Whatcom County Council considers watershed land-transfer deal

Whatcom County and the state Department of Natural Resources are way behind schedule on a project to transfer DNR-managed land in the Lake Whatcom watershed to the county for parks uses.

And after updated election results released Monday, Nov. 9, showed Kathy Kershner beat Dan McShane for a spot on the County Council, the entire project could be in doubt. A majority of the new council either will have previously voted against the transfer or expressed opposition or skepticism to it.

The council on Tuesday, Nov. 10, will consider approving a contract reimbursing the state agency up to $291,000 for costs associated with the transfer. If approved, the actual transfer may not happen until mid-2011 or later.

DNR sells timber from lands it manages in the watershed to benefit specific trusts, but only one type of those trust lands can be legally transferred to the county, and they're scattered in a checkboard fashion.

The County Council in September 2008 approved a deal with the DNR stating the state agency would shift around trust lands to create large blocks, which could then be transferred for parks uses. Shifting around the blocks is laborious, however, because legally the trusts can't be shorted the value of timber on new lands. That means doing parcel and title reviews and appraisals. Those are the costs the county plans to reimburse the state for.

According to a timeline created when the agreement was signed, the transfer was supposed to be done by January 2010. But the land-shifting process won't even start until after this contract is signed.

It was delayed by the DNR, which has undergone major staff cuts and is under a new leader, Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark.

"We had unprecedented budget woes to deal with and a lot of staff moving around," DNR spokeswoman Jane Chavay said. "It took a while to be able to figure out exactly how we would approach this."

"It's been a very wild year," she added.

County parks Director Mike McFarlane said the timing of bringing it to the council now has nothing to do with concerns about what the new council will decide next year.

"I think the plan was to get this process as soon as we could, and this was the fastest we could get it done based upon the state's review," he said.

The new council will need to give its stamp of approval right before the actual transfer occurs. McShane urged it when he was on the council, but Kershner is skeptical, and new council member Bill Knutzen opposes it. Council members Barbara Brenner and Sam Crawford, who both previously voted against it, will still be on the seven-person council next year.

If the council approves the contract this year, by the time the new council gets to vote on it, most of the $291,000 probably would have already been spent, McFarlane said.