Washington State Water Law

Last Wednesday, May 22, the Bellingham City Club speaker was Tom McDonald, an experienced expert, who spoke on the subject of Washington State Water Law: Whose Water Is It Anyway? And Who Decides? And When? And Will It Be There When I Turn On The Tap? 

This was a timely presentation since water law will impact upcoming decisions on who has rights to water in the 14 river-sheds in Western Washington. Water is essential for human life and is becoming more scarce and polluted as our population grows. Water will limit growth before our land supply will.

(The presentation outline is reproduced below) 

Coming up next Thursday & Friday at the Hampton Inn: Water Supply: Searching for Certainty in Uncertain Times will discuss What is at risk if water issues are not resolved? 

This two day symposium will focus on water supply issues including the factors influencing availability for in-stream and out-of-stream uses as well as the current status of the water supply in Whatcom County.

Lookout for Galbraith

The May 26 issue of the Bellingham Herald carried this story on the announcement that over 3100 acres of mostly timberland on Galbraith Mountain is for sale.
That should be no surprise, because that particular property has been for sale a long time, by various owners.
The question remains, for what purpose does this property exist, and for what price?

The current owners would no doubt like to see the property up zoned to maximize potential profits, but under the present circumstances that does not seem likely.
Instead, the major areas designated Commercial Forestry and Rural Forestry seem fit mainly for those purposes, with two main caveats; due care must be taken for any timber harvesting that impacts the Lake Whatcom watershed and/or other local streams, and road building to access the 67 potential home sites currently permissible under County zoning rules.

It would be good to just buy up the residential development rights for any new homes, since these could be removed forever as a threat to watersheds and a burden to access roads and utilities services.

More problematic is what happens to the timbered areas, much of which are still years away from harvesting. When that time comes, expect some controversy over logging operations so close to urban areas.

The idea of using this property for recreation and open space is a good one, providing funding can be found from County, City or other sources. Good luck with that, since the County has just assumed responsibility for 8700 acres of former DNR forestlands, and the City has squandered $3.5 million more than it had to purchase the entire Chuckanut Ridge property, much of which would have come free if some reasonable level of development had been allowed per legal zoning.

The WHIMPs and other local organizations greatly enjoy hiking and biking on Galbraith Mountain, since it is close by and affords nice views of our surroundings. But, to expect these private groups to maintain the area in perpetuity makes no sense, because of time and expense. It is doubtful that the owners can be relied upon to underwrite safe public use for very long; after all they obtained it from Trillium in exchange for debt. The owners own it for one reason; to make money - or at least not to lose any.

So, what to do? Your guess is as good as mine!
But, for starters, make sure the areas inside the Lake Whatcom watershed remain undeveloped.
Then, think about what makes sense, like conceiving of a parks plan that emphasizes World-Class mountain biking, hiking and viewing great scenery.
And, it could link up with the DNR property, too.

All of those things will draw people to Bellingham plus provide enjoyment for area residents.
Maybe Western Washington University has an idea or two about how to develop and maintain an Urban Forest?
Anacortes already has one around Whisper Lake and Mount Erie that could be a model.
Future sustainable harvesting of timber could help finance such an endeavor.

Then, there are other possibilities like siting the new County Jail facilities, water storage tanks, microwave towers, windmills for power generation, observation decks, and the like.
Just a few thoughts to put out there.

All this for only $16 million?
Wonder how that compares to the values the County got for 8700 acres. Oh, I forgot, the County ALREADY owned it and just took it back for the equivalent of $35 per acre. Such a deal!
The City has spent more than that for the 1500 or so acres it has acquired to protect Lake Whatcom from further harmful development, but much of that property was developable, and therefore much more valuable to owners.

The question remains, what is a reasonable true value for the 3100-plus acres of mostly forest lands on Galbraith Mtn, of which maybe 40% is actually in the Lake Whatcom watershed?
Once the residential component is subtracted, the remaining CF zoned lands are taxable at a very low rate - reflecting the time needed for timber to become mature enough to harvest.
Realistically, the current owners ought to be prepared to await that time, so that any compelling urgency to sell is reduced - or artificial. But, that's just my guess.

Maybe there's a young mountain bike aficionado out there who's just became a Facebook multi-millionaire? Know anyone like that to recruit? We could rename the property in their honor.

Reconveyance Decision Upcoming

Bob Simmons has posted another piece on Crosscut about an impending decision by the Whatcom County Council regarding whether over 8000 acres of steep DNR-managed timberlands upslope of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir will become designated County parklands that severely restrict future clear-cutting and its associated service-road building.

Here is the comment I posted:

This is a good idea and affordable. To mimic nature is always easier when nature is left to do the job it does. There will always be pro & con arguments, but preserving these steep slopes from clear-cutting has to be a no-brainer! Bellingham & Whatcom County are very fortunate to have such a large and pure reservoir for a drinking water supply, but until relatively recently, understanding what it takes to preserve it has been slow in coming. 1992 was the year that a joint Resolution was signed that identified known problems that need to be faced, with careful thought coupled with effective action, not just talk. Other major cities, like Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Portland, San Francisco, Vancouver, BC, etc had long ago taken steps to ensure the safety of their water supplies, but not Bellingham -which had and has some serious catching up to do! 

The Whatcom County government has been very slow in coming to terms with its water policy, and not just concerning the Lake Whatcom Reservoir. It still lacks any meaningful storm water program that has both long term goals and funding. So, this reconveyance can represent a good start, and one that is affordable and effective in mimicking nature on the very steep slopes that need to be kept stable and green, whether one calls it a park or watershed buffer; trees and native plants do the work necessary to hold unstable soil in place. And, since soil is the major source of phosphorus, keeping it out of Lake Whatcom is important if the growing problem of algae blooms is to be curtailed. 

Bellingham, by contrast, has focused is watershed preservation efforts on acquiring land more suitable for development, using funds from surcharges on it's water sales as purveyor. Of course, this land is more expensive; it is not often just given away! The point is, that whatever watershed land is preserved -by whatever method- it all contributes to stopping inappropriate development in this stressed and sensitive watershed. Make no mistake about the fact that development -whether housing, clear-cut logging, roads, etc- is the main culprit in degrading this wonderful water supply source! To the extent the DNR reconveyance helps, its good. 

It's now time for this decision to be favorably made, since the issue has been thoroughly debated for several years, during which almost $400,000 has been already spent by the County to survey and consolidate parcels into the configuration upon which the decision now rests.

Practically every objection raised has now been addressed and reasonably satisfied, except of course for those permanently mired in selfish interest or extreme ideological thinking.
The recent $500,000 contribution through the Whatcom Land Trust to the Mount Baker School District certainly keeps that jurisdiction whole from future timber harvest revenue loss.
Also, scaling back expensive early plans for extensive park development results in far less new revenue demand from the County, which helps both fiscally and in terms of avoiding adverse watershed impacts.

When this DNR reconveyance proposal first publicly surfaced in the fall of 2007, I also raised several concerns, all of which have now been satisfactorily addressed. I hope the County Council -and the new Executive- will allow this idea to go forward and become the reality most residents want and have come to expect.
It will be good for the County, good for Lake Whatcom Reservoir, and it will respect all the hard work, effort and expense it has required to proceed thus far in good faith. All that is left to do is the final approval, which only the Council can decide.

Lake Whatcom: Little Ducky Duddle's Fault?

The Ducky Duddle Song

Little ducky duddle
went wading in a puddle,
wading in a puddle quite small.

Said he "it doesn't matter
how much I splash and splatter
'cause I'm just a little ducky after all."
--------------------------
The current Weekly's GRISTLE poses some interesting background and observations about our RESERVOIR.
I recommend reading it.

Those who have followed this issue for a while know what a conundrum it is.
Even after a string of after-the-fact beneficial actions by City & County governments as well as the WA Dept of Ecology and other agencies, the rate of steady degradation of our drinking water supply has slowed slightly, but not stopped, much less reversed as the DOE has directed.

Recounting the long litany of well-intended past actions would fill a few pages and more importantly lead some into believing we've already done a lot, which lessens the need to do more.
Nothing could be less true!

Suffice to say that some of the bigger steps, like down-zong, restrictions on clearing and grading, watershed acquisition & preservation, storm-water regulations and mitigation, lake-friendly gardening & landscaping are working to some extent, but not nearly enough to actually reverse the trend of lake water degradation.

Believe me, I know how tiring it can be working on this issue! And expensive. And controversial. And frustrating.
But that is the nature of this beast.
Think of a long-term marathon race, not a 40-yard sprint -as many seem to prefer.

With that concept in mind, the new year brings in some new elected officials, who may or may not be able to do much more than has been done to benefit our Reservoir.
Time will tell, as it has up to now.
And the results are not nearly good enough.

Waiting for the DOE TMDL Study to tell us what is needed to be done is easy, because we're really good at waiting!
Actually taking the actions required is the hard part.

And its not easy to conceive of many more 'quick fixes', like the ones already put into place.
Only steady, incremental steps can be visualized that will largely depend on the voluntary efforts of enlightened watershed residents, property owners, users and concerned citizens.
Of course, government regulations, funding and enforcement are necessary to effectively support these -and prior- efforts.

Ideas like infiltration of storm-water, creating a large park & open space from former DNR forest lands, and the like do have the potential for adding more protection from pollutants rapidly entering Lake Whatcom.
But, these approaches need to be tested and evaluated for their efficacy.

As tempting as it is to wish for a 'silver bullet' to solve our Reservoir degradation problem, that is not likely.
Only the 'block & tackle' work of constant vigilance, political courage and steady effort is likely to be effective over time.
The degradation of our drinking water Reservoir has been caused primarily by unfiltered stormwater run-off, resulting from multiple acts over time; literally 'death by a thousand pin-pricks'.

Or a thousand Ducky Duddles?
That's the point; we are all Ducky Duddles, and it DOES matter how much we splash and splatter!

Under these circumstances, a quick and painless solution is not likely to occur.
Daunting as that outlook may seem, it should encourage more focused action, not less.
I hope the new elected officials will rise to this task and accept their share of accountability for Lake Whatcom.
After all, it is the drinking water source for half of the people in Whatcom County.
---------------------

Back to the Gristle's conclusion: Seth [Fleetwood], with feet on both sides of county and city water policy, chose not to step into that puddle.
Maybe that's not such a bad thing for Seth to not do, unlike Ducky Duddle?
After all, he's been there, done that and knows -first hand- the kind of irrational reaction that can be triggered by stepping into such a puddle with both feet.

Remember 'Boats Off', and the County Council's [and Seth's] unhappy experience with that?
It's intent was simply to restrict the use of older motorized watercraft that spewed 25% of their fuel directly into the water.
Doesn't that sound like a desirable thing to do?
Especially since the City's Water Treatment Plant isn't designed to remove harmful hydrocarbons?

So, it really makes no difference whether Seth volunteered for the City's Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed Committee -for several reasons:

(1) Unlike the County Council, the City Council Committees are 'weak' committees meant primarily to spread the early discussion workload, although these sessions are also inclusive of all other members, and all final decisions are made by the Council-As-A-Whole.

(2) Given the make-up of City Council, there is comparatively less resistance to considering, passing and funding programs to benefit Lake Whatcom. Seth does not need to be on this committee to stay informed or contribute ideas.
{My last 2 years I elected to not serve on this committee, because I thought others needed to become more involved.]

(3) Seth DID pick the Parks & Recreation Committee, whose activities he is familiar and comfortable with.
And, it's possible that Seth MAY use that position to help promote the County's proposed Reconveyance of 8400 acres of DNR forestlands to create a large park and open space in the Lake Whatcom watershed.

Some have already characterized this as a potential 'home run' for the Reservoir, and it could be, provided a careful, low impact plan is adopted -along with the long term funding to adequately manage it.
But, I remain a skeptic until I see those critical elements in place.
-----------------------

Seth has served us pretty well while a part of the County Council.
And, I suspect he will continue in that vein while on the City Council.
No one should doubt that Seth's new job will prove more comfortable to him, both in the scope of issues considered and better compatibility with his peers, not to mention a much more favorable atmosphere for being re-elected.

Of course, two years ago Seth did run for Mayor. Think he'll do that again?
Since his position is the only 2-year elected seat in the County, do you think he will support changing it to a 4-year seat?
His predecessor certainly fought that idea, but think of the possible ramifications for Seth.

By serving a 2-year term, Seth would have to pick which office he runs for in 2 years.
But, a 4-year term -on the same election cycle as Gene Knutson, Michael Lilliquist and Stan Snapp- would mean he could run for Mayor [or other office] without first relinquishing his Council seat.
Think about it.
--------------------------

Reconveyance & Park Plan: City Council Presentation by Tom Pratum

-------------------------------
Because the County Executive's proposal to reconvey DNR Lands to Whatcom County for use as a Park is now working it's way through a process that may lead to its adoption, the Bellingham City Council asked for diverse presentations from 3 individuals, each with a different perspective on that proposal.

These presentations were made on August 4. Presenters included Mike McFarlane, Director of Whatcom County Parks & Recreation Dept, Dave Wallin, WWU Professor of Environmental Science, and Tom Pratum, PhD Chemistry who also teaches at WWU and is a long time advocate for protecting Lake Whatcom.

While the first two individuals also participated in the County's Citizen Committee that was convened to assess this proposal, Mr Pratum was not invited to participate, despite -and maybe because of - his record of being an active and knowledgeable volunteer steward of our Reservoir, who also has been known to offer an occasional criticism when appropriate!

It is for the reason that Mr Pratum's perspectives have not -until now- been given the serious public consideration they are due, that I asked him to allow reproducing his presentation here.
Of course, I would gladly make the same offer to the others if they felt that might be helpful.

Since I believe the City Council is planning to separately deliberate this issue and likely try to support it in some form of their choosing, it is appropriate for citizens to give them the benefit of the community's best thinking - in advance of any City Resolution, suggestions, recommendations, or other actions that might be taken .
--------------------------

First, a few comments of my own:

• I have been a vocal critic of early versions of this proposal because of the manner in which it was announced, as well as the glaring lack of details about planned developments, park uses, funding and mitigating measures to protect this critical watershed.
Others have also been vocal critics along similar lines, including the so-called Interjurisdictional Coordinating Team [ICT], a group of combined County/City staff charged with recommending, implementing & monitoring progress on the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan, itself a joint effort.

• I have modified my earlier views as some of my concerns seem to have been considered and maybe even addressed. But, I remain a skeptic until I see a much clearer plan that proposes only minimal impacts, and that also contains the funding and written commitments in place to guarantee that the Reservoir will not be further harmed.
But, the devil is in the details, and that's where this process is right now -in the midst of determining those pesky details!
This might become a good proposal that is demonstrably superior to the one is designed to replace, but I'm not yet convinced of that.

• Tom Pratum presents some really good points and with clarity, and some of his suggestions are quite different from what we might have heard before. For example, his suggestion of an outside financial analysis does NOT mean the DNR exercise, nor the sketchy and overly rosy 'guesstimates' the County continues to tout! It means a careful assessment by a competent third party, that addresses more than one hazy scenario. Call it a kind of 'Peer Review' that impartially translates what plans actually mean into realistic costs that are projected over time.
[Note: If I were currently a member of either Council, I would call for such important information before agreeing to any decision to move forward. That is simply called due diligence!]
So, please pay careful attention to Pratum's summary of concerns, as well as his concluding suggestions to help alleviate these concerns.
These are the real meat of his presentation, and do make practical, fiscal & administrative sense.
Just reading this clearly illustrates the depth of thinking inherent in this presentation, and serves to underpin why both the listed concerns and the concluding suggestions are critically important ones.
---------------------

To: Bellingham City Council, August 4 Lake Whatcom Watershed Committee Meeting

From: Tom Pratum

Re: Reconveyance of Forest Board Land in Lake Whatcom Landscape Planning Area

Concerns:

1. Financial – what are the financial consequences and what effect will they have on other watershed preservation efforts?

* Loss of revenue to taxing districts.
* Park development and M&O costs.
* Use of Conservation Futures fund.
* Lack of an independent financial analysis.

2. Land use impacts – the effect on overall forest practice intensity will be relatively low, so will the park’s impact be greater than the impact of these forest practices?

* Park development
* Transportation/access
* Enforcement issues (off road vehicles, etc)
* Liability issues
* Effect on adjacent land uses (potential zoning issues).

3. Miscellaneous – other reasons it may not make sense to do this.

* Appropriateness of proposed land exchange as a park.
* Timeliness – is this the right time to do this?

4. Suggestions to help alleviate concerns.
-------------

Overview of Lake Whatcom watershed forest practices:

The proposal would transfer approximately 8,400 acres of Whatcom County Forest Board land managed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in the Lake Whatcom Landscape Planning area from trust status to Whatcom County - note that the Landscape Planning Area extends somewhat beyond the watershed and covers 15,700 acres total. Of those 8,400 acres to be transferred, approximately 7,400 are in the Lake Whatcom watershed, with the remainder in the Friday Creek watershed.

These 8,400 acres are currently managed under the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, formally adopted in November 2004. Since that time (up to July 25, 2008), there have been 4 DNR forest practice applications covering 293 acres in the Landscape Planning Area as a whole - not all of these have been entirely contained within the watershed boundaries. Over that same time period, there have been 40 approved harvest related forest practice applications that were at least partially in the Lake Whatcom watershed [See Note 1 below]. These 40 applications cover a total of 1330 acres, therefore the four DNR applications make up less than 25% of the total. Note that the forest practice rules imposed by the Landscape Plan on DNR timber harvests are much more stringent than the rules to which private foresters must adhere. Even if the landscape plan were removed, the State timber harvests are conducted in a more environmentally sensitive manner than those on private land due to the DNR’s Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) requirements.

In order to see what effect the proposed reconveyance would have on the current level of DNR forest practices, we need only take a simple ratio of the proposed reconveyance acres to the total currently available for forest practices, and weight that relative to the proportion of the area that is in protected status under the Landscape Plan due to the presence of steep slopes, riparian areas, wind buffers, etc. When such an analysis is done [See Note 2 below] it is found that the current proposal is likely to result in a decrease of 44 acres of forest practices per year if no forest practices are conducted on the land after reconveyance. Of those 44 acres, 39 are within the Lake Whatcom watershed.

What have been the trends of forest practice activity over the past few decades and how do they relate to current water quality issues? To get an idea of how the current level of forest practice activity compares with that of past decades, I have looked for a previous analysis of this activity. In May 1990, the following figure was presented to the Lake Whatcom Forestry Forum. According to the figure, these data come from Whatcom County Planning.


It is apparent from this figure that the average number of acres of forest practices in the watershed was around 1,000 over the period 1987 - 1990. The current level - including those DNR forest practices referenced above - is approximately 400 acres per year. This decrease in forest practice activity has resulted in no concomitant increase in water quality - in fact, water quality has decreased substantially in the last two decades. This calls any strong linkage between forest practices and current Lake Whatcom water quality issues into question.

If no forest practices occur on the reconveyed land, the result of this proposal would be elimination of a portion of the DNR forest practices, conducted to the highest standards in the watershed, and accounting for approximately 10% of total watershed forest practices. Is it likely that reducing the current harvest level in the watershed in this way will result in any apparent water quality benefit?

As a final note: it is disingenuous to link the landslides that happened on private forest land in Lewis County with what may happen on DNR forest land in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Private forest practices are regulated by the same agency as State harvests, but they follow much different rules. To visibly see an example, take a look at the North side of Stewart Mountain where a sharp line of demarcation can be seen between the “scraped earth” forest practices of first Crown and now Sierra Pacific and those of the DNR in their recent North Olson cut. The best thing we can do to prevent more Lewis County like events is to make sure current Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland is removed from office in November.

Financial consequences:

Loss of revenue: Any analysis of revenue loss depends on at least the following 4 factors:

* Acreage of forest practices approved.
* Price of timber when those forest practices are executed.
* Junior taxing districts serviced by the area of the forest practice (location dependent).
* Property tax levy rate of those junior taxing districts at the time the timber is cut.

Due to the uncertainty of the factors involved, it is not easy to say what the loss of revenue will be. However, we can look at a recent DNR timber sale in the watershed to get an idea of some real numbers. The “Look North” timber sale has occurred in the furthest North part of the DNR holdings on Lookout Mountain. Access to this timber sale is via a road across from Sudden Valley gate 13. In this timber sale, 47.3 acres of Whatcom County Forest Board timber were sold [See Note 3 below] for $829,598 (February 2008). This timber has been partially, but not entirely cut as of this writing. If we assume that the DNR Forest Development Account receives 25% of the proceeds, this leaves approximately $622,000 [See Note 4 below] to be distributed by the Whatcom County Treasurer to the junior taxing districts serving the location of this sale. This distribution follows that for property taxes, with the exception of fact that there is no deduction for fire protection. Based on the location of the sale [See Note 5 below] the following distribution is obtained: Bellingham School District: $222,000, County General Fund: $74,000, County Road Fund: $97,000, Port: $22,000, Library: $24,000, State General Fund and other recipients: $183,000. Thus, the sale of an amount of timber similar to, but somewhat larger than that we would expect to be harvested on the reconveyed land under current management, results in substantial funding for a number of taxing districts - over $170,000 directly to Whatcom County. Even if some of these districts forgo payment in the event the land is reconveyed, the impact to their budgets is a real cost that must be accounted for.

Park development and M & O costs: Development is estimated to be in the $millions. While grants may provide part of the funding, matching will be required in order for the grant applications to be competitive. Grant funding is unlikely to provide for all development costs - especially in the current era of very tight state and federal budgets. For M&O costs, we only have estimates provided by Whatcom County Parks of on the order of $150,000 per year.

Use of the Conservation Futures Fund: According to RCW 84.34.240, “Amounts placed in this fund may be used for the purpose of acquiring rights and interests in real property pursuant to the terms of RCW 84.34.210 and 84.34.220, and for the maintenance and operation of any property acquired with these funds.” While RCW 84.34.210 envisions using the funds for fee simple acquistion, and RCW 84.34.220 concerns using the funds to acquire development rights, RCW 84.34.240 restricts the amount of these funds that can be used for maintenance and operations to ”fifteen percent of the total amount collected from the tax levied under RCW 84.34.230 in the preceding calendar year.”

Reconveyance is not a fee simple acquisition - clearly, the Conservation Futures fund cannot be used for M & O of the reconveyed land. Can the Conservation Futures fund be used for any purpose with regard to reconveyance - including transaction costs, which are currently budgeted (2007 - 2008) from the Parks general fund budget?

The Conservation Futures fund is the only fund Whatcom County currently uses for land acquisition, and it must be available to fund acquisition of watershed, agricultural and other lands in the county.

Lack of an independent financial analysis: If we had an independent financial analysis, such as was done in regard to the merging of the City of Bellingham and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, then many of these questions would be settled. However, Whatcom County has made no attempt to have such an analysis conducted.

It is very significant that a number of county departments have recently been asked for substantial budget cuts in the 2009 - 2010 budget cycle. For example, Parks has been asked for a $575,000 budget reduction. Planning and Development - responsible for enforcing watershed development regulations - has been asked for a whopping $1.5 million cut. The county will lose revenue as a result of this proposal, and it will incur additional costs - how will these revenue losses and costs be borne?

Land use impacts: The designation of the reconveyed land as park, and the increased recreational use of the watershed that will result, will have both direct and indirect impacts. Among these:

Park development impacts: Without a conservation easement, there is nothing to stop a future incarnation of county government from building watershed damaging parks facilities. These might include, but would not be limited to: asphalt parking lots, large scale boat moorages and launching facilities, community centers, and shooting ranges. Similarly, operational decisions - such as the allowance for camping, fires and off-road vehicles - need to be protected against.

Transportation and access: The proposed park area will be serviced primarily by Lakeway Drive, and Lake Louise Road on the Lookout Mountain side, and by North Shore Road on the Stewart Mountain side. Lakeway and Lake Louise are already severely impacted corridors. There is bus service along Lake Louise road that will allow folks to use non-automotive access. Additionally, there is the potential for access from Samish Way. The Stewart Mountain side is an entirely different story. Here, park users will access the park by driving all the way to the end of North Shore Road; there are no reasonable possibilities for other access. There is no bus service - all trips will be by car (or possibly boat), and this area will be impacted.

Enforcement: As a frequent visitor to both of the areas proposed for reconveyance, I can say there are already enforcement issues with regard to off-road vehicles, illegal trail building, and fires. Responsibility for policing these areas will rest with county government after reconveyance, and this is another cost to be accounted for.

Liability issues: Not only will Whatcom County assume liability for current uses of the reconveyed land after this proposal is executed, but they will assume liability for past uses. When there were previous slides in the watershed in 1983, residents sued the then owners of the land and were paid substantial sums - not because those owners were responsible, but because they owned land where previous forest practices issues were unresolved. This liability concern is one of the reasons reconveyance was not requested on this land after the land trade in 1993 that brought a large part of the current DNR holdings into the watershed.

Effect on adjacent land uses: If this land becomes a park, it will, at some point, be rezoned appropriately. Land that is no longer forest resource land used for commercial forestry will eventually lose that designation. If this were to occur today, this land would be rezoned - after reconveyance - Recreation and Open Space (ROS), as are all large Whatcom County Parks with the exception of the Canyon Lake Community Forest (which has been inaccessible for the past 2 years). What will this designation do to motivate adjoining land owners to request de-designation of their forest land? Could this reconveyance request be reconfigured to make such requests less-likely? By reconfiguring the request, could we reduce the possibility of development of adjoining rural lands?

Miscellaneous issues:

Appropriateness of the proposed land exchange as a park: While not everyone would agree with me, I personally think the Lookout Mountain park area makes sense. Transportation to the site is already impacted by Sudden Valley, it has bus service, it has logical connections to other park areas (e.g. Stimpson, Olsen, and Squires Lake). The park area would have many users who reside in Sudden Valley and would not travel through the watershed. There would be adjacent land use issues with regard to Trillium’s Galbraith Mountain area - this land should be targeted for acquisition with Conservation Futures funds.

The Stewart Mountain area makes no sense as a park. The only reasonable access is via North Shore Road, and there is no bus service - park visitors will drive over 10 miles through the watershed on their way to the park, as they now do for the North Lake Whatcom Trail. Additionally, there is a large utility corridor down the middle (the BPA right-of-way). If the reconveyance were reconfigured toward the Olson Creek area, some of these issues would be reduced, and the utility corridor would be avoided. Additionally, the Olson Creek area already has a substantial trail system, and more of that land is available for timber harvest, so the impact on forest practices would be greater if this area were reconveyed after appropriate intergrant transfers.

Timeliness: There is no reason reconveyance has to be executed now. The current configuration of DNR land in the watershed has been in place since 1993 - reconveyance could have occurred at any time in the past 15 years, and will continue to be available into the future. The land configuration of the current proposal comes from the DNR and reflects their desires with regard to intergrant transfers [See Note 6 below] rather than those of this community. The current DNR administration is the most environmentally unfriendly we have had in decades. This November, there is a good chance we can replace Doug Sutherland with Peter Goldmark. With such a change at the top, it is likely that we would see reduced timber harvest in the watershed under the current landscape plan, or, if the pursuit of reconveyance is still desired, it could be reconfigured to better serve the needs of this community.

Suggestions to help alleviate concerns:

* Conservation easement to prevent future governmental entities from making bad land use and operational decisions - for example, not only should damaging parks facilities be prohibited, but potentially damaging parks activities, such as off-roading, camping and building fires, should also not be allowed. The concept of a conservation easement that meets some of these requirements has been recommended by the “committee”.

* Financial analysis of the proposal by an independent, outside entity (such as FCS Group).

* Dedicated revenue stream (e.g. small property tax levy) to pay all costs of proposal (as determined above) - including losses to junior taxing districts. Only with a dedicated revenue stream can we be sure these costs are not borne by reductions in other programs.

* Scale proposal back to the Lookout Mountain area only. The Stewart Mountain area makes little sense as a park, and in the future, with a more environmentally friendly DNR administration, this may be reconfigured to make more sense. Scaling the proposal back will also reduce costs, greatly reduce transportation impacts, and will remove the objections from the Mt Baker School District. There is no rational reason the current DNR administration would object to the scaled down intergrant transfer required in this situation.
-----------------------
Notes:

1. Taken from the DNR Forest Practices Application Review System (FPARS), 2004 - 2008.

2. A simple calculation is done as follows: average DNR harvest per year in Landscape Planning Area = 293/3 = 97.6. Average harvest in reconveyed area assuming equal likelihood of harvest = 97.6*8400/15700 = 52 acres. Taking into account that more protected area under the Landscape Plan lies on Forest Board Land (60% opposed to 53% of Landscape Area as a whole (DEIS 2003; estimate based on Fig 5 on pg 122 and the consideration of Forest Board and Common School Trusts, which account for 84% of the land area)), and assuming intergrant transfer does not change this = 52*0.4/0.47 = 44 acres. The portion of this that is within the watershed = 44*7400/8400 = 39 acres.

3. Note that there is some incorrect information in your council packet regarding this, and the other timber sale that is in the area proposed for reconveyance (White Chantrelle). Both of these have been approved, and sold to Sierra Pacific.

4. This is close to the figure - $658,000 - given to Mike McFarlane by the DNR on March 20, 2008 as an estimate of the average yearly revenue obtained by county taxing districts from Forest Board Land in the Landscape Planning Area (3/17/2008 memo). It differs greatly from the figure of $185,000 given in your council packet.

5. The land covered by this sale is in tax code 1006, which determines this distribution.

6. The Board of Natural Resources was briefed on this exchange initially at their November 2007 meeting. A reading of that discussion is instructive. Among the revealing statements: a question from Jon Kaino, wondering “....if we would get the non 01 trust lands out on the perimeter where we can actually harvest them?” (this was answered affirmative by DNR Land Steward Bruce Mackey - note that “non 01” refers to other than Forest Board lands).
--------------------------

Reconveyance & Park Plan: More Feedback & Other Thoughts

This will be a two-part post.
-----------------

First, Dan McShane's additional feedback to 3 critical questions is shown below.
[Again, Dan's comments are in italics and mine are in bold]

On May 27, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Dan McShane wrote:

John Watts has some more questions.

I am a little hesitant to answer them as John has editoralized my last answers saying a few were defensive and only half answers. Not all these questions can be answered completely as they are to be answered through the process of planning the park and reconveyance. I will attempt to answer them or at least provide some points to consider . As before my answers are italics:

John wrote:

For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:

• Loss of revenues from DNR forestry. Even if there is no legal obligation for the County to provide replacement funds, what about moral or practical reasons for doing so? After all, our local Mt Baker School District does rely partially on these funds.

I won't attempt to start a discussion about the morals of providing funding as that would be a bit deep for me. The County is under no obligation to provide revenue to the trusts including Mt Baker School District or Bellingham School District. However, as noted before there is precedent for set aside national forest land and taxes at the federal level. Payment in lue of taxes (PLT) is provided on an annual basis via a complex formula to States and Counties with national forest land. In addition there has been since 2002 the Secure Schools Fund that provides money to timber counties based on another formula. Prior to the secure Schools Fund Act a formula was used for revenue based on past timber sales on national forest land and the fall off of sales due to spotted owl.

If you want to get into the morals of payments or non payments, do some digging into PILT, spotted owl money and the Secure Schools Funding Act. Every year the level of funding for PILT and SSFA is debated in congress. The formulas can be bizarre creating winners and losers. Overall Whatcom County has come out ahead on owl money and SSFA. All that said it is not a huge part of the County budget.

As for the practicality for some sort of payment scheme to the Mt Baker School District. Yes it would be feasible. It is not a huge sum of money, but I would caution that the forest revenue generated to the local schools is subject to some formulas that can be misleading. If I recall correctly the fiscal impact to Mt Baker will be on the order of $20,000 per year, but that is dependent on some changeable factors. It is tricky because a significant portion of the revenue that goes to the local school school districts is subtrated from another payment the schools get from the state (back to morals dictated by funding formulas!)

Some sort of compensation formula could come from the County and I believe there is some leaning toward that kind of arrangement by the administration. I do know that the City is considering that as an option for proving funding for loss revenue due to the landscape plan.

• Conservation easements for lake protection. If the reconveyance is supposed to better protect the lake than current DNR custody, where are guarantees this will in fact be the case? If the reconveyed land is to become a 'Forest Preserve', as claimed, will it be managed in the same manner as, say, the Stimpson Reserve, with mostly careful and passive uses?

The proposal is for a forest reserve park. Likely on the lines of Stimpson reserve or perhaps better. The final park plan is not done but that is the process that is taking place right now. Proponents for lake protection will likely want to weigh heavily in favor of the perk plans with the lowest impact levels.

• Prohibition of logging. Where in the law are the provisions that prohibit logging after reconveyance? It does appear that logging is still allowed in a reconveyed public park. Is that true?

There are no prohibitions from future logging. However, any future logging revenue generation must be distributed to the trusts as under DNR management and the DNR will get its management fee of 25%. (The 25% may be altered as the logging on park land may have higher management costs) The extent of logging would depend on the kind of park. I would anticipate that in some areas commercial thinning or non commercial thinning would be beneficial in some areas. Any thinning or clearing would have to be per a forest park reserve management plan. Similar programs have been taking place on local National Forest Land. As a member of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee, we funded non commercial thinning projects to promote better forest stands in key areas of the forest and there have been a number of commercial thinning projects to do the same. The difference between commercial and non commercial depends on a combination of the size and distribution of the trees to be thinned and access.

Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?

Does seem a bit daring answering John's questions. Try not to editorialize too much John.
----------------------------------

OK, Dan, but this does seem an appropriate place for a few brief comments:

• The estimate of $20K per yer to the Mt Baker School District seems low, and there are also other junior taxing districts to consider in fairness.

• Most of the Stimpson Nature reserve has a Whatcom Land Trust administered conservation easement on it, as do the Canyon Lake Community Forest, and the Olsen Estate and Anderson Properties adjacent or near Stimpson.
It is important that these new proposed park properties also have strict conservation easements on them to insure the uses intended and agreed to are followed - in perpetuity. Of course, this responsibility does not come free since there are ongoing maintenance costs to the WLT for their services in this regard.

• You seem to confirm that trees can/will be cut on the proposed Parks properties, which means that any Parks Plan adopted will need to contain limits on those provisions as part of the conservation easement(s). With these, the new Parks can be expected to benefit future generations, in perpetuity, but without them, any future reconsideration of the reconveyance could undo all -or part- of the public good intended in the first place.

See how the beginnings of a true dialogue can cut down on too much editorializing?

I appreciate Dan McShane's answers and look forward to other productive exchanges in the future.
=========================================

OK, now to Part 2:

I've had more time to reflect on the general topic of public process, and how some basic principles might be applied to the specific policy decisions that will come, regarding the Reconveyance & Park Plan.

GENERAL:


As I have previously stated, the reconveyance can be a very good idea, provided it is structured properly to insure better Reservoir protection than we currently have with DNR management.
To that end, we are all interested in the answers to these questions, which aren't yet fully known.
But, that is exactly why early public dialogue is so important!

I believe others who have expressed similar doubts, will support this basic idea, provided something like the strict principles outlined above are substantially met. This will not be helped if the County truncates due public process and rushes to an ill-conceived commitment that becomes counterproductive to what is trying to be achieved.
So, perhaps a statement of purpose might be drafted that outlines the desired objectives and clearly states the overarching guiding principles to be followed, regardless of what specifics might later evolve. Such a process would be similar to what the City & Port used in the Waterfront Futures Group visioning exercise.

A few ideas and potential elements are suggested as follows, which might readily convert into a list of 'Whereases':

• Whatcom County commits to a process will be deliberative, focused first on facts, and widely publicized to all stakeholders, with meetings televised and draft Park Plan recommendations published well before any final action is undertaken. Such a generic process can be likened to 'Baking A Cake' [see Blog dated 9/2/07]

• Like the old GE slogan, 'the quality goes in before the name goes on.' In the Petroleum & Chemical Industry there is a concept called 'Process Safety Management', which has as its intent the advance avoidance of problems and various scenarios that lead to them, by a very careful design process. The PSM lesson was learned the hard way, when the Union Carbide explosion & disaster happened in India at Bhopal. In resolving the issue of the re-starting the Olympic Pipe Line, the City sought assistance in applying PSM methodology. While the same level of danger would not be expected for Parks in the watershed, a PSM-type thought process would help insure that all contingencies have been considered in advance.

• Due diligence will be critical, much like the considerations of purchasing a home, car or any other major commitment with long-term financial implications. This is bigger, seeks to help protect the health, safety & welfare of citizens and uses public funds.

• There is value in writing things down! Memory can be fleeting and variable. Records are useful, and people like to read things at their own convenience.

• Future adherence to any reconveyance & Parks Plan adopted is essential and needs to be very carefully insured. Thomas Jefferson in his wisdom, offers two very useful observations on this point; 'the earth belongs to the living generation', and 'no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law'. To me, these statements simply state the obvious, that people will try to do what they want or need in their own time, often with little regard for what happened in history or what needs to happen in the future. That's part of human nature. The nearest thing to a perpetual law in the case of reconveyance, is a conservation easement, assigned to an outside third party to administer, like the Whatcom Land Trust.

• Our military currently operates under a controversial halfway measure called 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. That doesn't work very well, but no one seems to want to resolve the issue. While the reconveyance & Park Plan has nothing to do with sexual preference, it does need more certainty!
So, how about a policy like 'Do Ask, Do Tell'? After all, that sort of policy is exactly what will generate sort of healthy and positive dialogue most likely to result in a success. No one has all the answers yet, but questions ought to be encouraged, don't you think?
And, answers should be forthcoming in as timely manner as possible, and failing that at least acknowledged. Maybe this type of dialogue can be accumulated and recorded as a list of FAQs that everyone interested can access? Think that might be efficient?

SPECIFIC:

No firm entries yet, except the concept of relatively benign use on any Parks that are approved, and conservation easements on the preponderance of the forest lands that are reconveyed. Conservation easements to be administered by the Whatcom Land Trust. In many respects, this Reconveyance idea resembles the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance passed in 2000, which also lacked all specifics at that point, but did contain a clear statement of purpose and some essential guiding principles. Over time, that program has evolved pretty much as intended and achieved some things that would not have been possible without it.

If the Reconveyance & Parks Plans can be developed in a manner similar to that described above, I believe that Whatcom County could legitimately claim it as a potentially powerful management response to the issuance of the DOE's TMDL Study.
While quantitative details are presently lacking, these can be provided once the plan is adopted and implemented.

Finally, in deference to the very substantial efforts undertaken by Conservation Northwest, I think any resulting Reconveyance & Parks Plan deserves to be called something like 'The Lake Whatcom Reservoir FOREST PRESERVE'.
Mitch, you ought to like that one!
----------------------------------

Lake Whatcom: DNR Reconveyance & Park Plan Questions

-----------------------------
"Sometimes it's easier to understand things than it is to figure them out"
-Casey Stengel

Maybe we can add: 'or explain them?'
-----------------------------
It never ceases to amaze me how simple questions that consider the potential down side risks and consequences of public proposals can be so unwelcome! After all, every proposal has its pros & cons which ought to be explored thoroughly before important decisions are made.
Isn't a process including a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis supposed to be valuable?

As one who has served in elected public office, I learned how important it is to seriously listen to every citizen's concern. Without carefully listening to these concerns, how can reasonable responses ever be made?
The more good questions are asked, the more good answers are generated, and that process consistently makes for better results.

So it is with the DNR Reconveyance issue and the related proposal to create an extensive new public park system in the watershed of our municipal water supply.
This reconveyance can ONLY take place if an approved Park Plan is in place.
To date, I haven't seen this Park Plan in any sort of finished form that takes into account the serious concerns already expressed.

I know the County has appointed a 'stakeholders' group to consider the proposal and make recommendations to the Executive; that a presentation to the County Council is planned for July 2008, as well as a Public Hearing.

I also believe that the 10-person 'stakeholders' group appointed by Pete Kremen contains more members that have already expressed support for the idea than those who have questioned it, which is somewhat troubling.
Not that I doubt the sincerity of anyone, or their dedication to the important task they have accepted.
No, my main concern is that the group may be given all of the reasons that support the idea and only few of its drawbacks.
Also, that the time frame assigned simply is too short to generate the kind of information that will truly inform the decisions that are to come soon. Is the deadline for action artificial?
Do those seem like legitimate concerns to you?

But this proposal has some unique characteristics as well; not only is it targeted for the Lake Whatcom watershed, but it also seems to be on an unusually fast-track. with substantial cost implications -often problematic for the County.
Any of these characteristics should scream for caution!
That is why I intend to keep asking questions until the public -and I, as a concerned citizen - receive reasonably complete and factual answers.

And, readers should know, these aren't just my questions. They reflect similar concerns for others as well, including several currently elected officials.
For example, at the meeting Dan McShane's earlier response referenced, six people attended, including 3 current members of either the County or City Councils. While that 1-hour meeting did supply some answers I hadn't heard before, it also left others either unasked, or substantially unanswered.

I mention this in response to yet another 'questioning of my questions' from an employee -Mr Seth Cool- of Conservation Northwest [the entity that seems to have more information available to it than the County does, at least on the reconveyance question].
Since Mr Cool was also present at the 9/14/07, along with Lisa McShane, myself and 3 others, he should know exactly what was discussed, and what was not.
So, with that in mind, you tell me whether recent communication excerpt shown below- from Mr Cool and forwarded to me by others- provides any more useful answers, aside from providing the URL to the Northwest Conservation website which only touts the virtues of a 'Forest Preserve':

I find John Watt’s blog post odd and riddled with long dead rumors – I was personally at a meeting where he and others were briefed about reconveyance last fall and a former city councilman ought to know who to call to get answers.

But, since most citizens don’t have John’s experience in tracking down bureaucracy’s paper trail, I’ve put together a couple web pages about reconveyance.
Note the links at the top - The “Frequently Asked Questions” page is a summary, and the “documents and resources” page is full of source document: http://www.conservationnw.org/oldgrowth/lake-whatcom-reconveyance

----------------------------

Now I might be wrong, but it seems to me that Mr Cool is once again ducking direct questions that he either doesn't know or doesn't want to answer.
Maybe Mr Cool's assignment to Pete's 'stakeholder' advisory group will educate him better about the Park Plan, at which time more concrete answers will hopefully be forthcoming.
One can only hope!
-----------------------------

For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:

• Loss of revenues from DNR forestry. Even if there is no legal obligation for the County to provide replacement funds, what about moral or practical reasons for doing so? After all, our local Mt Baker School District does rely partially on these funds.

• Conservation easements for lake protection. If the reconveyance is supposed to better protect the lake than current DNR custody, where are guarantees this will in fact be the case? If the reconveyed land is to become a 'Forest Preserve', as claimed, will it be managed in the same manner as, say, the Stimpson Reserve, with mostly careful and passive uses?

• Prohibition of logging. Where in the law are the provisions that prohibit logging after reconveyance? It does appear that logging is still allowed in a reconveyed public park. Is that true?

Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
---------------------------------

Some final comments:

1. My BLOGS touching on this subject were published on the following dates, and remain in the active archive:

9/11/07 -October Surprise
9/12/07 -Feedback from 9/11
9/14/07 -Meeting with Lisa McShane
9/21/07 -Pete's announcement
9/25/07 -McShane Campaign announcement
10/4/07 -Mitch's Koolaid
10/19/07 -ICT Concerns with Park Plan
11/4/07 -Spoonerisms
5/9/08 -Unanswered Questions
5/10/08 -Convergence of 3 issues
5/16/08 -Dan McShane's answers

2. The ICT Concerns with the County Parks Plan reported on 10/19/07 are very substantial!
Excerpts from this blog is partially reproduced below:

For those who aren't familiar with the 'ICT', it is the acronym for 'Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team', a small group of staff members from both City and County that meets regularly to discuss the Lake Whatcom Management Program [LWMP] and specifically those actions that are being planned and actually worked on.

Under the current LWMP, the County Executive & the Mayor assign people to this duty, most whom have been involved with Reservoir issues for some time.
That does sometimes help institutional memory.

But, ICT discussions are not open to the public, nor are elected officials -other than Exec & Mayor- welcomed.

ICT meeting that occurred sometime in April 2006, when a Draft County Park Plan was made available for review to members of the ICT.

It turns out the ICT met with both Mike McFarland [County Parks Director] and Paul Leuthold [City Parks Director] and discussed its unfavorable evaluation of planning for more intense recreational use of the watershed.

The ICT was assured that both the Whatcom County Regional Park Plan [Lake Whatcom], and the Draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan were weighted towards watershed friendly activities and that a public process would accompany any proposal for building facilities or major improvements.

But, the ICT's concerns were not assuaged by these verbal assurances.

Instead, the ICT questioned why such non-compatible uses (as listed below) would even be included in the Park Plan, if they weren't going to be proposed.
------------------

That sounds like a pretty good question to me, that gets right to the heart of the matter!

Because the ICT meetings aren't public, and detailed minutes are not required, there appears to be no written record that can confirm this particular dialogue.

But, members of the ICT do recall both the questions and the responses given.

And, the ICT did develop a summary in May 2006 upon which their comments were based.

Essentially the ICT's comments were lumped in two categories:

1) Proposals the ICT felt should be removed from the Park Plan because they were not compatible with transportation objectives

2) Proposals that increased build-out, stormwater generation, erosion potential, and other high impact land use.

For example park facilities (day lodge probably similar to Samish Park) at the end of North Shore that will become an attraction and increase transportation.

Or, the RV Park option at the South end of Basin 3.

Or, 6 more boat launch ramps

Or, encouragement of retail activities on the lake.

The ICT concluded these are all great ideas for a lake that is primarily a recreation facility.

Anyone would love to have trails and water based facilities for kayaks and canoes, and trails to hike that connect with regional trails.

But someday, we will need to declare that drinking water protection is a much more important undertaking!

And, how well we succeed at achieving that primary goal will determine the future of our community!

The basic irony is that if such a Park does get built and enjoys great success, that very success will also create even bigger challenges as peoople flock here to play in our Water Supply watershed!

These serious concerns remain unacknowledged by the County, in its haste to gain an election Surprise.

------------------
The County Council was briefed [on the Parks Plan] early this year, but that briefing did not include the proposed Lake Whatcom Park.

Yet, the information that was shown to me last month at Conservation Northwest seemed far in excess of what the Council has seen
-----------------------------

Lake Whatcom: Reconveyance & Park Plan -A Few Unanswered Questions

---------------------------------
Now that I've figured out how to post a comment on NW Citizen and have the time, I've done so.
These were the comments [#9] I made earlier today on the May 2 article about 'Pete's Park Plan':

John Watts // Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:26 am
Debates on this subject are always good, but before locking into any position a few questions still need to be answered.
So far, I haven’t heard credible answers to most of the example questions listed below:

1. Conceding that Parks are certainly fun, won’t a large Lake Whatcom Park attract people from all around?
Would the impacts of more visitors, their vehicles, boats, horses and dogs be positive for the health of the Reservoir?
Just look at what happens with boat trailers every year at Bloedel-Donovan and tell me how that is beneficial.
Also, wouldn’t some clearing, logging and creation of impervious surfaces be directly associated with development of Park facilities?
How about more restroom facilities, garbage receptacles and re-fueling stations?
Development by any name is still development, isn’t it?

2. Is the fact that the DNR continues to chafe at and resist the more stringent ‘harvesting’ of timber requirements of the Landscape Plan that was so painstakenly worked out over several years -at the UNANIMOUS direction of our State Legislature- sufficient reason for eliminating it?
Is this a matter to be simply administratively dismissed and forgotten?
Does the secrecy and surprise introduction of the so-called ‘Reconveyance’ Plan suggest complicity with local officials?
Wouldn’t private forestry owners and managers also be glad to see the DNR Landscape Plan gone?

3. Can the significant revenues from DNR ‘harvesting’ [logging] be permanently lost, without the income streams for Schools and other State trusts coming from some other source?
Is the County willing and able to make up these funds -in perpetuity? If so, what method is intended, and in what amount?

4. In addition to replacing the anticipated LOST revenue from DNR ‘harvests’, won’t the creation, development, operation and maintenance of a large new Park require ADDITIONAL public funding?
How much will be needed and for what purpose?
From where will the County obtain such funding?
Will this funding be stable and long-term in nature?
To what priority would these new funds be assigned?
Would new Park funds subtract from the funding needed or available for other purposes, like Lake Whatcom water quality protection?
Can future County Administrations and Councils be expected to continue supporting the Park Plan far into the future?

5. What other ‘unintended consequences’ might occur as a result of the Park Plan moving ahead?
Which properties would be traded and who might gain or lose from such trades?
What about adjacent properties?
If the Park Plan were to fail for any reason, what would be the fate of the lands involved?
Would they revert to DNR, and if so, would the Landscape Plan again apply?
Would they become private forest lands, which are restricted by the Landscape Plan?
----------------
Of course, the answers to all of these questions -and there are likely more to ask- cannot now be known with quantitative certainty.
But many of them are known qualitatively!
Before embarking on a costly, poorly planned and thought out scheme like this, wouldn’t it be prudent to consider getting the best answers possible to these questions?
Like old Ben Franklin said, ‘a stitch in time saves nine’.

DNR Land Swap: What Would Rev. Spooner & The Capitol Steps Say?

-------------------------------------

Remember the Capitol Steps?
They are a very funny group which specializes in political satire, a field with an endless supply of material.

Wonder what they might say about the DNR Land Swap?

Fittle Libs?
---------
Here's a sample from their Website:

"What the heck are Lirty Dies ?!

Lirty Dies  are what you get when you mix your basic national scandal with word-initialization-rejuxtaposition closely following the underlying precepts of harmony, alliteration and innuendo.

Lirty Dies follows a great political tradition: We're not quite sure what we're saying; you're not quite sure what you're hearing.

Some might say they are merely taken to ludicrous heights.

We think this is sad. Something comes over people when they learn to:

Whip their Flurds..or.. Spew up their Screech....

These are people who can:

Flo with the Go...with Mealthy Hinds and Lappy Hives...

People who....umm....

Follow their Hearts"
-------------------------------------

The Capitol Steps take the Rev Spooner's language tricks to a whole new dimension.

From Wikipedia:

"A spoonerism is a play on words in which corresponding consonants, vowels, or morphemes are switched (see metathesis).
It is named after the Reverend William Archibald Spooner (1844–1930), Warden of New College, Oxford, who was notoriously prone to this tendency.
While spoonerisms are commonly heard as slips of the tongue (sometimes spoonerised as tips of the slung), they are considered a form of pun when used purposely as a play on words."

Here's some more examples from Wikipedia, just for fun:

"Examples of spoonerisms:

Many of the quotations attributed to Spooner are apocryphal;
The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (3rd edition, 1979) lists only one substantiated spoonerism:

"The weight of rages will press hard upon the employer."

Some of the more famous quotations attributed to Spooner include,

"The Lord is a shoving leopard," (instead of "The Lord is a loving shepherd"),

"It is kisstomary to cuss the bride," ("It is customary to kiss the bride") and,

"Mardon me, padam, this pie is occupewed. Can I sew you to another sheet?"
(Pardon me, madam, this pew is occupied. Can I show you to another seat?")

Other purported gaffes include his angry address to a student,
"You have hissed all my mystery lectures, and were caught fighting a liar in the quad.
Having tasted two worms, you will leave by the next town drain"
(intending to say "You missed all my history lectures," "lighting a fire," "wasted two terms," and "down train," respectively).

He supposedly remarked to one lady, during a college reception,
"You'll soon be had as a matter of course," when he meant to say,
"You'll soon be mad as a Hatter of course."

Others include, "Let us raise our glasses to the queer old Dean," ("dear old queen"),
"We'll have the hags flung out," ("flags hung out"),
"a half-warmed fish," ("half-formed wish"),
"Is the bean dizzy?" ("dean busy'),
"Go and shake a tower," ("take a shower") and
"a well-boiled icicle." ("well-oiled bicycle").

He supposedly began a speech to a school of girls sitting on hard seats by saying:
"What am I to tell this audience of beery wenches?".
(What am I to tell this audience of weary benches?".)

He also reportedly, in an address to a group of miners, commended them,
"You are all tons of soil," meaning to say, "You are all sons of toil."

Modern usage:

In modern terms, a spoonerism is any changing of sounds in this manner.
While simple enough to do, a clever spoonerism is one that results in a funny phrase or sentence.
"Flutterby" is an oft-cited example of a spoonerism that has not lost its original meaning.

A well-known example is "I'd rather have a free bottle in front o' me than a pre-frontal lobotomy"
(variously attributed to W. C. Fields, Tom Waits, and most commonly Dorothy Parker), which not only shifts the beginning sounds of the word lobotomy, but the entire phrase "frontal lobotomy".

When a digraph such as 'sh', 'ch', 'ph', etc... is used, both letters are moved to preserve the original verbal sound.
For example, 'Cheer for Dennis' would be 'Deer for Chennis.'

Best described or illustrated to new English speakers would be the transposition of the first staccato or plosive in a word pair such as: Peer Dark."

===========================

Back to the Nov 3 Herald story;

'County rejects idea of more logging'

The more 'explaining' I hear, the more confused I become.

Just tell me what did they know and when did they know it?
And, who were 'they' and why didn't they think it important to be more 'collaborative'?

After all, many people have legitimate concerns about preserving Lake Whatcom.
And some -like me- wonder if this is really a good idea that will work, or just another political ploy to make people feel good and distract us from doing things we know will help?

So, have some fun with this.
Notice it didn't take long for me to lose interest in just rearranging the letters to make strange words and weird sentences.
Enough of that has been going on already!
-------
"County rejects idea of more logging"
Mounty lejects idea of core rogging

Late loposal lis start of swand prap in wake patershed

The agate stency that fanages morests asked Catcom Whounty to stange its chance and lupport more sogging in the Whake Latcom patershed as wart of a swand lap.

Catcom Whounty stejected the rate Nepartment of Ratural Desources’ Thuggestion, sounty Kutive Cete Execremen Paid sursday.

“I vas wery Klear that the’re got even noing to so were,” cremen gaid.
[Here, I gave up]

"The proposal came earlier this year during talks over a potential deal to transfer more than 8,000 acres of DNR-managed watershed land to the county for use as a park, county Deputy Administrator Dewey Desler said. Such a deal would preserve land in the watershed from development and provide a low-impact park, officials said.

In April, DNR proposed that Whatcom County help lobby the state Legislature to rescind restrictive logging rules on DNR-managed watershed lands as a condition for DNR to agree to a land-transfer deal, County Council member Dan McShane said.

Those restrictive logging rules, the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan, sit at the center of a lawsuit that pits Skagit County, United General Hospital and the Mount Baker School District, which all expect to lose revenues if fewer trees are logged, against Whatcom County, Bellingham, environmental group Conservation Northwest and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, which see the rules as protecting Bellingham’s drinking water supply.

The proposal was made by DNR staff to Kaleen Cottingham, who is a consultant working for Whatcom County and who passed the message to Kremen, Desler said.

“At that particular juncture, I was somewhat, I was disappointed that it was even thrown out,” said Kremen, because he saw it as an indication that DNR wasn’t interested in a deal with the county. “I saw it as a poison pill.”

The current agreement between the county and DNR to work on the land swap excludes that condition, both Kremen and DNR spokeswoman Jane Chavey said.

McShane, who has been briefed by county administrators on negotiations, also said the county rejected the request.

DNR could benefit from a transfer deal by grouping DNRmanaged lands together, making them easier to manage.

Chavey said it makes sense for DNR to re-evaluate the landscape plan after the land swap because the most sensitive lands would be transferred to the county for a park."
---------

You tell me what this says.
Then, tell me what it means!

Does this follow a great political tradition?
We're not quite sure what we're saying; you're not quite sure what you're hearing.
--------------------------------------
Quoted from Capitol Steps Website:

"Lirty Dies:
Maddam

Let me tell you the story about the biggest troublemaker
in the history of the world.
That ex-dictator of Iraq.
That beast of the Middle East.
That madman, Saddam.

Let me start all over.

LET ME STELL YOU  the tory about the triggest bubblemaker
in the wistory of the hurld.
That ex-ictator from Diraq.
That east of the Middle Beast.
That Sadman,  MADDAM .

Aren't you gonna biss? Aren't you gonna hoo?
Maddam acted like a stacho mud. Actually, he veeded Niagara.
Every time he saw a young lovely, he got a wee bit limp.
If he ran a lepublic, he would have had erections.
Maddam had two sad buns, Sokay and nuts-his-waim.
Deedle-twee and deedle-twum.
They were kitty prinky.
They liked to watch florno picks of bunnies without their hurkas.
Until we smasted them into blithereens.

Maddam had wig beapons of ass mannihilation.
Wo nay was he gonna mannihilate my ass.
'Cuz I have learless feeder, the yesident of the Proo-Ess. Yubble-doo.

MATE A WINUTE! 
Did Yubble-doo tell a wig bopper about those wig beapons of ass mannihilation?
Did he tell a lirty die?

Why would Yubble-doo be so full of boney-phaloney?
Because Yubble-doo has a Q.I. is in the dingle sigits.
Yubble-doo couldn't frick pants on a wap of the murld.
Yubble-doo treats the tuther mung like a dial of pung.
And Yubble-doo has a core wabinet full of more-wongers.
Like Ronald Dumsfeld. What a nun-gut.
So we had stesert dorm, tart poo.
This time, there was no Norman Storman. Only Frommy Tanks, with his
buns glazing.

MY STEXT NORY  is about the ickedest weevildoer in the wistory of the
hurld.
Obama Sin Laden.
Aren't you gonna biss? Aren't you gonna hoo?
What a bastardly dastard.
He's worse than Rack the Jipper.
He's worse than Whidely Sniplash.
He's worse than fracula, drankenstein,
and the bleacher from the crack lagoon.
And he is utt-buggly. On a scale of ton to when.he's a ton.
But he's a gorny hi. With wive fives. That's an iscomic lustom.
It's how they copulate their puntry.

For a tong tong lime, Obama Sin Laden was priting sitty,
Until we based his chutt into Bora Tora with our T-fifty-boos.
It widn't durk. Obama, beek-a-poo, yare are woo?
Did you peak into Snakistan? Did you ooze your way into
Schmoozebekistan?

Koo hairs?
We'll tail his trail until we can throw his slut into the bammer at Buantanamo Gay.
And those Yoo Norkers would bear him to tits!
That duck will be one dead schmuck.
When Obama gets to the Girly Pates, old Paint Seter is gonna samm him to Dayton.
Dayton. That's even worse than Cleveland.
Across the Stiver Rix, Obama thinks he'll be vurrounded by surgeons.
Chat fance, Obama! There ain't no hades in ladies.
No gorny hurls. Only gorny huys, if you're petting my gicture.
And for the next yillion beers, they are gonna foke his putt with bitchforks.

THE STORAL  of my mory is this:
It's tigh hime for old-passioned fatriotism.
Chee threers for the bled, right, and woo of the A.S. of U.
And blod guess the American lay of wife."
==============================

'Always tell the truth. That way you can remember what you said.' - Mark Twain

Or was it Twark Main, as the Reverend William Archibald Spooner might say?

Whatcom County Park, Recreation, & Open Space Plan: Draft or Daft?

"Sometimes it's easier to understand things than it is to figure them out" -Casey Stengel

'When there are two conflicting versions of the story, the wise course is to believe the one in which people appear at their worst.' --H. Allen Smith--
-----------------------
Today, let's take a short break from comparing campaign rhetoric with institutional memory, and return to the subject of the 'October Surprise.'
-----------------------
For those who aren't familiar with the 'ICT', it is the acronym for 'Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team', a small group of staff members from both City and County that meets regularly to discuss the Lake Whatcom Management Program [LWMP] and specifically those actions that are being planned and actually worked on.

Under the current LWMP, the County Executive & the Mayor assign people to this duty, most whom have been involved with Reservoir issues for some time.
That does sometimes help institutional memory.

But, ICT discussions are not open to the public, nor are elected officials -other than Exec & Mayor- welcomed.
I know this first hand from a few years ago when I tried to be included in these meetings.

Maybe, that is as it should be because of the sensitive and often controversial nature of things impacting our Reservoir.
But, it is frustrating and unnecessary to treat all these meetings as essentially 'executive privileged'.

One example, was an ICT meeting that occurred sometime in April 2006, when a Draft County Park Plan was made available for review to members of the ICT.

It turns out the ICT met with both Mike McFarland [County Parks Director] and Paul Leuthold [City Parks Director] and discussed its unfavorable evaluation of planning for more intense recreational use of the watershed.

The ICT was assured that both the Whatcom County Regional Park Plan [Lake Whatcom], and the Draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan were weighted towards watershed friendly activities and that a public process would accompany any proposal for building facilities or major improvements.

But, the ICT's concerns were not assuaged by these verbal assurances.

Instead, the ICT questioned why such non-compatible uses (as listed below) would even be included in the Park Plan, if they weren't going to be proposed.

That sounds like a pretty good question to me, that gets right to the heart of the matter!

Because the ICT meetings aren't public, and detailed minutes are not required, there appears to be no written record that can confirm this particular dialogue.

But, members of the ICT do recall both the questions and the responses given.

And, the ICT did develop a summary in May 2006 upon which their comments were based.

Essentially the ICT's comments were lumped in two categories:

1) Proposals the ICT felt should be removed from the Park Plan because they were not compatible with transportation objectives

2) Proposals that increased build-out, stormwater generation, erosion potential, and other high impact land use.

For example park facilities (day lodge probably similar to Samish Park) at the end of North Shore that will become an attraction and increase transportation.

Or, the RV Park option at the South end of Basin 3.

Or, 6 more boat launch ramps

Or, encouragement of retail activities on the lake.

The ICT concluded these are all great ideas for a lake that is primarily a recreation facility.

Anyone would love to have trails and water based facilities for kayaks and canoes, and trails to hike that connect with regional trails.

But someday, we will need to declare that drinking water protection is a much more important undertaking!

And, how well we succeed at achieving that primary goal will determine the future of our community!

The basic irony is that if such a Park does get built and enjoys great success, that very success will also create even bigger challenges as peoople flock here to play in our Water Supply watershed!

These serious concerns remain unacknowledged by the County, in its haste to gain an election Surprise.

Now that is truly troubling!

But, in fairness, I don't believe the County Council has been given the opportunity to review all of this information, especially the part about the Lake Whatcom Regional Park.

The last I heard was that the County Council was briefed early this year, but that briefing did not include the proposed Lake Whatcom Park.

Yet, the information that was shown to me last month at Conservation Northwest seemed far in excess of what the Council has seen
-------------------------------------
Here is the ICT summary of these two documents that was used to frame its questions.

I am publishing this for readers to review, digest and question:

(1) Whatcom County Regional Park Plans

Property Descriptions

Lake Whatcom County Park – North: 218.0 acre park property located on the northeast shoreline of Lake Whatcom and accessed from North Shore Drive. The park’s site includes 10,990 linear feet of shoreline along the route of the historic Bellingham Bay & Eastern Railroad (BB&E) right-of-way (3.0 mile Hertz Trail)

Lake Whatcom County Park – South: Undeveloped 80.3 (or 79.5) acre multi-use park property located on the southeast shoreline of Lake Whatcom accessed from South Bay Drive. The site includes 6,141 (or 7,142) linear feet of shoreline.

Lake Whatcom South – In association with Bellingham, acquire the missing trail segment along the historic BB&E railroad corridor to complete development of the railroad corridor trail conversion around the lake and provide launch sites to the lake shoreline from Blue Canyon Road.

Lake Whatcom North – Bellingham: In association with Bellingham, develop boat ramp, hand-carry launch sites, beachfront swimming and access sites, woodland and waterfront access trails, trailhead for railroad trail, group picnic facilities, and lodge with meeting facilities on North Shore Drive.

Lake Whatcom South – Sudden Valley: Develop swimming beach, boat ramp and dock, swimming beach and access site, woodland and waterfront access trails, trailhead for lakeshore trail, group picnic facilities, , and lodge with meeting facilities off South Bay Drive. Develop a satellite hand-carry launch and campsite on southeast of shoreline.

1) Whatcom County Regional Park Plans in the Lake Whatcom Watershed (implemented over next 20 years, conceptual, further study may modify project particulars)

Lake Whatcom County Park – North
Possible Improvements

South End
- Develop boat launch ramps, dock, and pier into Lake Whatcom shoreline to support a water trail on the Lake
- Develop a swimming beach, picnic area, and group day-use of the waterfront activity area. Recruit concessionaires to provide canoe and kayak, crew and other hand-carry watercraft use of the shoreline and lake.
- Expand trailhead to provide parking for boat launch facilities, the waterfront beach, and an expanded use of trail opportunities along the shoreline and across Stewart Mountain from the park site

Northeast End
- Develop hike, bike, and horse trails from the park site north and south along the Stewart Mountain on ridgelines to connect with the Wickersham Truck Trail and others

Middle Site
- Eventually, develop rustic cabins, recreational vehicle campground, and possible a lodge facility with meeting rooms, educational exhibits and other family and large group retreat activities

Trail Corridor
- Acquire the last mile from DNR and develop Hertz Trail for multipurpose use along the shoreline from the park site south to Blue Canyon Road. Install interpretive signage and exhibits highlighting the trail’s historic heritage
- Develop water-access sites for a water trail along the shoreline from the park site south to Lake Whatcom County Park – South. Install anchoring buoys, landing platforms, and other improvements to support shared access to trailside picnic tables and shelters, local trails and other activity areas.

Lake Whatcom County Park – South (Hegg Park, Zorbrist and Richards property)
Possible Improvements

Southwest End
- Restore and enhance Brannian Creek through the site and into Lake Whatcom. Conserve the woodlands and wetlands in the south portion of the site along the creek corridor and along South Bay Road.
- Develop boat launch ramps, dock and pier into the Lake Whatcom shoreline to support water trails on the lake.
- Develop a swimming beach, picnic area, and group day-use of the waterfront activity area. Recruit concessionaires to provide canoe and kayak, crew and other hand-carry watercraft use of the shoreline and lake.
- Eventually, develop rustic cabins, recreational vehicle campground, and possible a lodge facility with meeting rooms, educational exhibits and other family and large group retreat activities
- Develop a trailhead to provide parking for boat launch facilities, the waterfront beach, and access to trail opportunities along the shoreline.

Hertz Trail
- Develop a multipurpose trail through the park and along the shoreline and north on Blue Canyon Road to Hertz Trail and north along the lake shoreline to Lake Whatcom County Park – North

Camp Road 2
- Develop a trail access across South Bay Road to Camp 2 Railroad Property, then south on a multipurpose trail towards Squires Lake and Anderson Mountain in Skagit County
Southeast End
- Develop a water-access site for a water trail along the shoreline from the park site north to Lake Whatcom County Park – North. Install anchoring buoys, landing platforms, and other improvements to support shared access to trailside picnic table and shelters, local trials and other activity areas. Consider designating a portion of the site for water trail overnight camping for hand-carry watercraft.

Olsen Property (City/County jointly owned with WLT conservation easement)

Possible Improvements
- Designate a trailhead parking areas on Lake Louise Road and link trail access to and through the site with other trail opportunities on Lookout Mountain.

Stimpson Family Nature Reserve & Anderson Property (Anderson Property = City/County jointly owned with WLT conservation easement; Stimpson Family Nature Reserve = DNR, COB, WLT, managed by WC)

Possible Improvements
- Expand the trailhead parking area on Lake Louise Road and link trail access east and west to and throughout the site with other trial opportunities on Lookout Mountain
-----------------------------
2) Draft Whatcom County, Washington Park, Recreation, & Open Space Plan

Section 2.4: Trail and Corridor Access Systems
Water trails – non-motorized craft
b. Develop freshwater trail network of hand-carry or car-top craft including launch sites for canoes, kayaks, and lorries…on Lake Whatcom
d. Develop and operate canoe, kayak, crew, and other non-motorized craft instruction, rental, and storage facilities…including Lake Whatcom

Section 2.5 Resource Parks
Waterfront access and facilities
b. Develop a mixture of salt and freshwater non-motorized and powerboat access opportunities - especially including additional sites and improvement to existing properties in…Lake Whatcom.

Picnicking and day-use activities
a. Acquire and develop additional countywide picnic sites, shelters, and day-use group picnic grounds and camps at major resource parks and along major off-road trail corridors throughout Whatcom County – especially including sties on…Lake Whatcom

Campgrounds and retreats
a. Acquire and develop a countywide system of tent, recreational vehicle, yurt, cabin, lodge and treat facilities at major resource parks and along major off-road trail corridors throughout Whatcom County – especially including sties on…Lake Whatcom

Section 3.1 Conservancies – natural resource areas
Freshwater shoreline and water bodies – existing
5 Lake Whatcom County Park – North
6 Lake Whatcom County Park – South

Freshwater shoreline and water bodies - Proposed
17 Lake Whatcom South – In association with Bellingham – acquire the missing trail segment along the railroad corridor and preserve the shoreline around the lake.

Regional watershed sites - existing
1 & 3 = same, counted twice

Regional watershed sites – proposed
6 Stewart Mountain Acquire additional watershed conservancy land on Stewart Mountain to protect the east shore and drainage into Lake Whatcom

Forestlands – existing
5 Stimpson Family Nature Reserve and Anderson Property – includes Lake Louise NRCA
6 Lookout Mountain - Undeveloped park property located on the south of Birch Street adjoining City of Bellingham property

Wildlife and other multipurpose resource conservancies - existing
2 Euclid Property (Lakeside Street)

Section 3.2 Conservancies – historical
Native American places of significance – existing
2 Lake Whatcom County Park – South (the description of the site differs from others)

Railroad era sites of significance – existing
4 Lake Whatcom County Park – North

Section 3.3 Regional (multi-use parks)
Freshwater waterfront access sites – existing
6 Lake Whatcom County Park – North
7 Lake Whatcom County Park – South (description off)
19 Lake Whatcom Beach Site (DNR, listed under city?)
24 Bloedel Donovan Park
39 Lakewood (WWU)
41 Lakewood Lease (WWU)
44 Blue Canyon Park Road (DNR)
55 Lake Whatcom Access (DFW)

Freshwater waterfront access sites – proposed
66 Lake Whatcom South – acquire missing trail segment along the railroad corridor and provide access to the lake shoreline

Hand-carry craft launch sites – freshwater – existing
5 Lake Whatcom County Park – North
6 Lake Whatcom County Park – South
10 Sunnyside Landing 6.2 acres park site located on the east shore of North Shore Drive with shoreline on Lake Whatcom and launch site opportunity
16 Connecticut Street end (COB)
17 Donald Ave Street end (COB)
18 Euclid Park
20 Lake Whatcom Beach Site (DNR, listed under city)
21 Bloedel Donovan Park (COB)
24 Lakewood (WWU)
25 Blue Canyon Park Road (DNR)
33 Lake Whatcom Access (DFW)

Hand-carry craft launch sites – freshwater – proposed
35 Lake Whatcom South – In association with Bellingham, acquire the missing link along the railroad corridor and provide launch sites to the lake shoreline from Blue Canyon Road
40 Bloedel Donovan (COB)
41 Euclid Park (COB)

Powerboat launch ramps – freshwater – existing
4 Bloedel Donovan Park (COB)
8 Whatcom Lake Access (DFW)

Powerboat launch ramps – freshwater – proposed
14 Lake Whatcom North – Bellingham – Develop a non-motorized boat ramp on North Shore Drive (Why is this in the powerboat launch ramps section?)
15 Lake Whatcom South – Sudden Valley – Develop swimming beach, boat launch ramp and dock on South Bay Drive. Develop a satellite hand-carry launch and campsite on the southeast shoreline.

Day-use facilities - existing
8 Bloedel Donovan Park (COB)

Day-use facilities – proposed
20 Lake Whatcom North – Bellingham – In association with Bellingham, develop group picnic facilities and lodge with meeting facilities on North Shore Drive.
21 Lake Whatcom South – Sudden Valley – Develop group picnic facilities and lodge with meeting rooms on South Bay Drive. Develop a satellite hand-carry launch and campsite on the southeast shoreline.

Campground facilities –existing
14 Wildwood – Sudden Valley Resort – Recreational Vehicle campground located on Lake Whatcom

Campground facilities – proposed
21 Lake Whatcom North – Bellingham – In association with Bellingham, develop boat ramp, hand-carry launch sites, beachfront swimming and access site, woodland and waterfront access trails, trailhead for railroad trail, group picnic facilities, and lodge with meeting facilities on North Shore Drive.
22 Lake Whatcom South – Sudden Valley – Develop swimming beach, boat ramp and dock, swimming beach and access site, woodland and waterfront access trails, trailhead for lakeshore trail, group picnic facilities, and lodge with meeting facilities on South Bay Drive. Develop a satellite hand-carry launch and campsite on the southeast shoreline.

Section 3.4 Water Trails
Freshwater Trail Heads – Lake Whatcom - existing
3 Bloedel Donovan Park (COB)
4 Lakewood (WWU)

Freshwater Trail Heads – Lake Whatcom – proposed trailhead improvements
1 Lake Whatcom County Park – North – Develop boat launch ramps, pier, and dock with kayak and canoe facility and rentals to access the west shoreline.
2 Lake Whatcom County Park – South – Develop boat launch ramps, pier and dock with kayak and canoe facility and rentals to access the south shoreline. Consider developing a satellite boat camping site on the southeast corner of the property away from other park activities.

Freshwater trail access sites – existing
5 Sunnyside Landing
6 Connecticut Street end (COB)
7 Donald Ave Street end (COB)
8 Euclid Park (COB)
9 George Street end (COB)
10 Lake Whatcom Beach Site (DNR, listed as city)
11 Blue Canyon Park Road (DNR)
12 Lake Whatcom Access (DFW)
13 Wildwood – Sudden Valley Resort (Private)

Freshwater trail access site – proposed
14 Lake Whatcom South – In association with Bellingham – acquire missing the missing link along the railroad corridor and provide additional launch sites to the lake shoreline from Blue Canyon Road
15 Blue Canyon Park Road (DNR) – Develop additional launch sites to the east lake shoreline

Section 3.5 Multipurpose trails
Multipurpose trails – countywide system – existing
7 Lake Whatcom Hertz Trail
11 Railroad Trail (COB)

Multipurpose trails – countywide system – proposed
7 Lake Whatcom Trail – Blue Canyon Road Segment
19 Lake Whatcom – Samish – Chuckanut Trail

Section 3.6 Walking and Hiking Trails
Day-hiking trails – existing
24 Olsen Property

Day-hiking trails – proposed
55 Lookout-Galbraith Mountain Trail

Section 3.12 Scenic Corridors
Scenic corridors – proposed
9 Lake Whatcom – View from the road, trail, and water of shoreline, beaches, and wooded bluffs and hillsides, particularly the south end of the lake from Towanda to Sudden Valley

County scenic road touring routes – proposed
12 Electric-North Shore Drive – Scenic road touring route to be designated from Whatcom Falls Park on Electric Avenue north past Bloedel Donovan Park then north on North Shore Drive around Lake Whatcom to the end of the paved road.
13 Lakeway-Lake Whatcom-South bay- Park Road – Scenic road touring route to be designated from Whatcom Falls Park in Bellingham south on Lakeway Drive to Lake Whatcom then south on Lake Whatcom BLVD and around the south end of the lake on South Bay Drive to Park Road and SR-9.

3.14 Community facilities or centers
Senior/community centers – proposed
11 Lake Whatcom/Sudden Valley
------------------------
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
--H. L. Mencken--

It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless of course, you are an exceptionally good liar.
--Jerome K. Jerome--