State Snowmobile Association and several Nordic Clubs requested this budget mandate be removed. The request was recognized during the biennial budget process, and the directed mandate of $100,000, shared between the two programs was removed. Recognizing the importance of the NWAC and a valuable partner to the Winter Recreation Program, each program resumed their previous contributions to NWAC ($7,500 from SMAC and $6,000 from WRAC).
Review of Operations: For the 2016/2017 winter season, the Snowmobile Program contracted with public and private entities to provide sanitary facilities and snow removal services at 72 sno-parks, and trail
42
grooming services on approximately 3,000 miles of snowmobile trails. The Non-Motorized Winter Recreation Program contracted with public and private entities to provide sanitary facilities and snow removal services at 37 sno-parks, and trail marking, grooming, and track setting on approximately 300 miles of cross-country ski, snowshoe, and dog sled trails. Due to the excessive snow fall, the Advisory Committees authorized additional funding be spent on snow removal in order to keep facilities open for the public. Staff prepared contract amendments across the state totaling nearly $100,000 for snow removal.
Networking/Communications: The Winter Recreation Program continues to participate in State Parks’ Twitter network and Facebook. We currently have 4,946 twitter followers, and we sent out 57 tweets (messages) during the fiscal year (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017).
Steering Committee Work: The Steering Committee did not meet during the spring of 2016. This committee will hold their next meeting in the fall of 2017. This committee is made up of 3 members from each Advisory Committee and focus on issues related to all winter recreation programs.
Sno-Park Permits: Current fee structure: Seasonal Sno Park Permit $40.00 Special Groomed Trail Sticker $40.00 Daily Sno Park Permit $20.00
PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
New Winter Recreation Program Mascots: Working with Washington State Parks’ Communications Team, and the State Parks Ranger Association’s Junior Ranger Program, the Winter Recreation Program has introduced two new program mascots, Matilda and Blake, both Snowshoe Hares. These two Mascots will assist staff in its outreach and educational program and can be seen riding snowmobiles, going for a day of cross country skiing, snow shoeing, dog mushing and sledding down a hill. State Parks’ staff have cooperatively developed materials (such as coloring and activity books, stickers, lapel pins, posters and more) to help teach young people about winter safety, keeping our environment clean, respecting wildlife, and the fun of recreating in the winter.
Contracts: Fourteen (14) contracts and agreements expired in 2017, including eight (8) snowmobile trail grooming contracts, and 6 agreements with U.S. Forest Service Ranger Districts, for services such as grooming, snow removal, and education and enforcement. New contracts were awarded and U. S. Forest Service Ranger District Agreements finalized during the Spring/Summer and Fall of 2017. These contracts were for trail grooming, snow removal and education and enforcement. Staff released Requests for Proposals for these expired contracts, compiled bid review panels and selected successful bidders. Contracts have been awarded for: Stemilt Colockum, Cle Elum River, Lake Chelan, Echo Valley, Entiat lake Wenatchee South, and Kings Lake Paupac. Bids currently out - due September 1st: Chinook Pass, Mt. Baker NW, Taneum
43
Manastash. These contracts are for 5 years with budget availability and reviews conducted annually for winter services. As part of the trail grooming contracts, a new requirement for each sno-cat (public and private) to be equipped with GPS tracking equipment installed on or within the machine with the data being readily available to State Parks has been included. Practices around the country and Canada have shown that this data resource accomplishes many objectives; provides transparency to audits, reduces paperwork required of the contractors, provides an additional layer of safety for groomer operators and emergency response, and provides accurate and timely information to the public.
New Hires: Lucas Spurgeon was hired in June 2017 as the new Equipment Inspector. Lucas is responsible for inspecting all the state park owned snow cats following the winter season and recommending all necessary repairs prior to the coming winter. His responsibilities include traveling to the many different locations in the state during the spring and summer months to inspect the snow cats. His experience in the winter equipment industry has proven to be of great value and highly regarded. Following his inspections and recommendations, the contracted area arranges for the necessary repairs and maintenance. There are currently 12 snow cats owned by State Parks Winter Recreation Program. These snow cats are made by three different manufacturers which Lucas is skilled in diagnostics, operating functions and manufacturer’s standards.
Trade Shows: Staff continues to be very active with Trade Show participation and nurturing existing partnerships and developing new ones. The Winter Recreation Program attends, on average, 5 trade shows each year and continues to be an active partner with the Manufactured Home and Recreation Vehicle Association (MHRV), the Spokane Winter Knights, the Bavarian Boondockers Snow Fest, the Snow Lander and the Washington State Snowmobile Association.
GOALS:
2018 Strategic Plan: The Winter Recreation Program Strategic Plan, prepared by staff with vast input from users across the state and approved by the State Parks Commission in 2008, has been under review and updating. The 2008 Strategic Plan has areas within the Plan that are unachievable and outdated. As shown in the strategic plan accomplishments, many areas of the 2008 plan have already been completed. With the help of winter recreation users we have developed a new 2018 plan that will be presented to State Parks for review and approval in 2018.
Contracts Expire 2018: Six (6)) contracts and agreements are expiring in 201, including three (3) trail grooming contracts, and 3 agreements with U.S. Forest Service Ranger Districts, for services such as trail grooming, snow removal, and education and enforcement.
44
APPENDIX 1
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Winter Recreation Strategic Plan 2008-2018 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Winter Recreation Strategic Plan adopted by the Commission in 2008, included an analysis of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) of the Winter Recreation Program at that time. This analysis became a valuable guide for subsequent work plans, as the Program attempted to build on the strengths, resolve or correct the weaknesses, exploit the opportunities, and avoid the threats that were identified. The following compendium of accomplishments describes the results of the Program’s efforts over the past nine years responding to this analysis and also carrying out many of the strategies identified in the Strategic Plan of 2008.
• Listened to and acted upon the expression of constituents’ desires for the program in the years to come. • Bolstered program funding for both motorized and non-motorized activities. Program funding has been increased through the efforts of the non-motorized advisory committee in 2009 and 2010 and with the support of the State Parks Commission. • Continued highlighting strong relationships with advisory committees and volunteers. • Increased emphasis on customer service. • Further integrated the Winter Recreation Program into the agency. • New marketing efforts in conjunction with the Agency Junior Ranger Program. • Operating Procedures that document Program processes have been written and approved by both Advisory Committees. • Funding growth in the motorized program has been accomplished through the hard work of the WSSA through legislative actions to increase registration fees and lift the fuel tax lid. • The Winter Recreation website is now regularly updated to give trail conditions and grooming status. • The roles, responsibilities and authority of advisory committee members and grooming councils have been clearly defined. • Brochures, maps and publications are updated on a regular basis. • Winter Recreation law enforcement has been improved and, working with our partner agencies, efforts have been focused on problem areas. • Relationships with a variety of non-profit organizations, clubs and landowners have been strengthened and new partnerships created. • Administrative tools and processes, including funding application forms and procedures, bidding and contracting practices, and budgeting methodologies, have been improved, clarified and streamlined. • Using signing, education and better communications, user conflicts have been reduced.
45
• Implementation of the Winter Recreation Steering Committee has increased the dialogue between the Snowmobile Advisory Committee and the Winter Recreation Advisory Committee, and improved communications and understanding among motorized and non- motorized users. • Winter Recreation staff meets regularly with local grooming councils and other organized user groups throughout the state to improved communications and stay abreast of area issues. • Local area plans are being developed in several communities around the state, including the Salmon Ridge non-motorized area and the Teanaway Community Forest.
In conclusion, staff, advisory committee members and users alike recognized that it was time to do an evaluation, identify needs, and set clear and achievable goals for the future. State Parks took this task seriously and has made and continues to make the necessary changes and adjustments within the programs to consistently provide transparent budgets, growth of participation within winter sports, acceptance of other users with shared parking areas and trails, and overall service improvements.
46
APPENDIX 2
Chapter 352-56 WAC
WINTER RECREATIONAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
Last Update: 11/29/16
WAC
352-56-010 Purpose.
352-56-020 Definitions.
352-56-030 Winter recreational programs.
352-56-040 Eligibility.
352-56-050 Application process.
352-56-060 Funding priorities.
352-56-070 Disbursement of funds.
352-56-080 Accountability.
WAC 352-56-010 Purpose. This chapter is promulgated in order to establish procedures by which the Washington state parks and recreation commission will administer grants and contracts supported by winter recreational program funds in accordance with chapter 79A.05 RCW.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 79A.05.250. WSR 83-13-033 (Resolution No. 69), § 352-56- 010, filed 6/17/83.]
WAC 352-56-020 Definitions. When used in this chapter the following words and phrases shall have the meanings designated in this section unless a different meaning is expressly provided or unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
(1) "Commission" means the Washington state parks and recreation commission.
(2) "Director" means the director of the Washington state parks and recreation commission.
(3) "Trail" means a corridor described by location and length which is designated for nonsnowmobile winter recreational activities.
(4) "Use area" means an area described by boundary and acreage in which nonsnowmobile winter recreational activities are authorized.
(5) "Winter recreational" means nonsnowmobile winter recreational activities, facilities, or programs.
47
(6) "Winter recreational program funds" means the funds deposited in the winter recreational program account which are administered by the Washington state parks and recreation commission pursuant to this chapter and chapter 79A.05 RCW.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 79A.05.250. WSR 83-13-033 (Resolution No. 69), § 352-56- 020, filed 6/17/83.]
WAC 352-56-030 Winter recreational programs. Winter recreational program funds may be disbursed by the commission for purposes which may include, but not be limited to, the administration, acquisition, development, operation, planning, and maintenance of winter recreational facilities, such as parking areas, sanitary facilities, trails, use areas, and equipment, and the development and implementation of winter recreational safety, enforcement, and education, and information programs.
All winter recreational facilities which receive winter recreational program funds must be open to the general public and meet all legally enforceable safety requirements.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 79A.05.250. WSR 83-13-033 (Resolution No. 69), § 352-56- 030, filed 6/17/83.]
WAC 352-56-040 Eligibility. Any public agency in the state of Washington is eligible to receive from the commission grants of winter recreational program funds to support up to one hundred percent of the cost of winter recreational programs.
Any public or private agency or person in the state of Washington is eligible to enter into contracts with the commission to receive winter recreational program funds to support up to one hundred percent of the cost of winter recreational programs.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 79A.05.250. WSR 83-13-033 (Resolution No. 69), § 352-56- 040, filed 6/17/83.]
WAC 352-56-050 Application process. In order to be considered by the commission for the receipt of winter recreational program funds, a public or private agency or person must:
(1) Complete an application on a form prescribed by the commission and file the application with the commission postmarked by June 1st prior to the beginning of the first snow season for which funds are requested.
(2) Obtain permission to conduct a program from all owners of the land on which a program is to occur and file documentation of such permission with the commission at the time of application for funds.
(3) Agree to:
48
(a) File with the commission an annual report on a program for which funds are received by May 15th after the end of each snow season for which funds are received;
(b) Return, or replace in kind, to the commission any losses to a program for which funds are received, if due to the action of a recipient of funds, a program is not completed in a timely manner or canceled; and
(c) Execute a contract with the commission on a program for which funds are received and fulfill all obligations of the contract.
(4) Certify to the commission that any facility for which funds are received will be open to the general public.
(5) Comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.
[Statutory Authority: Chapter 79A.05 RCW. WSR 16-24-019, § 352-56-050, filed 11/29/16, effective 12/30/16. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.51.330. WSR 83-13-033 (Resolution No. 69), § 352-56-050, filed 6/17/83.]
WAC 352-56-060 Funding priorities. The priorities for the distribution of winter recreational program funds by the commission shall be:
(1) Administration of a statewide winter recreational program which includes safety, education, and information programs;
(2) Operation and maintenance of winter recreational parking areas designated by the commission;
(3) Operation and maintenance of winter recreational use areas, trails, and other facilities which include an emergency reserve fund and an enforcement program;
(4) Acquisition and replacement of equipment to support winter recreational programs;
(5) Acquisition and development of new winter recreational facilities and equipment, trail maintenance, and services; and
(6) Support of special winter recreational programs, such as, but not limited to; increased law enforcement, safety education, expanded signing.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 79A.05.250. WSR 83-13-033 (Resolution No. 69), § 352-56- 060, filed 6/17/83.]
WAC 352-56-070 Disbursement of funds. Applicants for winter recreational program funds, whose requests are approved by the commission, may receive funds: (1) on a reimbursement basis after a billing which indicates satisfactory compliance with
49 a contract has been filed with the commission; or, (2) through an advance payment upon a written request to and approval by the director.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 79A.05.250. WSR 83-13-033 (Resolution No. 69), § 352-56- 070, filed 6/17/83.]
WAC 352-56-080 Accountability. Recipients of winter recreational program funds shall maintain accurate accounting records on the expenditure of the funds, provide the commission with these records upon request, and permit the commission to audit the use of the funds in accordance with generally accepted audit practices and standards.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 79A.05.250. WSR 83-13-033 (Resolution No. 69), § 352-56- 080, filed 6/17/83.]
50
APPENDIX 3
WINTER RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Gail Garman, Chair Lyn Alderson Trond Liaboe 8710 Oertel Drive 3310 Burch Mountain Road 1699 N Wolfe Penn Ct. Blaine, WA 98230 Wenatchee, Washington 98801 Liberty Lake WA 99019 [email protected] AREA 2 509-385-1722 AREA 1 AREA 3
Ken Guza John Baranowski Kellen Springer 1320 Evergreen Park Dr. SW #11 107 Selah Ridge Road 730 Redwood Lane Olympia, WA 98502 Selah, WA 98942 Richland, WA 99354 (360) 754-7371 AREA 5 (435) 760-9217 AREA 4 AREA 6
Jim Freeman Bob Seelye Tim Penelerick 3511 S. Woodward Rd Spokane 8609 Upper Peoh Point Road PO Box 961 Valley, WA 99206 Cle Elum, Washington 98922 Roslyn, WA 98941 (509) 993-4853 MOTORIZED (509) 649-2686 MOTORIZED MOTORIZED
Dept. of Natural Resources Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Association of Counties Public Use Forester II Webster Bergford Laura Osiadacz Nancy Barker 600 Capitol Way N 205 W 5th Ave Ste 108 950 Farman Ave N Olympia, WA 98501 Ellensburg, WA 98926-2887 Enumclaw, WA 98022 (360) 902-2408 (509) 962-7508 (253) 312-4301
51
SNOWMOBILE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mike Couch, Vice Chair Bob Henrie Vacant P.O. Box 1371 640 Broadway St AREA 3 Lyman, WA 98263 P.O. Box 316 (360) 708-1400 Conconully, WA 98819 [email protected] (509) 322-2323 AREA 1 AREA 2
Katie Sharkey Devin Dekker, Chair Vacant 110 Stepping Stone Street 7660 North Fork Road AREA 6 Kalama, WA 98625 Yakima, WA 98903 AREA 4 (509) 945-1741 AREA 5
Ray Thygesen Vacant Michael Johnston P.O. Box 423 NON-MOTORIZED 50 Nelson Creek Road 39 Little Mountain Road Cle Elum, WA 98922 Trout Lake, Washington 98650 (425) 466-4993 NON-MOTORIZED [email protected] NON-MOTORIZED
Dept. of Natural Resources Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Vacant Statewide Recreation Enforcement Officer Association of Counties Kirk Thomas Severin Erickson PO Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 (360) 902-1047
52
Item E-5: Financial (Operating and Capital) Update - Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item reports to the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission on the status of: 1) State Parks’ 2015-17 biennium operating and capital budget expenditures, 2) 2015-17 Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account (PRSA) revenue, and 3) a status of State Parks’ 2017-19 operating and capital budget requests. This item aligns with Agency core values and advances the Commission Strategic Plan: “Adopting a business approach to park system administration”.
LAST BIENNIUM FINANCIAL INFORMATION (2015-17)
Numbers presented in Appendix 1 for the 2015-17 biennium are preliminary and not final. However, we do not expect any further adjustments to the numbers as the financial records are finalized.
2015-17 Biennium Operating Budget and Expenditures: State Parks’ 2015-17 biennial operating budget ended at $171.4 million. The general operations budget was reduced to $150.7 million as a result of the 2017 supplemental, which contained a downward PRSA appropriation adjustment of $2.3 million. Of the $150.7 million, $31.7 million was supported by $21.7 million in tax dollars from the General Fund and $10.0 million in Litter Tax revenue. The remainder was supported by earned revenue.
The Agency ended with a positive spending variance for the 2015-17 biennium. The variance was 3.1% for general operations and 5.3% for all funds.
The June 30, 2017 ending fund balance for the PRSA is $8.9 million.
2015-17 Biennium Capital Budget and Expenditures: As of June 30, 2017, State Parks’ capital budget was $93.2 million ($61.6 million in the State Building and Construction Account). The budget includes direct appropriations, re-appropriations, grants, spending authority, and dollars received through interagency agreements. Spending for the biennium from the State Building and Construction Account totaled $40.2 million ($33.8 million on new projects and $6.4 million on re-appropriated projects). This results in a spending variance of $21.4 million, or 34.7%, on a biennium-to-date basis. The projected re-appropriation rate for projects is over 25%.
2015-17 Biennium Revenue: The final 2015-17 earned revenue forecast for the PRSA was $104.4 million. In addition, the agency received $10 million in Litter Tax revenue that was deposited into the PRSA account for a total of $114.4 million in expected revenue.
53
Collectively, PRSA revenue collections for Discover Pass sales, camping, cabins and other lodging, “opt-out” donations through the Department of Licensing, and other earned revenue were 0.1% above estimates for the biennium.
Comparing biennium-to-date revenue collections against estimates for the five categories shows: 1) Discover Pass revenue was 0.1% below projection 2) Camping revenue was 0.8% below projection 3) Cabins and other lodging revenue was the same as the projection 4) Donations through the “opt out” program were 0.4% below projection 5) Other revenue sources were 3.1% above projection
CURRENT BIENNIUM BUDGET INFORMATION (2017-19)
2017-19 Earned Revenue Forecast. The May 2017 earned revenue forecast for the 2017-19 was lowered by $0.9 million, from $111.1 million to $110.2 million. This represented a 0.8% decline in the forecast. Subsequently, the revenue forecast was updated in August. The new forecast, which will be used for the supplemental budget, is $107.2 million. This level represents a $3.0 million decline (2.7%) from the May forecast.
The primary reason for the August forecast decline is the decrease in “opt out” donations collected through the Department of Licensing (DOL). State Parks and DOL worked together to identify potential causes for this decline. This review resulted in DOL implementing a correction to their new web site. In addition, data recently collected points to reduced participation rates by citizens who renew their vehicle registrations in person. State Parks and DOL will continue to work together to implement education, outreach, or other efforts that will be aimed at improving the donation rates of these citizens.
2017-19 Operating Budget Spending Plans (Allotments). Since the last Commission meeting, the legislature passed a 2017-19 operating budget. Spending plans for the operating budget were finalized and submitted to the Office of Financial Management (OFM) for approval. (When OFM approves the allotments in September 2017 regular financial reports will be available to the Commission in future months).
In total, the agency’s budget is $165.4 million, of which $144.7 million is for general operations. The general operations budget is supported by $19.6 million in General Fund dollars, $10.0 million in Litter Tax revenue and $115.1 million in earned revenue.
This funding level represents a maintenance level budget for the agency as FTEs are funded at about the same level as 2015-17. To stay within spending levels, keep a sufficient fund balance in the PRSA, and absorb unanticipated, additional costs associated with having no capital budget, the agency will need to tighten spending.
The transportation budget, which was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, provided State Parks with $986,000 in funding as expected. This is the same level of funding as in the 2015-17 biennium.
54
2017-19 Capital Budget. At the time this report was written, the legislature had passed a capital re-appropriation bill but not a full capital budget. Allotments for the re-appropriations were finalized and submitted to the Office of Financial Management for approval. The total allotted was $16.1 million.
An update regarding the status of the capital budget, as well as agency contingency planning for having no capital budget for the 2017-19 biennium, will be provided as part of the oral presentation of this report.
2018 Supplemental Budget Request(s). Proposals for 2018 operating and capital supplemental budget requests for Commission consideration are identified in a separate requested action.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Appendix 1: 2015-17 Operating and Capital Budget Financial Report Appendix 2: 2015-17 Parks Renewal and Stewardship Account (PRSA) Revenue Summary Appendix 3: 2015-17 PRSA Collections – FY17 Compared to FY16 Appendix 4: 2017-19 Earned Revenue Forecast – May 2017 versus August 2017 ______Author/Contact(s): Shelly L. Hagen, Assistant Director, Administrative Services [email protected], (360) 902-8621
Reviewer(s): Jessica Logan, SEPA Review: Pursuant to WAC197-11-704, staff has determined that this Commission agenda item is a report and therefore is not subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Christeen Leeper, Fiscal Review: Report only, no fiscal impact. Michael Young, Assistant Attorney General: Report only, no impact at this time.
Approved for Transmittal to Commission
______Don Hoch, Director
55
APPENDIX 1 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FINANCIAL REPORT 2015-17 BIENNIUM As of June 30, 2017
Operating Budget:
Biennial Expenditures Percent Fund/Account Balance Budget To Date Spent
General Operating Funds General Fund - State* 21,667,000 21,667,000 0 100.0% Parks Renewal and Stewardship Acct. (PRSA) 129,062,027 124,416,417 4,645,610 96.4%
Subtotals 150,729,027 146,083,417 4,645,610 96.9%
Other Funds
PRSA/Dedicated Funds** 20,675,076 16,256,331 4,418,745 78.6%
Totals 171,404,103 162,339,748 9,064,355 94.7% * Includes Avalanche Center and LID Property Assessments ** Restricted for private/local grants, donations, Boating and Winter Recreation Programs, ORV, Roads, and non-appropriated funds
PRSA Fund Balance Information:
Date Balance June 30, 2015 19,495,145 June 30, 2017 8,914,440
Capital Budget:
Biennial Expenditures Percent Funding Source Balance Budget To Date Spent New Projects - State Bldg. Constr. Acct. 53,428,000 33,851,883 19,576,117 63.4% Reappropriations - State Bldg. Contstr. Acct. 8,190,538 6,369,169 1,821,369 77.8% Subtotals 61,618,538 40,221,052 21,397,486 65.3%
Grants/Donations/Pass Through Funds State Grants/Donations/Parkland Acquisition* 28,234,274 11,336,933 16,897,341 40.2% Federal Grants/Pass through Funds** 3,350,000 1,584,449 1,765,551 47.3% Totals 93,202,812 53,142,434 40,060,378 57.0% * Includes private/local spending authority for grants including re-appropriations ** Includes Clean Vessel grants issued to other entities, and spending authority for grants
56
APPENDIX 2 PARKS RENEWAL AND STEWARDSHIP ACCOUNT (PRSA) REVENUE SUMMARY 2015-17 Biennium As of June 30, 2017
Percent Biennial Estimate Actuals Variance To Actuals Revenue Category Estimate To Date To Date Date Over/Under To Date Discover Pass Sales 37,000,124 37,000,124 36,980,126 (19,998) -0.1% Camping & Related Sources 32,950,828 32,950,828 32,702,098 (248,730) -0.8% Cabins/Yurts/Other Lodging 4,782,189 4,782,189 4,783,261 1,072 0.0% License Renewal Donations 14,312,764 14,312,764 14,261,138 (51,626) -0.4% Other * 15,353,498 15,353,498 15,828,820 475,322 3.1% Subtotal 104,399,403 104,399,403 104,555,444 156,041 0.1%
Litter Tax 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 - 0.0% Totals 114,399,403 114,399,403 114,555,444 156,041 0.1% * Other revenue sources include leases, reservation fees, retreat centers, boat moorage and watercraft launch fees, day use fees, etc.
Percent of Revenue Collected by Source
8.7% Discover Pass Sales 32.2%
Camping Related Sources 28.6% 13.8% 32.2% Cabins/Yurts/Other Lodging 4.2%
License Renewal Donations 12.5% 12.5%
Other 13.8%
4.2% 28.6% Litter Tax 8.7%
57
APPENDIX 3 EARNED REVENUE FORECAST 2015-17 PARKS RENEWAL AND STEWARDSHIP ACCOUNT COLLECTIONS FY17 COMPARED TO FY16 % Change % Actuals FY 2016 FY 2017 Revenue Category FY16 to FY17 Over/Under Actuals Actuals Actuals Forecast Discover Pass Sales 17,961,124 19,019,002 5.9% (0.1%) Camping & Related Sources * 16,157,776 16,544,323 2.4% (0.8%) Cabins/Yurts/Other Lodging 2,238,654 2,544,608 13.7% 0.0% License Renewal Donations 7,474,765 6,786,374 (9.2%) (0.4%) Other ** 7,929,085 7,899,735 (0.4%) 3.1% Total 51,761,403 52,794,041 2.0% 0.1%
*Camping and Cabins/Yurts/Other Lodging amount are net of sales & lodging taxes. **Other sources include leases, reservation fees, retreat centers, boat moorage and watercraft launch fees, day use fees, etc.
58
APPENDIX 4 2017 EARNED REVENUE FORECAST PARKS RENEWAL AND STEWARDSHIP ACCOUNT FORECAST COMPARISON - MAY 2017 VERSUS AUGUST 2017 May August % Revenue Category 2017 2017 Change
Discover Pass Sales 39,808,000 39,961,000 0.4%
Camping & Related Sources 34,601,000 34,469,000 (0.4%)
Cabins/Yurts/Other Lodging 5,396,000 5,477,000 1.5%
License Renewal Donations 15,108,000 12,100,000 (19.9%)
*Other 15,284,000 15,186,000 (0.6%)
Total 110,197,000 107,193,000 (2.7%)
* Other revenue sources include leases, reservation fees, retreat centers, boat moorage and watercraft launch fees, day use fees, etc.
59
Item E-6: Natural Heritage Initiative – Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report provides the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission with an update on the status of the agency’s Natural Heritage Initiative. This item aligns with Agency core values and advances the Commission Strategic Plan, “Demonstrate that all Washingtonians benefit from their state parks.”
SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (State Parks) manages a total of 140,471 acres (Table 1), the vast majority of which are uplands. Most park landscapes are either undeveloped or lightly modified to accommodate low-intensity recreational use (e.g., hiking trails).
Table 1. An overview of State Parks lands (June 2017).
Resources Acres Total area managed by State Parks 140,471 Total Uplands 122,908 (87.5%) Total Aquatic (tidelands, bedlands, rivers, lakes) 17,563 (12.5%) Classification Lands classified Recreation (developed / high intensity recreation) 30,706 (21.9%) Lands classified Resource Recreation or Natural (low intensity recreation) 88,580 (63.2%) Other (Heritage, unclassified) 20,582 (14.8%)
Since 2013, the Stewardship Program has been working to advance the Natural Heritage Initiative (Table 2), with a focus on upland habitats. Specifically, staff has sought to gain a greater understanding of the quality and conservation significance of park system’s natural resources, and to develop a systematic approach to identifying priority habitats for restoration and protection. To-date, approximately 111,500 acres of State Parks’ uplands have received baseline vegetation and rare plant surveys (an effort that began in 2001). These surveys have gathered specific data (e.g., plant associations, rare plant populations), as well as more generalized data (e.g., exotic vegetation cover, disturbance indicator, ecological condition), describing the composition and condition of the agency’s natural resources. Presently, up to 120 metrics have been recorded in more than 5,000 vegetation polygons. (An example of a recent survey conducted at Sucia Island State Park, including a listing of the metrics, will be available at the meeting for the Commission to review). Information from these efforts informs a variety of agency and Commission actions, including: the siting of capital developments, the selection of recreational uses locations (e.g., metal detecting areas), the classification of lands, and the identification of priority sites for stewardship actions.
Table 2. State Parks’ Natural Heritage Initiative.
60
The overarching purpose of the natural heritage initiative is to develop a systematic plan for protecting and restoring natural plant and animal communities in state parks, conveying their significance to the public, and enlisting the public’s participation and support in conserving them. Elements of this initiative include: • Assembling field data and assessing the significance, integrity and risks to State Parks’ ecological resources. • Recommending priorities for treatment of plant and animal communities (e.g., protection, restoration, enhancement). • Identifying financial and in-kind resources to accomplish treatments. • Developing materials and methods to convey the significance of the state parks resource, the threats it faces, and enlist the public in supporting the agency’s stewardship efforts.
State Parks is rich in native habitats. The upland portions of the park system cover approximately 0.25% of Washington’s landmass, yet they contain representative examples of more than one quarter of its 975 native plant associations1 and one half of its 90 ecological systems. Based on these vegetation classifications, approximately 13% of surveyed uplands support habitats ranked as “Imperiled” or “Critically Imperiled” at the global-level, while a similar portion (12.5%) of the park system is ranked as being “Globally Vulnerable” (moderate risk of extinction). When other habitat attributes and species are considered in addition to vegetation communities (e.g., rare plant and animal species, functional size, connectivity, proximity to water, presence of old growth, and ecological condition), 82% of the park system supports one or more metrics of conservation significance. These metrics, used in the agency’s Significant Natural Resources geo-referenced database2, are very briefly described in Appendix 1. State Parks is arguably one of the most habitat-rich/acre land managers in Washington.
The condition of State Parks’ natural resources Assessments of park uplands using information gathered through the vegetation surveys and other available data, including a study by the Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (Crawford et al. 2011), suggest that 17% of the land area is in very good to excellent ecological condition (A or AB ranking) and 45% is in fair to good overall condition (B or BC ranking) (Figure 1 and Table 2). All A to BC condition ranks occur in natural / lightly developed areas of the park system.
1 A plant community is an assemblage or association of plant species within a designated geographical area, which forms a relatively uniform patch, distinguishable from neighboring patches of different vegetation types. 2 A geographically (GIS) displayed database, mapping important upland habitats, across +/- 90% of the park system. 61
Figure 1. Ecological condition of Parks upland habitats (see Table 2 for a description of condition ranks).
Table 2. Ecological Condition Rank Values and Descriptions.
Rank Description Value A (Excellent) The highest quality ecosystems have major ecological attributes functioning within the bounds of natural disturbance regimes. The landscape contains natural habitats that are relatively large and essentially unfragmented (reflective of intact ecological processes) and A with little to no stressors. Vegetation structure and composition, soil status, and hydrological function are well within natural ranges of variation. Non-native species are essentially absent or have negligible negative impact. B (Good) Not the highest quality, but major ecological attributes are mostly within the bounds of natural disturbance regimes. The landscape contains natural habitats that are relatively large B and unfragmented (reflective of intact ecological processes) and with few stressors. Vegetation structure and composition, soil status, and hydrological function deviate slightly from the natural ranges of variation. Non-native species are present, but the impacts are minimal. C (Fair) There are a number of unfavorable characteristics outside the bounds of natural disturbance regimes. The landscape contains natural habitats that are relatively small and/or C fragmented with several stressors. Vegetation structure and composition, soil status, and hydrological function deviate substantially from the natural ranges of variation. Non-native species may be abundant. D (Poor) The ecosystem is clearly outside the bounds of natural disturbance regimes. The landscape contains natural habitats that are small and/or fragmented with many stressors. D/F Vegetation structure and composition, soil status, and hydrological function deviate dramatically from the natural ranges of variation. Non-native species may be abundant. The system is so severely altered, restoration may not be possible. Source: Table appears in Schroeder et al. 2013 and was adapted from Faber-Langendoen et al. 2009. There is a suite of factors that influences the ecological integrity of the agency’s lands, including fragmentation, connectivity, invasion by non-native species, expansion of native species (plant,
62
animal, and fungal) beyond historic limits of variation, disruptions to hydrologic processes and fire regimes, and changing climatic conditions. The agency has sought to stem the impact of these stressors; however, current trends suggest that the ecological integrity of State Parks’ native habitats is in decline owing to: insufficient resources for long-term stewardship actions, intensifying public use of the parks and surrounding landscapes, shifting climatic patterns, and a host of other factors.
The deferred maintenance backlog associated with State Parks’ natural resources Approximately 40% of park uplands appear to be in fair-poor ecological condition (C to D/F), while another 30% are on the cusp of exhibiting these conditions (BC) (Figure 1, Table 2). These conditions arise from stressors both beyond the control of the agency (landscape fragmentation, climate change), and those partially or fully under Parks’ management (recreation use, invasive species, diseases and insect infestations, hydrology alterations, soil disturbance, wildfire fuel loads, developments/fragmentation). Stewardship staff is presently working on cost estimates to restore and maintain these degraded habitats to a “good” overall ecological condition (B rank value). This is a challenging undertaking for a variety of reasons, including: no two sites are the same, restoration guidelines are general or non-existent for many habitats, native seed is often lacking, and restoration success is highly influenced by environmental conditions at the time of implementation. Notwithstanding these hurdles, staff has generated an initial per acre estimate for ponderosa pine habitats (Appendix 2), one of six large groups of ecological systems spanning all park uplands3. Extrapolating from this figure, and recognizing the very high likelihood of error given the multitude of differences between habitats and the stressors acting on them, staff currently estimates that more than $100 million4 will be required to restore and maintain to a healthy condition the agency’s undeveloped natural resources during the next one to two decades. Expanding and refining the estimated costs associated with the natural resources stewardship deferred maintenance backlog is a priority task during the 2017/19 biennium.
A word about the figures presented in this report Some values provided in this report were derived from imperfect sources of information (sampling errors, diverse assumptions, extrapolations, modelling errors, dated data, etc.), and thus may not accurately reflect specific conditions on the ground or costs associated with stewardship activities. This said, much of the data underlying this work are considered to be of good or better quality (Appendix 1). Hence, the summary statistics presented above can be viewed as approximating actual values.
Prioritizing the limited dollars available Many undeveloped or lightly developed areas of the State Park system appear to support healthy, functional habitats in good to excellent ecological condition. These greatly contribute to the agency’s mission of caring “for Washington’s most treasured lands” and the Commission’s
3 To help organize and classify vegetation communities in State Parks, the agency has followed guidelines from the Washington Natural Heritage Program, where similar plant associations are combined into 46 ecological systems, and these systems are in turn combined into six ecological systems groups (one group comprising all ponderosa pine dominated plant associations and ecological systems). 4 $3465/ac (from Appendix 2) x 0.40 (an estimated 40% of the park system has an ecological condition rank < C) x 81,380 acres (estimated “natural” upland habitat areas) = $112,792,680. 63
“commitment to stewardship that transmits high quality park assets to future generations.” However, an equal or greater proportion of these uplands are deemed to be in fair to poor condition. A somewhat lesser amount falls between these two states, and it is likely that these lands are declining in condition due to limited stewardship actions. Without significant effort to rehabilitate and maintain the natural resources on State Parks’ lands, numerous native habitats (along with the species and functions they perform) are likely to disappear well before the agency’s bicentennial in 2113.
In planning for the future, the following activities are priorities: 1. Refine and gather additional inventory data. a. Conduct vegetation and wildlife surveys i. Uplands that have yet to be surveyed for their habitats and associated condition. ii. Uplands surveyed >10 years ago that lack data required for current management decisions and/or represent conditions that may have changed. b. Aquatic areas of the park system that have not been surveyed or assessed. c. Combine the inventory data noted above with data from other conservation- related agencies/entities, to update and refine to the agency’s Significant Natural Resources geodatabase. 2. Restore and protect habitats. a. Prioritize restoration and protection actions in areas of global and state conservation significance, especially those with ecological condition ranks of BC and above. b. Research and develop prescriptions to reduce the impacts of stressors (including the application of best available science associated with climate change models). c. Implement and monitor the outcomes of these actions. 3. Research and refine cost estimates associated with restoring and maintaining healthy habitats throughout the State Park system.
Citations Crawford, RC, JF Rocchio, and E Aubert. 2011. Using the Ecological Integrity Assessment Framework to Identify Protection and/or Restoration Priorities in Washington State Parks. WADNR Natural Heritage Program. Natural Heritage Report 2011-02. 30p + Appendices.
Faber-Langendoen, D., G. Kudray, C. Nordman, L. Sneddon, L. Vance, E. Byers, J. Rocchio, S. Gawler, G. Kittel, S. Menard, P. Comer, E. Muldavin, M. Schafale, T. Foti, C. Josse, J. Christy. 2009. Assessing the condition of ecosystems to guide conservation and management: an overview of NatureServe’s ecological integrity assessment methods. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
Schroeder, M. A., J. Gorrell, M. Vander Haegen, J. Anthony, A. Duff, J. Foisy, C. Gibilisco, and B. Cosentino. 2013. Ecological Integrity Monitoring of Wildlife Areas in Washington State: Pilot Study for the 2011-2013 Biennium. Lands Division, Wildlife Program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 33 pp.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
64
Appendix 1: Metrics Comprising the Washington State Parks’ Significant Natural Resources Geodatabase. Appendix 2: Costs per acre associated with restoring and protecting dry ponderosa pine forest habitats. ______Author/Contact(s): Robert Fimbel, Natural Resources Program Manager [email protected] (360) 878-1030
Reviewers: Jessica Logan, SEPA Review: Pursuant to WAC197-11-704, staff has determined that this Commission agenda item is a report and therefore is not subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Christeen Leeper, Fiscal Review: Report only, no fiscal impact. Michael Young, Assistant Attorney General: Report only, no impact at this time. Peter Herzog, Assistant Director, Parks Development
Approved for Transmittal to Commission
______Don Hoch, Director
65
Appendix 1: Metrics Comprising the Washington State Parks’ Significant Natural Resources Geodatabase.
The seven metrics below are used to generate numeric natural resources significance values for close to 10,000 discrete polygons spanning ~111,500 acres (~90%) of agency managed uplands. These metrics were selected based on available data (internal and external to the agency) and their capacity to reflect important elements of habitat quality and function. The metrics are weighted and combined to yield a single “conservation significance” value for each polygon. Habitat Metric Source Justification Confidence Weight Comments Size Global(G) and High Limited to where occurrences have been identified; parks have not Rare WDFW Small / State(S) (WDFW been a priority for surveys; animals are transient and thus specific 1.00 Animals PHS local conservation PHS point locations can vary over time; sensitive species, regardless of ranks database) their global, federal, or state rank, are all weighted the same. G&S Rare plants have been encountered in the vegetation surveys, Rare Small / High (NHP NHP conservation 1.00 however, surveys were not specifically designed to find all rare Plants local database) ranks plants; UW Rare Care monitors 10+ year old populations. Some associations identified by inventory contractors did not match an existing plant association and thus Heritage had to use "best Plant G&S ranks + judgement" to fit them into a known plant association (possibility of Associa- Vegetation Small- consideration of Moderate 1.00 error); many polygons contained two, and a few three or even four tions & surveys moderate ecological plant associations, with only the primary (covering larger portion of Condition condition polygon) plant association used to represent the polygon. Ecological conditions from contractor surveyors and NHP used in this metric. Old growth (OG) in Parks is especially important to WA conservation Old Vegetation Small- Old growth High 1.00 efforts as it occurs in habitats with few other OG examples (e.g., Growth surveys moderate habitats are rare Puget Lowland Forests). Ecolog- G&S ranks + Size and edge are very important determinants of habitat integrity Vegetation Moderate- Moderate- ical consideration of 1.00 over the long-term. These attributes are calculated for Ecological surveys large High Integrity functional size Systems, which represent groups of similar plant associations. Statewide Connectivity seeks to identify the best available areas for animal Connect- contribution to Moderate- movement and ecological processes across WA; wildlife focused, WDFW Large 0.50 ivity landscape low which may or may not capture non-animal species (plants, fungi, etc); conservation models were based on imperfect data, knowledge, and assumptions. Habitats near water are rich and keep common species common; National Water is Small- Moderate- riparian areas are important migration routes; lands within 100 m and Hydrology Wetlands essential for all 0.75 large high 200m of a water sources were included; data comes primarily from Inventory species remote sensing and is known to miss small water-related resources. WDFW PHS= Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife - Priority Habitats & Species database; NHP = Natural Heritage Program; UW = University of Washington
66
Appendix 2: Costs per acre associated with restoring and protecting dry ponderosa pine forest habitats.
Context / Assumptions
• Figures based on managing a 500 ac forest.
• Forest ecological condition rank C/D.
• All costs are per acre and reflect an estimated average expenditure.
• Work assumed to be non-commercial.
• Field work estimated at $65/hr.
• Writing, permitting and supervision at $90/hr.
• Management spans a period of 10-20 yrs.
Costs estimated to average $3465/ac for a 500 ac forest Planning (~$60/ac on average)
• Research ($11/ac based on 60 hrs to determine historic and target vegetation conditions)
• Inventory ($5/ac based on 40 hrs)
• Assessment ($3/ac based on 24 hrs)
• Prescription development ($5/ac based on 24 hrs)
• Public input ($9/ac based on 50 hrs – 3 meetings)
• Management plan ($25/ac – 2x DNR cost-share allowance1)
Implementation (~$1780/ac on average)
• Permits ($40/ac based on Forest Practices, SEPA, archaeology, other)
• Non-commercial thin ($500/ac; 2x DNR cost-share)
• Pruning ($400/ac; 2x DNR cost-share)
• Slash abatement ($800/ac – 2x DNR cost-share)
67
• Contracting ($2/ac based on 10 hrs)
• Compliance ($16/ac based on 120 hrs)
• Record keeping ($16/ac based on 120 hrs)
Post-Treatment ($1625/ac on average + other?)
• Replanting (trees or other vegetation) ($700/ac [$500 ac trees; $800/ac grasses; sometimes a bit of both])
• Monitoring ($16/ac based on 120 hrs)
• Weed control ($200/ac based on chemicals, spraying/mechanical trmts, spot native seed)
• Prescribed fire ($400/ac – 2x DNR cost share)
• Mastication ($300/ac based on 3 ac/day [operator and machine])
• General adaptive management ($5/ac [supervision, GIS, planning updates])
• Other?
1 DNR has a cost share program designed to reimburse landowners for select non-commercial forest health / wildfire fuel reduction treatments. Reimbursement rates are established by DNR, depending on the treatment, and can cover up to 50% of implementation costs.
68