County could give some lands extra protection

May 12, 2009

By J.B. Wogan

King County Councilman Bob Ferguson is proposing that the county upgrade protections for roughly 150,000 acres of rural lands, including some next to Sammamish.

“On a federal level, you can have national parks or national monuments. For King County, we don’t have an equivalent to ensure protection for any particular piece of property,” explained Ferguson, who represents the northwest portion of the county.

Sammamish’s Councilwoman, Kathy Lambert, questions the need for these protections, which she says is more rooted in politics than ecology. Lambert said many of the lands are wetlands, which already enjoy enhanced protections.

Wetland or no, the county owns all the lands in question, so the council would need to vote before anything could be done. Moreover, no one has mentioned trying to sell or develop the lands.

“This is a restriction on us to tell us not to do what we already don’t want to do,” Lambert said.

The lands are scattered all over the county. Locally, two abut Sammamish and others are just outside the city.

The Hazel Wolf Wetlands, located north of Beaver Lake and west of Soaring Eagle Park, is a 116-acre wildlife refuge, bordered on every side by city property.

It is co-owned by the Cascade Land Conservancy and the county.

The Evans Crest Natural Area is a 30-acre property north of the Timberline neighborhood, south of Sahalee Way Northeast and south of Redmond-Fall City Road. 

Other nearby areas on the list include the Evans Creek Natural Area near Redmond, portions of Cougar and Squak mountains, and parts of the Issaquah Creek. 

All of the properties are already set aside for conservation by the county, but the County Council could opt out of preserving the lands.

The proposal would amend King County’s Charter to make such backpedaling impossible without either voter approval or a supermajority vote of the County Council — six of the nine council members.

If the King County Council approves Ferguson’s proposal this summer, county voters would have to decide whether to approve it on the upcoming November ballot.

Ingrid Lundin, a project manager for the county’s Department of Natural Resources said the properties are not in danger of being developed right now, but “there may be threats in the future.”

“The change ensures that the decision isn’t just made by a department. It would essentially ensure that the voters would have a say,” Lundin added.

Bob Burns, deputy director of the Department of Natural Resources, pointed out that the amendment is designed for a select group of properties that he said deserve a higher level of protection. 

“It’s not just any piece of land that the county owns,” Burns said. 

The properties must have a rich ecological function, like preserving important habitat for the local wildlife, Burns explained. Active parks and trails and lands owned by other governmental agencies are not on the list.

After public discussions in May, the council will probably take a vote on the amendment in June, Ferguson said. 

To learn more about the amendment, go to www.kingcounty.gov/exec/charter/issues/openspace.aspx

Reporter J.B. Wogan can be reached at 392-6434, ext. 247, or jbwogan@isspress.com.

Original article at:
http://sammamishreview.com/2009/05/12/county-could-give-some-lands-extra-protection