M EETING N O . 4 Manastash Room, Kittitas Valley Event Center May 10, - - PDF document

1

Manastash Room, Kittitas Valley Event Center May 10, 2012

IWRMP TARGETED WATERSHED PROTECTIONS & ENHANCEMENT LAND USE AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PROJECT

KITTITAS COUNTY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING NO. 4 WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS

• We lc ome & T

hank you!

• Citize ns Advisory Committe e Me mbe rs (I

ntro duc tio ns)

• Kittitas County Partic ipants

– Pa ul Je we ll, Co unty Co mmissio ne r, Distric t # 1 – K irk Ho lme s, Pub lic Wo rks Dire c to r (Pro je c t Ma nag e r) – Do c Ha nse n, Pla nning Offic ia l

• Consultant Partic ipants

– Jo hn K nutso n, PE , URS Co rpo ra tio n (Me e ting L

e ade r)

– Amy Da nb e rg , PRR I nc . (Me e ting F

ac ilitato r)

– Will Guyto n, URS Co rpo ra tio n – Julie Bla ke sle e , URS Co rpo ra tio n (L

and Use Planne r)

– Mic ha e l T a ylo r, Ca sc a de E c o no mic s (E

c o no mist)

2

MEETING PURPOSE & AGENDA

We lc ome & Intr

• duc tions
• Pr

e se nt Summar y of L and Use and E c onomic Analyse s Re sults

• Oppor

tunity for L and Owne r and L ands Subc ommitte e Input on Analysis

• CAC Disc ussion and F

e e dbac k on L and Use and E c onomic Analyse s Re sults

• Disc uss Ne e d and T
• ols for

Public Inve stme nts and Kittitas County E c onomic Mitigation

• Ne xt Me e ting Date s & T
• pic s



LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

I

NT RODUCT ION

• Dr

aft Me mor andum Inc lude d Analysis of: – L

a nd a c q uisitio ns (~110,000 a c re s), – Na tio na l Re c re a tio n Are a de sig na tio ns (~155,000 a c re s), – Wild a nd Sc e nic Rive r de sig na tio ns (~23,000 a c re s), a nd – Shrub -Ste ppe Ha b ita t a c q uisitio ns/ c o nse rva tio n e a se me nt (~14,000 a c re s).

• Also inc lude d r

e vie w of CAC c onc e r ns and be ne fits

3

LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Zoning Post-IWRMP Action Estimated Acreage Potential Use Considerations Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Upper Yakima River Basin High Elevation Watershed Preferred Option (Teanaway) Commercial Forest Acquisition as a Consortium/ Community or as State Ownership 40,179 acquired Public Access and Use Recreation Access Environmental Protection Logging/Timber Utility Access Grazing Opportunities Dams (when federally-funded) Residential/Agricultural Development Solar Development ↑ ↑ ↑ NC NC NC N/A ↓ NC Forest and Range 6,113 acquired Rural-3 846 acquired Notes: ↑ = improves or increases ↓ = degrades or decreases NC = little to no change N/A = not applicable

LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Zoning Post-IWRMP Action Estimated Acreage Potential Use Considerations Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Upper Yakima River Basin Forest Habitat Preferred Option (Taneum and Manastash) Commercial Forest Acquisition for Public Land 63,005 acquired Public Access and Use Recreation Access Environmental Protection Logging/Timber Utility Access Grazing opportunities Dams (when federally-funded) Residential/Agricultural Development ↑ ↑ ↑ NC NC ↑ N/A ↓ Notes: ↑ = improves or increases ↓ = degrades or decreases NC = little to no change N/A = not applicable

4

LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Zoning Post-IWRMP Action Estimated Acreage Potential Use Considerations Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Upper Yakima NRA Unzoned (public land) Designation of Public Land as NRA and Wilderness 99,818 designated as NRA Public Access and Use Recreation Access Environmental Protection Logging/Timber Utility Access Grazing Opportunities ↑ ↑ NC NC NC NC 19,964 designated as Wilderness Public Access and Use Recreation Access Environmental Protection Logging/Timber Utility Access Grazing Opportunities NC NC ↑ ↓ ↓ ↓ Notes: ↑ = improves or increases ↓ = degrades or decreases NC = little to no change N/A = not applicable

LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Zoning Post-IWRMP Action Estimated Acreage Potential Use Considerations Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Manastash- Taneum NRA Unzoned (public land) Designation of Public Land as NRA 35,000 designated as NRA Public Access and Use Recreation Access Environmental Protection Logging/Timber Grazing Opportunities ↑ ↑ NC NC NC Notes: ↑ = improves or increases ↓ = degrades or decreases NC = little to no change N/A = not applicable

5

LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Zoning Post-IWRMP Action Estimated Acreage Potential Use Considerations Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Wild/Scenic River Designations for the Upper Cle Elum, Waptus, and Cooper Rivers Unzoned (public land) Wild and Scenic River Designation

• n Public Land

15,719 designated as Wild and Scenic Public Access and Use Recreation Access Environmental Protection Dams (when federally-funded) Residential/Agricultural Development ↑ NC ↑ ↓ NC Notes: ↑ = improves or increases ↓ = degrades or decreases NC = little to no change N/A = not applicable

LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Zoning Post-IWRMP Action Estimated Acreage Potential Use Considerations Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Wild/Scenic River Designations for the North, Middle, and West Forks of the Teanaway River Unzoned (public land) Wild and Scenic River Designation

• n Public Land

7,632 designated Public Access and Use Recreation Access Environmental protection Dams (when federally-funded) Residential/Agricultural Development ↑ NC ↑ ↓ NC Notes: ↑ = improves or increases ↓ = degrades or decreases NC = little to no change N/A = not applicable

6

LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Zoning Post-IWRMP Action Estimated Acreage Potential Use Considerations Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Shrub-Steppe Habitat Preferred Option (Eaton Ranch) Forest and Range Land Acquisition and/or Conservation Easement 11,620 acquired Public Access and Use Recreation Access Environmental protection Utility Access Grazing Opportunities Residential/Agricultural Development Wind Farms ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ NC ↓ NC Agricultural (AG-20) 2,211 acquired Notes: ↑ = improves or increases ↓ = degrades or decreases NC = little to no change N/A = not applicable

LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

SUMMARY

• F

utur e r e side ntial de ve lopme nt c ould be r e duc e d with: – L a nd a c q uisitio n unde r the T e a na wa y o ptio n – L a nd a c q uisitio n unde r the T a ne um a nd Ma na sta sh o ptio n – Shrub -Ste ppe Ha b ita t Pre fe rre d Optio n

• Public / Re c r

e ation Ac c e ss and Use , and E nvir

• nme ntal

Pr

• te c tion would inc r

e ase for most options

• Wild and Sc e nic Rive r de signation would re sult in

minimal land use c hange s

• Wind F

arm pote ntial would not c hange unde r the Shrub- Ste ppe Habitat Pr e fe r r e d Option

7

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

O VE

RVIE W

• What do we me an by “E

c onomic Impac ts?” – Cha ng e s to K

ittita s Co unty c o mme rc e : sa le s a nd o utput, pe rso na l inc o me , e mplo yme nt – I mpa c ts to Co unty g o ve rnme nt: re ve nue s a nd o b lig a tio ns – Also urb a n a nd rura l impa c ts

• Not me asur

ing “fe asibility of the T WPE C,” as long- te r m be ne fits vs. c osts

• Goal is to unde r

stand who is affe c te d and by how muc h, and what mitigation would be ne c e ssar y to c ompe nsate for the e ffe c ts of the T WPE C

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

T

YPE S OF I MPACT S ME ASURE D

• Re c r

e ation

• Pr
• pe r

ty De ve lopme nt / Constr uc tion

• Agr

ic ultur e

• T
• ur

ist Ac c ommodations

• County Re ve nue s and E

xpe nditur e s

ASSUMPT

IONS AND SCE NARIOS CONSIDE RE D

• Impac ts of the F

ull Re c omme ndation of the L and Subc ommitte e

• “Public Inve stme nt” ve r

sus “No Public Inve stme nt” in r e c r e ation fac ilitie s and infr astr uc tur e

8

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Uses Post IWRMP Action Affected Entities Units of Measure for Impact Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Upper Yakima River Basin High Elevation Watershed Preferred Option (Teanaway) Timber production Grazing Recreation Hunting Snowmobiling Nordic Skiing Hiking Camping OHV Use Solar development Public Acquisition for Conservation Landowners Grazing Recreationists

• Hunters
• Snowmobilers
• Nordic Skiers
• Hikers
• Campers
• OHV Use

Property Developers Kittitas County Timber revenues ($/year) Biomass industry development Grazing use by permittees Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Residential development Solar Development Property Tax Revenues Forest Health Management NC ? NC ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ NC ↓ ↓ NC ↑ ↑ Upper Yakima River Basin Forest Habitat Preferred Option (Taneum and Manatash) Timber production Recreation Hunting Fishing Snowmobiling Skiing Public Acquisition for Conservation Landowners Recreationists

• Hunters
• Alpine Skiers
• Hikers
• Campers

Property Developers Kittitas County Timber revenues ($/year) Biomass industry development Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Residential development Property Tax Revenues Forest Health Management NC ? ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ Notes: ↑ = increases ↓ = decreases NC = remains about the same ? = uncertain; depends on new rules (see text)

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Uses Post IWRMP Action Affected Entities Units of Measure for Impact Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Upper Yakima NRA Timber production Grazing Recreation Hunting Fishing Snowmobiling Skiing Hiking Camping OHV Use Designation of 80% of Public Land as National Recreation Area Landowners (adjacent private land only) Grazing Recreationists Hunters Fishers Snowmobilers Nordic Skiers Hikers Campers OHV Use Kittitas County Timber revenues ($/year) Grazing use by permitees Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Property Tax Revenues Forest Health Management NC NC ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ NC ↑ Designation of 20% of Public Land as Wilderness Recreationists Hunters Fishers Snowmobilers Nordic Skiers Hikers Campers OHV Use Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ Notes: ↑ = increases ↓ = decreases NC = remains about the same ? = uncertain; depends on new rules (see text)

9

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Uses Post IWRMP Action Affected Entities Units of Measure for Impact Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Manastash- Taneum NRA Timber production Grazing Recreation Hunting Fishing Snowmobiling Skiing Hiking Camping OHV Use Designation of Public Land as National Recreation Area Loggers Grazing Recreationists Hunters Fishers Snowmobilers Alpine Skiers Hikers Campers OHV Use Kittitas County Timber revenues ($/year) Grazing use by permitees Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Property Tax Revenues Forest Health Management

NC NC

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ NC ↑ Wild/Scenic River Designations for the Upper Cle Elum, Waptus, and Cooper Rivers Residential Recreation Hunting Fishing Hiking Camping Wild and Scenic River Designation

• n Public Land

Property Owners Recreationists Hunters Fishers Hikers Campers Kittitas County Residential Development Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Property Tax Revenues

NC

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

NC

Notes: ↑ = increases ↓ = decreases NC = remains about the same ? = uncertain; depends on new rules (see text)

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Option Name Current Uses Post IWRMP Action Affected Entities Units of Measure for Impact Anticipated Change to Use Considerations Wild/Scenic River Designations for the North, Middle, and West Forks of the Teanaway River Residential Recreation Hunting Fishing Hiking Camping Wild and Scenic River Designation

• n Public Land

Property Owners Recreationists Hunters Fishers Hikers Campers Kittitas County Residential Development Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Property Tax Revenues

NC

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

NC

Shrub-Steppe Habitat, Preferred Option (Eaton Ranch) Cattle production Irrigated hay production Land Acquisition and/or Conservation Easement Grazing Hay Producers Recreationists Wildlife viewers Hikers Campers Property Developers Kittitas County Grazing use by property owners Irrigation and hay harvest Visitor days Visitor days Visitor days Wind farm developers Property Tax Revenues NC/↓ NC/↓ ↑ ↑ ↑ ? NC/↓ Notes: ↑ = increases ↓ = decreases NC = remains about the same ? = uncertain; depends on new rules (see text)

10

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Teanaway Taneum and Manastash

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Upper Yakima NRA Manastash‐Taneum NRA

11

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Wild & Scenic Rivers Shrub‐Steppe Habitat

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Impact Category With Public Investment Without Public Investment Direct Total Direct Total Employment (jobs) 13.0 14.7

• 2.8
• 4.7

Personal Income $422,025 $471,301

• $23,018
• $75,623

Output (Sales) $556,054 $739,688

• $471,104
• $644,358

Summary of Impacts on Annual Sales, Income, and Employment

12

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

With Public Investment Without Public Investment Urban Rural Urban Rural Private Sector Spending $606,470

• $223,276
• $576,677
• $223,890

Public Sector Spending $0 $356,493 $0 $156,209 SUBTOTAL $606,470 $133,218

• $576,677
• $67,681

TOTAL SPENDING $739,688

• $644,358

Change in Spending in Urban and Rural Kittitas County, Under “With” and “Without” Public Investment Scenarios ($ per year)

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

With Public Investment Without Public Investment Urban Rural Urban Rural Sales Tax Revenue $9,353 $1,651

• $1,658
• $293

Payment in Lieu of Taxes $0 $108,942 $0 $108,942 SUBTOTAL $9,353 $110,593

• $1,658

$108,649 TOTAL REVENUE $119,946 $106,992

Change in Tax Revenue in Urban and Rural Kittitas County, Under “With” and “Without” Public Investment Scenarios ($ per year)

13

LAND OWNER AND LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE INPUT

PURPOSE OF T

HE CAC:

• Not for
• r

against L ands Committe e r e c omme ndations.

• Par

tic ipate in an analysis of land use and e c onomic impac ts that c ould oc c ur if the pr e fe r r e d r e c omme nde d ac tions move for war d.

• Pr
• vide r

e c omme ndations to the BOCC about possible e c onomic mitigation str ate gie s to pur sue .

LAND OWNER AND LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE INPUT

E

XAMPL E I NPUTT OPICS:

• Ar

e land use s ge ne r ally c or r e c t?

• Ar

e the r e any limitations on de ve lopme nt options?

• Ar

e land use pr

• je c ts c onside r

e d fe asible ?

• What is the validity of a wind far

m on E aton Ranc h?

• What is the status of the timbe r

/ gr azing mar ke ts and the ir ability to gr

• w?
• How do the r

e c r e ational assumptions c ompar e to ac tual ac tivitie s?

14

CAC DISCUSSION AND FEEDBACK

• L
• oking for

que stions, sugge stions to c or r e c t mistake s, make impr

• ve me nts, and/ or

add c lar ific ations to final r e por t.

• Pr

e liminar y F e e dbac k – Co unty’ s re ma ining issue s: Shrub -Ste ppe de ve lo pme nt,

timing o f impro ve me nts vs. impa c ts, c e rta inty o f PI L T , impo rta nc e o f inve stme nt – Jill Ara ng o ’ s tho ug hts o n impo rta nc e o f re c re a tio n a nd pub lic inve stme nt to o ls

• Ne e d CAC c onc ur

r e nc e to move for war d (mitigation appr

• ac he s).

PUBLIC INVESTMENTS & ECONOMIC MITIGATION

• Why is public inve stme nt in impr
• ve me nts ne e de d?
• How will public inve stme nts be funde d?
• Why is e c onomic mitigation r

e c omme nde d for Kittitas County?

• What is an “e c onomic mitigation” str

ate gy?

• Se ve r

al e c onomic mitigation c onc e pts: – PI

L T e lig ib ility – E ndo wme nt F und fro m I WRMP – Dire c t a nnua l pa yme nts fro m spo nso ring a g e nc ie s – Co ntra c ts with la nd ma na g e rs – Othe rs

15

NEXT MEETING DATES & TOPICS

Meeting & T

• pic

Approximate Meeting Dates

CAC Meeting 4  Review consultant team land use and economic impact analyses results  Obtain CAC feedback  Discuss possible economic mitigation strategies May 10, 2012 Ellensburg CAC Meeting 5  Review mitigation matrix  Discuss and refine evaluation  Identify preferred mitigation approach(es) early June 2012 (Ellensburg)



ADJOURN