Poor Planning Could Undermine Lake Whatcom Park

Wendy Harris is a retiree who comments on development, mitigation and environmental impacts.

by Wendy Harris

Actions speak louder than words. And what I am hearing from the Whatcom County Parks Department is that they are not serious about habitat protection, lake recovery or public process. Formal public input into the new Lake Whatcom Park planning process has not even begun, and I am already troubled by what I see. The 2014 park plan reflects the proposed placement of trails for hiking, biking and equestrian use, without any consideration of habitat or water quality impacts.

My concerns were amplified when I reviewed the “consent agenda” for the April 22, 2014, County Council meeting. The consent agenda is where routine, uncontroversial matters are placed and voted on as part of a single group. However, any member of the public can ask for a proposal to be removed from the consent agenda and voted on individually. I exercised that right with regard to AB 2014-155, a proposal by the Parks Department to demolish and remove a rental property along the shorelines of Lake Whatcom, at 3330 North Shore Road, located close to the Hertz Trail.

It appears that this matter was placed on the consent agenda because “funding was approved in the 2014 department budget to remove and dispose of this house.” In other words, this was one of many projects that was summarily reviewed and approved by the council as part of a much larger department budget, likely without discussion or specific focus on this particular project. I have learned from experience that it is wise to verify information reflected in a Planning Department proposal.

The house is described as “substandard” and “dilapidated.” However, the agenda bill contains conflicting information regarding its rental status, in some places indicating current occupancy. To clarify this seeming contradiction, I did a site review, and determined that the house is not being inhabited and does not look inhabitable.

But other concerns arose from my visit. The rental unit was derided by Director McFarlane as “deleterious toward open space and public access of the Hertz Trail and Lake Whatcom” and an “untenable private dwelling and lawn and waterfront area [that directly thwarts] the Hertz Trail access. We are told that the “current public access status of the beach is unclear to the public, given its proximity to the existing rental unit.”

I found none of this to be true. There are two parking lots providing access to the Hertz trail. The primary parking lot contains a rest facility and is a little less than a quarter mile from the Hertz Trail. It by-passes the rental unit completely.

The smaller secondary parking lot access area takes you directly to the trail, and provides obvious and well utilized lake access to a small sandy beach area. The rental unit is located upland of both the trail and shoreline, and does not impact public use of either. The entrance area at the secondary access site contains a large park sign with an address of 3330 Northshore Road. The identical address of the rental property identifies it as park property. In sum, this property is a wreck, but does not inhibit public use of the trail or the lake.

So what is really going on here? The director has decided that he wants this land for a large park development project, and he has already mapped out a grassy lawn, open space, picnic shelter, restrooms, and beach access for boats and for bathing. He wants families and hikers to spread out their blankets and enjoy being on the lake’s “waterfront.” New park development covering the shoreline up to the site of the rental unit would be extensive in size.

This increased intensity of use is also reflected in the proposed Comprehensive Plan For Parks, Recreation And Open Space (April, 2014). The list of plans for the “Lake Whatcom Park” includes installing additional restrooms along the shoreline, replacing or enlarging existing restroom facilities, installing boat docks, expanding and creating new parking areas, (page 52 of 78). The Parks Department intends to “develop 24 miles of hiking trails” that would include campsite development, and construction of two vehicle accessible bridges at Hertz Trail. (page 54 of 78.) Potential future recreational activities for “Lake Whatcom North” and “Lake Whatcom South” include “swimming beaches with lifeguards,” “picnic shelters and lodges-rental,” “canoes, boats and other equipment” and “rentals, swimming and boating, safety instruction.” (page 77 of 78.)

“Lake Whatcom North” and “Lake Whatcom South” are terms used imprecisely by the county, but apparently include both existing parks and the reconveyed land. Existing parks adjacent to the two parcels of reconveyed land will be connected and serve as anchors and gateways to our new forest lands. We need to consider the development planned for these parks, such as Hertz Trail, as an integral, compatible part of the development of reconveyed lands.

What is surprising is the extent to which the park director’s vision for the new park has departed from the recommendations of the County Executive’s Review Panel, composed of various stakeholder interests. They recommended approval of the reconveyance subject to specific requirements, such as locating trails away from the shorelines so that a substantial forested buffer is maintained between the trails and the lake. They recommended the Parks Department locate trail heads, restrooms, parking areas and picnic areas outside the watershed, and if this is not possible, than as far from the shorelines and streams as possible. They recommended limited improvements, not a one of which included a shoreline lawn, docks, or increased shoreline rest rooms.

This proposal raises a multitude of larger and more significant issues regarding the development of the Lake Whatcom Park. Additionally, the proposal typifies the problems that I have with the Park Department’s approach to park management in general. My concerns with this proposal are as follows:

Planning decisions have been made regarding park use without any input or review from the general public. We are supposed to have a public process, and this now appears to be a meaningless formality because clearly, plans have already been made for a picnic area, grass lawn, open space, restrooms and water access.

Plans for a big new park should be made on a comprehensive, landscape scale. This is a site-specific project, which is not good planning.

The last thing that Lake Whatcom needs is a grass lawn on and near its shorelines. This encourages Canada geese to establish residence, instead of migrating. And Director McFarlane wants to kill the geese. I suggest that the county engage in smart landscape planning as a better solution. We need to plan in a way that avoids human/wildlife conflicts before they begin.

A grass lawn is contrary to the goals of the Lake Whatcom TMDL (the water quality improvement plan required by the state). Approximately 80 percent of phosphorus loading is from lawns, landscaping and roads. This type of new development increases the phosphorus reduction already required from existing development, which is at a whooping 87.5 percent. Protecting the lake was the primary purpose for the reconveyance. Even small projects like this matter because they add up to tremendous cumulative impacts. And from the ground water TMDL study for Lake Whatcom, we know that large grassy areas can be a source of groundwater phosphorus loading.

The Growth Management Act requires open space to be used, in part, for protecting wildlife and habitat, and yet there is NOT ONE mention of wildlife issues in this proposal. The county can not continue to ignore its obligations to protect wildlife. And much of our wildlife planning needs to occur on park land, where the majority of public land and open space exists. This makes the Parks Department the “de facto” wildlife managers for the county, and yet they are planners, not wildlife managers, and have shown over and over again that they have no interest in or affinity for local wildlife. They have largely restricted their role to killing “nuisance species” that interfere with human enjoyment of the outdoors.

A grass lawn, and picnic shelter was planned before any species/habitat inventory and assessment was conducted. This is necessary to protect high conservation value park land, habitat connectivity and biodiversity. It is also important that wildlife has access to fresh water. This can not occur if trails and public use areas ring the entire shoreline, as currently reflected in park plan proposals.

The county stated in its SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) checklist for the reconveyance that it planned to use the Lake Whatcom land for old growth forest and habitat protection, and that a full wildlife and habitat analysis would be done to facilitate conservation goals. Why isn’t the county honoring its promises used to secure the reconveyance? I supported the reconveyance based on these promises.

I also believe that this is a Habitat Conservation Area (HCA), a critical area under the county Critical Area Ordinance (CAO), requiring a site specific analysis during the permitting stage. But to effectively protect habitat connectivity, a crucial component of biodiversity, a comprehensive park-wide wildlife and habitat assessment is necessary. This reinforces the importance of the comprehensive assessment that the Parks Department agreed to undertake during the SEPA review.

It is not clear whether this development falls within shoreline jurisdiction, particularly as it appeared that the area contained wetlands, and this should be clarified. Lake Whatcom is a shoreline of statewide significance (SSWS), entitled to the highest levels of environmental protection under the Shoreline Management Act and the local Shoreline Management Plan. Grass lawns and restrooms adjacent to a SSWS are contrary to the long term interests of state residents in restoring natural ecosystem functions.

The stated purpose of the park development is to increase intensity of shoreline use by encouraging families and hikers to spread out blankets and use the waterfront.  “Intensity of use” has important impacts to aquatic and terrestrial species and requires mitigation.  It does not appear that the county intends to analyze impacts and provide compensatory mitigation.  How will the county mitigate for impacts and how does this proposal comply with the requirements for mitigation sequencing?  

In short, this proposal requires further consideration, review, public involvement and development. A comprehensive species and habitat analysis is needed before any planning and development occurs. There should be no lawns placed adjacent to an impaired shoreline of statewide significance, which is also infested with invasive species. The county needs to use open space for the protection of biodiversity, and not automatically plan lawns and picnic areas.

This illustrates that there are really no “small” or “routine” projects in the Lake Whatcom watershed. The entire watershed functions as an integrated, holistic ecosystem and it must be reviewed and developed on this same basis. As this column goes to print, I do not know what action, if any, the county council will take with regard to the public comment that I submitted reflecting these concerns. However, it is clear that the controversy over the lake reconveyance will continue through the park planning process, at least if I have any ability to influence the process.