State Parks Commission to Vote on Surplusing Packwood Property

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission will vote May 16 on authorizing the transfer of its Packwood property to Lewis County — a move that the county has yet to approve.

The largely forgotten 175-acre plot owned by Washington State Parks sits at the confluence of Skate Creek and the Cowlitz River. In March, the state began discussion about turning the forested land over to local oversight, a conversation that included Lewis County and Destination Packwood.

“It's not an actual transfer at the time that the commission makes the determination,” said State Parks communications director Virginia Painter. “They're authorizing staff basically to transfer the property (in the future).”

Prior to the vote, which will take place at a meeting in Klickitat County, the agency will meet with locals in Packwood on May 13. Starting at 6 p.m. at the White Pass Country Historical Museum, State Parks officials will seek public input on the proposal.

“We'll explain what we're doing and then open it up for public comment,” said Ken Graham, with the agency’s Lands Program. “Those comments will be collected and then distributed to the commissioners.”

The rough outlines of the idea are for the county to take ownership of the property, with Destination Packwood stepping up in a development and management role. Specific details for how the property would be developed and used have not been finalized, though it’s expected plans will include a campground. Any transfer from the state would require that the land be preserved for recreational use in perpetuity.

Monday, county leaders discussed the potential transfer, agreeing that outdoor recreation and camping opportunities would be good to the tourism-heavy area. There was also broad agreement that the county would not have a management role, leaving that to a nonprofit such as Destination Packwood.

According to county manager Erik Martin, the state is unlikely to turn the land over to Destination Packwood directly, leaving it up to the county if it wants to accept the transfer. County commissioner Gary Stamper, while saying the land could be an asset for the county, said it would be a “stretch” to come up with a detailed management plan before State Parks leaders vote on the transfer.

Meanwhile, county leaders also felt that they had not had time to assess the risk of assuming ownership, with looming questions like potential liability from injuries or responsibility for forest fires.

“The state’s moving ahead without really talking to us much,” said Central Services director Steve Walton.

County commissioners opted to continue looking into the transfer, but determined that they could not make a decision before State Parks votes to authorize a transfer next week.

“I’ll tell State we’re still thinking about it,” Martin said. “I don’t know what that means for them and their commission meeting on the 16th, but it is what it is. … We’re not ready to make a decision. If that means they need to pull it off their agenda, they should do that.”

Representatives for State Parks said they could not speculate on if the commission would still vote for surplus authorization before the county is willing to accept the transfer.

“The commission finds finds that it's surplus to our needs and can designate to our director the ability to work with Lewis County to get the property transferred,” Graham said. “Our goal is just to transfer the property.”

Lee Grose, former county commissioner and board member for Destination Packwood, said the group has not yet finalized a plan to run the property if the county takes over. He said it would likely end up being close to the state’s initial plan for the site.

“We would probably follow that concept, which is to basically to put campsites on about 30 acres of it, and the rest would be left pretty much as it is now,” he said.

At present, the site is “passively” open to the public, with about three miles of trails, little parking and a ramshackle picnic table as the only development. Bill Serrahn, who lives on an adjacent property and has become the park’s unofficial caretaker, raised concerns about the transfer, saying he had heard that timber sales might be used to pay for Destination Packwood’s development.

“I don't think (Destination Packwood) has done any paperwork. I think they're just winging this whole thing,” he said. “They have no site plan or forestry plan. ... There's no restriction or no plan.”

While some timber thinning or clearing to create a campground wouldn’t be a bad thing, Serrahn said, he hasn’t seen any paperwork ensuring most of the forest will be protected. Grose, however, believes that concern is overblown. He committed to no full-scale logging beyond what is needed to clear a campsite area.

“That's all that would be taken out, is danger trees and trees that are rotten,” he said. “We certainly don't want to log the whole thing off, that's not even in the picture. With (State Parks) regulations on the property, you couldn't log that if you wanted to.”

Still, Serrahn said, he would like to see a slower process with more options considered, including a possible transfer to the Department of Natural Resources.

“Why is this such a rush?” he said.