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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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