I've always wondered why in Minto-Brown Island Park, a large City of Salem, Oregon park, over 400 acres are leased to commercial farm activities.It seems to me that publicly owned parks such as this are for green space and for nature and for people to enjoy - not for commercial ventures.
Salem currently has a chance to take about 1/2 of the park's current farm acreage - completely cleared land - and have it restored with native plants to its natural floodplain state - for no cost to the City. This would come about if the City agrees to accept funds authorized by the Obama administration through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The most information I have gathered is from a report to the City manager from the City Public Works director. The document is here. According to the report, the land would be purchased as a floodplain easement. The purpose of these easements is to "retard run off, prevent soil erosion and to safeguard lives and property." The report also goes on to say that the "floodplain easements provide for the restoration, protection, management, maintenance, and enhancement of the functions and values of the flood plains, including conservation of natural values, flood water retention and erosion control."
First, the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was in favor of the easement, then they completely and unanimously reversed position. Something seems amiss. Did the Advisory Board get lobbied with folks who object ideologically to the Obama administration recovery funds programs?
My city council member wrote to me after I urged him to vote yes on the proposal, saying (sic): "I don't support selling local park land to the federal government. We don't have enough park land in Salem now and to remove whole sections of this park and hend them over to the federal government just makes no sense to me right now. Perhaps information will be developed that make some sense but certainly don't at this point."
First, an easement is not an outright sale; the easement would be to ensure the land remains in the restored natural floodplain state as intended. And, when huge sections of the largest park in Salem are completely cleared of any native vegetation and given over to commercial farming, do we really have a "park" there anyway?
In addition, the park currently has way too much in the way of invasive non-native plants such as blackberries and English ivy. Taking about 200 acres of the park currently used for farming and restoring it to native habitat sounds good to me.
Posts
4 comments:
I wrote to Keith G. Keever, Parks Superintendent, Parks & Transportation Services, Public Works Department, City of Salem, and I asked "For what reasons did the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory board completely reversed its decision from being in favor of applying for the federal funds to being completely against it. Are there minutes of the Board's meetings?"
Mr. Keever responded: "There were several reasons that SPRAB reversed its decision. The first is that there was language in the NRCS contract which puts severe limitations on what the city may do on this land in the future. We are all very concerned that it might limit any new potential park improvement that may come about in years to come, either through the park master planning process or from citizen request or input. Second, some evidence was presented in the meeting that this proposed conservation easement may be in conflict with the intent of the current Minto Brown Island Park Master Plan (1995). The master plan identified farming as a recommended use. Farming will continue at Minto even if this conservation easement moves forward, but will be significantly reduced. Third, the board felt that the process for accepting the federal funding was rushed and citizens were not provided a suitable opportunity to learn about the issue and comment on it. Fourth, there was a concern that the revenue from this program, estimated at $800,000, would go to the city's general fund and not be used for Minto Brown Park - either improvements or maintenance.
I am attaching the "Action Sheet" from the Parks Board that went to City Council. It also outlines some of the issues.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions."
If you would like to read the "Action Sheet", contact Mr. Keever at KKEEVER@cityofsalem.net.
Here is the text of the "Action Sheet":
SALEM PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD
Action Sheet
SPECIAL MEETING – JULY 23, 2009
BOARD MEMBER
ATTENDEES: Barbara Castleman, Carl Goodwin, Gordon Johnson, Wendy Pyper, Don Roberts
ISSUE:
The Board took public testimony and deliberated a recommendation to City Council on the Minto Brown Island Park Proposed NRCS Floodplain Easement & Natural Area Enhancement Project
DATE OF DECISION:
July 23, 2009
ACTION TAKEN:
Board Member Don Roberts moved that the Board recommend to Council to reject the proposal and subject the farmland to competitive bidding, and a Minto Brown Island Master Plan revision be undertaken.
Barbara Castleman seconded the motion.
All members voted in favor of the motion.
KEY DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Choice of crop land
Being that one of the stated focus points for the easement is to restore flood-prone and damaged areas, the Board was concerned that some of the cropland chosen for easement was located in a higher elevation as opposed to the 116.8-acre parcel within the floodway that was not chosen to be part of the restoration plan.
2. Objective of the floodplain easement program
The easement purchase comes through the NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which assists in implementing emergency measures to relieve communities affected by natural disaster. Within this objective is the focus on creating jobs, protecting wildlife, and enhancing and restoring natural areas. The Board members felt that the Minto Brown Island project did not meet this stated criteria due to the fact that seasonal flooding on Minto-Brown Island does not generally pose a threat to life or property. The question was raised to staff as to the number of jobs this project will create, and if these jobs would be one-time work or on-going employment.
3. Proceeds from the sale of easement rights
If City Council approves the sale of easement rights, the Board strongly supports designating all, or a portion, of the funds from the sale of the easement rights to be encumbered for the continued maintenance of the easement restoration areas.
4. Competitive bidding for farming
There was discussion with regards to seeking competitive bids from local farmers for the full amount of cropland without entering into the easement agreement, which would allow for continued maintenance of the land and revenue for the City.
5. Master Plan Revision
There was concern by the Board as to the adherence of this project to the Minto Brown Island Master Plan. Board members agreed that City staff should consider a master plan revision.
6. Short time available for study and consideration
Some Board members were concerned about the deadlines of the proposed easement award process. Because the funding for this program is tied to the federal stimulus program, there has been very little time available for staff and the public to consider what would be permanent changes to the park.
i agree. i have always wondered why there were crop fields at the park. i'd rather look at a wetland any day. plus, it would reduce pesticide and nutrient usage near the Willamette.
There supposedly will be time for public comment.
Post a Comment