Story Photos
 Willapa National Wildlife Refuge project leader Charlie Stenvall on Monday walks near Willapa Bay across from a parcel of land the refuge had hoped to preserve. Roger Werth / The Daily News
|
Willapa Bay refuge proposal in peril
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 11:31 PM PDT
By Stephanie Mathieu
Printable version
E-mail this articleILWACO – A plan to preserve a 500-acre plot of forestland on the Willapa Bay might not happen, and conservationists worry the property could become a housing development.
Mirroring the plan for other areas of the Willapa National Wildlife refuge, the trees on the Bear River Tree Farm would have been thinned to resemble the random patterns of an old growth forest, allowing for other vegetation to grow and the remaining trees to thrive.
Within the next 100 years, Willapa refuge officials hoped the land would attract wildlife that has disappeared over the years because of dikes, pollution and other human causes. Also, creeks on the property would be made more fish-friendly.
But talks for acquiring the parcel stalled when owners of the tree farm wanted more than the property’s appraised value. The two couples who own the timberland – Fred and Linda Pickering and Dave and Valerie Larwick – are looking for a different buyer, Fred Pickering said.
“The appraisal didn’t quite come up to the numbers we were looking at,” said Pickering, of Yacolt, Wash., who declined to disclose the appraised amount. “We … just were not able to come to terms.”
Pickering said their children are grown and they want to retire after owning the business for the past decade.
If the land was converted into upscale homes overlooking the bay, “that wouldn’t bother us,” Pickering said. “I believe in property rights.”
Still, he added, “We put a lot of effort into maintaining a tree farm and would hate to have all that just go away.”
In 2004, the couple sold 442 acres of its Bear River Tree Farm to the refuge for $800,000. It was the largest single addition since the roughly 15,000-acre refuge adopted a land acquisition plan in October 1999.
About 200 acres of the 536-acre tree farm would have gone to the Willapa refuge. The other acres would have been sold to the Nature Conservancy.
The Willapa National Wildlife Refuge is home to several species of waterfowl and shorebirds, salmon, elk and other wildlife. Some areas are open to hunting and other types of recreation.
Robin Stanton, a spokeswoman for The Nature Conservancy, said her organization also wanted to make the habitat on the tree farm more natural. On such farms, trees are planted closer together and spaced evenly, which isn’t how a natural forest grows.
Stanton said she hopes negotiations can reopen. That could happen if The Nature Conservancy reexamines the appraisal and finds it overlooked any valuable features of the property.
“We’re still trying to figure out if there’s a way to do the deal,” Stanton said. “We’re doing our due diligence on this process. ... We have a fiscal responsibility to not pay more than the land is worth.”
This year, Congressman Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, requested $1.25 million in federal money to help the Willapa refuge and The Nature Conservancy acquire the property. If the deal does not go through, the funds request will be withdrawn, a Baird spokeswoman said on Wednesday, and the deadline has passed to make more appropriations requests.
The deal would have been a preventative measure. Charlie Stenvall, project leader at the Willapa refuge, said the tree farm is not being poorly managed. The property is just West of Greenhead Slough off U.S. 101 between the refuge office and Long Beach.
“It’s the last ownership down here in the south bay,” within the refuge’s acquisition boundary, Stenvall said. “Anywhere around here you look there’s development potential.”
If the area was developed, “it would be an unfortunate circumstance,” Stenvall said. “It would be an impact to the bay and what should be a fairly seamless landscape.”
stink wrote on May 8, 2008 6:05 AM:
Buy it wrote on May 8, 2008 8:59 AM:
bum deal wrote on May 8, 2008 9:48 AM:
With prices being what they are today and the kind of enviroment crap a house would have to meet, even the contractor would lose money. The whole plan sounds bad. The bay needs to be preserved. "
Hide Behind wrote on May 8, 2008 10:57 AM:
We are losing mother natur. wrote on May 8, 2008 12:30 PM:
Duck Hunter wrote on May 8, 2008 1:43 PM:
Hide Behind wrote on May 8, 2008 2:13 PM:
Please. "
Been there wrote on May 8, 2008 10:42 PM:
Misinformed opinions wrote on May 11, 2008 9:26 AM:
Hazel Fisk wrote on May 11, 2008 5:14 PM:
"Misinformed opinions" statements were right on the mark. Property rights are and should remain a freedom in this country. The owner of a piece of property has the right to be a willing seller, at a price that will not only cover his expenses in acquiring the land, the value of his time spent in making improvements, managing the property, and such. Just because a property has one appraisal, that appraisal isn't necessarily an accurate one. Often land for large sales to government agencies and conservation entities is not appraised at the highest and best use of the land.
If the owners do not want to sell their property at a number they don't feel represents the value, they should not be classified as being greedy. Our country has millions of acres set aside in National Parks, Conservation groups, and reserves. It is my feeling that private property owners usually take better care of their lands than large entities. "
Past Month's Most Commented Stories