Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutord1989-071FILE REF: 09- 89:PRP INTRODUCED BY: Consent PROPOSED BY.- PLANNING DATE. 8 -3 -89 ORDINANCE NO. 89 -71 2 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION OPEN SPACE 3 PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ADOPTION 4 OF THE SIXYEAR PARKAND RECREATION OPEN SPACE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 5 FOR 1990 TO 1996 6 WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Park and Recreation Board, and the Whatcom County Park Department 7 and Planning Department staff have requested the adoption of a Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space 8 Plan and a Six Year Capital Improvement Program; and 9 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70.590 legal notice was published in the in the Bellingham Herald on July 10 8,1989; and 11 WHEREAS, a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the Deputy SEPA Official on July 24, 1989; 12 and 13 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Park Board held a joint public hearing on this matter on July 18, 14 1989, and heard all public testimony; and 15 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Commission and Park Board jointly deliberated 16 on the testimony and content of the Plan, and jointly resolved all issues, but formally acted on them with separate 17 motions; and 18 WHEREAS, the County Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Park Board 19 at a public meeting on August 17, 1989, and accepted the Plan with the recommended changes proposed by the two entities (Exhibit A), and based on public testimony and recommendations of the Planning and Development 21 Committee added several additional changes (Exhibit B). 22 NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Whatcom County Council as follows: 23 1. The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan (Exhibits A and B) is hereby adopted and 24 incorporated as an element of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan. 25 2. The 1990 -1996 Six Year Park and Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program (Table 26 of 26 Exhibit A) is hereby adopted. 27 3. The Council adopts the following findings and conclusions: 28 FINDINGS 29 A. Whatcom County does not have an official comprehensive park and recreation open space plan. 30 B. An approved park plan and capital Improvement program is needed both to provide future direction and to 31 be eligible for most state and federal funding programs. 32 C. Whatcom County once had a premier park system and a well developed park program. As county revenue 33 was not able to keep pace with needs and mandated programs the percentage of money available for park 34 acquisition, construction, and maintenance and operation has gone down over the years. 35 D. Based on public response and defined standards the county is presently deficit in the recreation 36 opportunities it provides its citizens. Many of the facilities are old and in need of major repair. The recent 37 one time levy will assist in making these repairs, but the money can go further if used as match for state `t8 and federal funds. 5 E. The proposed plan has been developed based upon national trends in recreation, and local needs and 40 desires as determined by a random sample household survey, public meetings and input from an advisory 41 committee and trail committee. 0 y2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 '8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FILE REF: 094., 3P Page 2 F. The plan provides a balance of recreation opportunities directed to the needs of all Interests and age groups. If implemented the plan will help retain the quality of life in Whatcom County while also making adequate provisions for tourists and will accommodate growth through at least the year 2000. G. The accompanying capital improvement program provides a realistic funding base to accomplish the highest priority tasks over the next six years. CONCLUSIONS Adoption of the Park Plan and Capital Improvement Program will provide direction to the County for recreation planning through the year 2000, and make the County eligible for state and federal funds. The proposed plan expresses the needs of Whatcom County citizens and if implemented will make adequate provision for park recreation and open space needs over at least the next eleven years as well as contribute to the economy and quality of life of Whatcom County. 4. Adjudication of invalidity of any of the sections, clauses, or provisions of this Ordinance shall not affect or Impair the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be Invalid. PASSED this 17th day of August , 1989. ATTEST: .t y n' Clerk of the Council APPROVED AS TO. FORM: Civil Attorney Published and This Ordinance becomes effective WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL G. (,)'APPROVED () VETOED Shirley Van Zarlien, Coun y Executive Date 9- Z r - 8 5 1989. 1989. EXHIBIT B COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO THE AUGUST 17, 1989 DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION PLAN 1. Page VI-4 under Recommended Service Levels Add language to the effect that: 'The programmatic side of the parks plan be supported in the parks' annual budget to continue expanded usage to our Whatcom County users." 2. Page VI -8, Objective 5 under preservation of natural areas Amend to read: "The County, in the future, may want to review the State and Federal Natural Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for the North and South Forks of the Nooksack River. If this designation addresses the concerns of private landowners, Whatcom County and the general public, then it should be considered." 3. Page VII -7 under SHORELINE ACCESS AREAS Policy Statements and Design Standards: Policy Statements and Design Standards: It shall be the policy of Whatcom County to acquire for public use as much of the saltwater shoreline as possible. A reasonable goal is to acquire for public access a minimum of 15% of the saltwater shoreline and adjacent tidelands in Whatcom County. Development of Point Roberts should be designed to take Into account the needs of Whatcom County residents. 2. The County shall make every effort to Implement the Nooksack River Plan. 3. Pedestrian, interpretative and small boat access sites should be provided for a diversity of public shoreline. 4. The County, In the future, may want to review the State and Federal Natural Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for the North and South Forks of the Nooksack River. If the designation addresses private landowners, Whatcom County and the general public, then it should be considered. 4. Page VII -25. Table 24 Table 24 should be subheaded with the following: 'THESE SITES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE LIMITING OR EXCLUSIVE 5. Page VII -26, Table 24 Replace items A-31 and A -32, Upper and Lower Chuckanut, with: "From the Skagit County line to the Bellingham City limit, specifically Including Governor's Point" 6. Page VII -47, Item 3 Amend to read: 3. Fees and Charges Policy: For the most part, no problems exist with the current charges for recreation services. The County needs to explore ways to reduce the operating costs of the recreation program (primarily cultural arts and the outdoor program). Part of the problem is in the budgeting process. Currently, all the cost associated with maintaining the Roeder Home is applied to the recreation budget. This cost should be transferred to the parks' budget. Each year the Park and Recreation Board should review all fees for recreation programs and when appropriate, increase them to what the market will bear. If enrollment or use should drop more than 20% from the previous year, then the increase should be discontinued. 7. Page VII -48, Item 9 Amend to read: 9. Capital Repair and Maintenance Fund: The County should provide money each year for the repair and maintenance of existing facilities. A rule of thumb is that about 3% of the annual budget should go for this purpose. WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION OPEN SPACE PLAN A LONG RANGE PLAN FOR PARKS, OPEN SPACE, TRAIL SYSTEMS AND SHORELINE ACCESS August 17, 1989 August 17, 1989 TO: Whatcom County Park and Open Space Advisory Committee FROM: Jerry Draggoo, Ken Wilcox We are pleased to submit this report of the Whatcom County Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space Plan. This plan will help guide future decisions on recreation services in Whatcom County. While it currently appears that there is ample land for parks and open space, a major concern expressed in the recreation survey was the potential loss of this land through urban development. With this in mind, a major emphasis of the plan is to find ways to acquire, preserve or otherwise guarantee that land will be available to future generations for parks and leisure activities. This plan may be somewhat bold in terms of park development and acquisition of open space areas. But it is one that the County can achieve and financially support. However, the plan will not develop on its own and will require a strong commitment to its implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on the study. Sincerely, Jerry Draggoo Ken Wilcox WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE Shirley Van Zanten WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Donald Hansey, Chairman Thomas Burton Daniel Warner Emily Jackson C.J. "Corky" Johnson William Roehl Marvin G. Vanderpol WHATCOM COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION BOARD Leslie Clark, Chair William Dittrich, Vice Chair Brian Lynch, Secretary Jon Soine David Martin Robert Tull WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION David Simpson, Chair Robert Funkhouser, Vice Chair James Freeman John Shintaffer Jim Heeringa Roger Almskaar David Ernst Alvin Van Dalen Emil Baijot PLANNING TEAM PARK AND OPEN SPACE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dan Taylor Dick Holland William Boulton Landry Corkery Richard Case Leslie Clark William Dittrich Brian Lynch David Martin Hugh Lewis Bill Campin David Ernst Tom Burton Judy Dunster Rob Bunnett TRAILS COMMITTEE Dave Henderson Diane Smith Tim Wahl Roberta Bradley Bill Campin Helen Briggs Terry Galvin COUNTY PARKS STAFF County Planning Director Lummi Island Representative Supt. Mt. Baker Schools Whatcom County Soccer Association Baseball Interest Chairman, Park and Recreation Board Park and Recreation Board Park and Recreation Board Park and Recreation Board Whatcom County Council on Aging Trails Representative Whatcom County Planning Commission Whatcom County Council Northwest Park and Recreation District Senior Service Director Jean LaValley Gary Haufle Gerry Wilbour Mark Anderson Betty Cross Eugene Fairbanks Roger DeSpain, Director Gary Chadwick, Deputy Director Rob Bunnett, Senior Service Director CONSULTANTS JC Draggoo & Associates Jerry Draggoo, Project Director Toni Laster, Recreation Planner Kevin Apperson, Recreation Planner Ken Wilcox, Environmental Planner Kim Hyatt, Technical Assistant DEDICATION We would like to dedicate this plan to William J. Dittrich. For 25 years Bill provided enthusiastic support and outstanding leadership to the Park and Recreation Board. Over the years his visionary philosophy and innovative thinking has helped to produce exceptional planning studies and outstanding park facilities in Whatcom County. It is with this type of dedication and work Whatcom County has created a park and recreation program that is considered to be one of the best in the Pacific Northwest. PREFACE This report outlines a plan for providing parks, open space, trails and shoreline access within Whatcom County. For the most part, recommendations are made for areas and facilities located outside the seven incorporated cities. Once this plan is adopted by the Planning Commission and County Council, it will become an integral part of the County's Comprehensive Plan. This plan should also be formally approved by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). Once approved by this agency, the County will then become eligible for state and federal grants administered by the IAC. The purpose of the plan is to establish policies and direction for improving park and recreation services in the County and to provide guidelines for the acquisition, development and maintenance of parks, trails systems, open space and shoreline access. Specifically, the plan covers the following: 1. An analysis and identification of recreation needs in Whatcom County. 2. An inventory and analysis of existing park areas and facilities in the County. 3. Park, trail and open space standards 4. Recommendations for the acquisition and /or development of park areas and open space 5. Recommendations related to trail development 6. Recommendations for shoreline access 7. Recommendations for outdoor programs and related services 8. Recommendations and strategies for implementing the plan 9. Development of a six year capital improvement plan TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I INTRODUCTION The Need for Leisure Services and Open Space I -1 Public Involvement I -2 SECTION II THE SETTING Physical Features II -1 Population Characteristics II -6 Growth Patterns II -8 Climate and Season II -9 SECTION III EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES Introduction III -1 Whatcom County Facilities and Services III -4 Trail Systems III -11 Whatcom County Park Operations III -14 SECTION IV RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT Introduction IV -1 National Trends in Recreation Participation IV -1 Random Household Survey IV -5 Public Workshop Meetings IV -31 SECTION V FACILITY DEMAND Alternative Approaches to Identifying Demand V -1 Recreation Demand in Whatcom County V -3 Summary of Facility Needs V -17 SECTION VI RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS Introduction VI -1 Current Suppliers of Recreation Services VI -3 Recommended Service Levels VI -4 Goals and Objectives VI -7 SECTION VII RECOMMENDATIONS Development Policies and Standards VII -1 Specific Site Recommendations II -2 Park Areas VII -9 Shoreline Access VII -26 Trail System VII -27 Recreation Programs VII -39 Senior Program VII -40 Indoor Recreational Facilities VII -41 Recreation Resource Management Areas VII -43 Administration and Management VII-45 SECTION VIII ACTION PLAN Introduction VIII -1 Funding Sources VIII -3 Capital Improvement Plan VIII -6 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Regional Map I -2 Land Forms II -2 County Map II -6 Public Land III -2 Map of Survey Areas IV -5 Recreation Service Model VI -1 Suppliers of Recreation Services VI -3 Recommended Service Levels VI -5 Trail Standards VII -5,6 Park Recommendations VII -10 Shoreline Access VII -28 Lummi Mountain Trail System VII -33 Chuckanut -Lake Samish Trail System VII -34 Stewart Mountain Trail System VII -36 Sumas Mountain Trail System VII -38 SECTION I INTRODUCTION THE NEED FOR LEISURE SERVICES AND OPEN SPACE Leisure time is a relatively new concept to Americans. It wasn't too long ago that the average American worked 48 hours per week and children had daily chores. Today the average work week is 40 hours or less. In fact, the amount of available leisure time now exceeds the working time. However, too much leisure time can be a problem if not channeled wisely. Our rapidly changing life styles have brought about many frustrations which frequently manifest in juvenile delinquency, alcohol and drug abuse and other misuses of leisure time. For the younger generation, especially those who find it difficult to obtain gainful and meaningful employment, it is a real challenge to make wise use of leisure time. If Americans are provided with opportunities to use leisure time in socially and personally satisfying ways, many problems can be avoided. Recreation not only provides a diversion and refreshment from the pace of our complex lives, but it also enriches our mental health. With the existence of two National Forests, the North Cascades National Park, Washington State Department of Natural Resources land, three state parks and land held by private timber companies within Whatcom County, it is hard to believe there is an additional need for public open space. However, most public land cited above is located in the eastern two thirds of the County and little public land is available near the population centers. With the County now undergoing a major shift towards urban development, the public is becoming aware of the lost opportunities for close -in public open space. Added to this concern is the fact that while Whatcom County has more than 130 miles of saltwater shoreline, only about 6% is currently accessible to the public. Nearly everyday the opportunity for additional public access is reduced as land is developed. In years past, the primary responsibility of the County's Department of Parks and Recreation has been to offer recreation programs and manage park facilities. With the need to preserve and manage open space, the Department could soon become a steward of the land. Instead of becoming just concerned with managing the usual park areas, the park staff will also be involved with the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and the management of wildlife. This is somewhat of a departure of the traditional role for the park agency but one that needs to be made in order to preserve open space and plant and animal species for future generations of Whatcom County citizens. I -1 NEED FOR THE PLAN It is with the need to preserve open space and shoreline access and to expand recreation services for a growing population that this planning study was introduced. It replaces a plan completed in July 1977 but never adopted. Since that time, the County has undergone considerable population growth and new concerns for the environment and livability have become prominent. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS Opportunity for public input in the planning process came from a number of sources. It included a random household survey, public hearings, four workshop meetings held around the County and the formation of a trails committee and the Park and Open Space Advisory Committee. The two committees provided background and technical information and helped to formulate the overall plan. zu, 1i`1 �i BRITISH COLUMBIA WH TCOM COUNTY ^M trowel salt« L SKMIT COUNTY 1.5 SEATTLE I -2 Um 0 Cascades National Part Mount sakes Natbnal Forest REGIONAL MAP SECTION II COUNTY PROFILE PHYSICAL FEATURES Whatcom County, Washington is uniquely situated between Georgia Strait to the west, the crest of the Cascade Range to the east, Skagit County to the south and British Columbia to the north. Within these boundaries are 2,180 square miles of diverse landscapes: rolling farmland, small cities and towns, a few islands, more than 130 miles of saltwater bluffs and beaches, hundreds of lakes, streams and wetlands, forested foothills, and some of the most rugged mountain wilderness of the lower forty eight states. Near its geographic center, the Mt. Baker volcano is a major presence, rising to well over 10,000 feet above sea level. The county is a long narrow land mass measuring about 25 miles (north - south) by 115 miles (east - west). For study purposes, it can be logically divided into three geographical units: the western lowlands of Whatcom Basin, the foothills and their associated stream drainages, and the remaining Cascade Mountains. Each unit contains distinct landforms and other environmental characteristics that contribute to recreation and open space opportunities in the County. WHATCOM BASIN The first unit, Whatcom Basin, includes most of the coastline, the floodplain of the Nooksack River, and adjacent lowlands that were largely shaped by the advance and retreat of continental glaciers during the last ice age (15- 20,000 years ago). Elevations seldom exceed three hundred feet above sea level. Undulating topography, meandering streams, lakes and wetlands, and expansive fields and forests characterize much of the basin environmei Along the western fringe, marine bluffs composed of unconsolidated glacial sediments are the most commo shore feature. These slowly eroding bluffs, often 50 -100 feet high are occasionally interrupted by estuaries and by beaches and spits formed by the accretion of sediments deposited by waves and curren along the shore. Sandy Point, Cherry Point, Birch Bay Semiahoo Split, Lighthouse Point and Lily Point are t] only substantial beach areas in the County other than continuous intertidal zone itself (tidelands). Importar. estuaries include the Lummi and Nooksack River delt and the lower reaches of Dakota, California, Terrell, Whatcom, Padden and Chuckanut Creeks. Much of Lummi Island and the south coastline are quite dissimilar, geologically, to the rest of the marine shore 11 -1 Map of public land 111-2 In these areas, bedrock is exposed by the elements at the base of steep slopes and mountainous terrain, creating a more stable and ruggedly picturesque shoreline. Throughout the Basin, numerous streams, lakes and wetlands are significant natural features that give shape and diversity to the landscape. Their associated plant communities provide important habitat for many of the fish and wildlife species found in Whatcom Basin. Streams are usually low gradient, while lakes and wetlands are shallow, often supporting aquatic and hydrophytic vegetation. The Nooksack River bisects the region in a great arc as it collects the proceeds of its watershed along the journey from its source in the North Cascades to Bellingham Bay. The average river gradient is generally less than five feet per mile, increasing to more than ten feet per mile at the confluence of the South Fork and main stem near Deming. Major portions of the river have also been diked over the past several decades to control flooding. Open space and outdoor recreation amenities in the lowlands are nearly always associated with marine and fresh water shorelines. Exceptions are athletic fields, game courts and shooting ranges which are not normally considered to be nature oriented activities. Basin topography is generally conducive to their development, however. Where substantial natural vegetation occurs and pleasant views of the water or mountains are available, the attraction for nature oriented recreation and open space enjoyment is multiplied. These three conditions (water, natural vegetation and views) are present in many areas of Whatcom Basin, particularly along the marine shoreline, the Nooksack River and in the vicinity of a number of lakes and streams. Canoeing, kayaking and rafting are enjoyable activities in protected bays, estuaries, lakes and the larger streams. Limited beach areas and rocky, windswept shores offer outstanding scenic value and public access opportunities as well. The general lack of steep terrain, large areas of open space and extensive low gradient stream and river corridors (including dikes and levees) present exceptional opportunities for hiking, biking and horseback riding trails. Wetlands, which are numerous in the lowlands, are also becoming increasingly attractive for recreation, environmental education and aesthetic enjoyment as the public's appreciation for wildlife and environmental quality continue to grow. FOOTHILLS The foothills region is, for planning purposes, the westernmost hills of the North Cascades outside federal lands managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service. The area surrounds Whatcom basin to the south and east and includes Lummi, Chuckanut, Lookout, Stewart, Squalicum, Blue, Sumas, Red, Black, Bald, Slide, Stewart, Bowman and Vedder Mountains, the Van Zandt Dike and all associated drainages. Elevations range from 300 feet to about 4,000 feet with a few high points reaching the zone of sub - alpine vegetation near 5,000 feet. Slopes are generally steep and wooded and unstable sods are present in some areas. Forests are mostly mixed second growth. Streams are much steeper and small waterfalls and cascades are not uncommon. Most of Lake Whatcom, the County's largest natural water body, along with Lake Samish, Silver Lake and a number of smaller lakes, are located within this relatively unpopulated portion of the county. The region is habitat to a variety of animals, black - tailed deer and black bear among them. II -3 In the hills, park and recreation opportunities exist for trails, especially for hiking and horseback ndino. Where clearings occur, views are likely to be good. In the lower elevations, particularly in the South Fork Valley and along the North Fork, outdoor recreation and open space opportunities are much like those discussed above for Whatcom Basin, with the exception of marine beaches and estuaries. Gravel bars on the river and a few lake sites can provide additional beach opportunities. Chuckanut Mountain is the only portion of the Foothills area that reaches saltwater -- at Larrabee State Park -- where a public boat access is available. Open space usually takes the form of agricultural and forest land, stream, lake and wetland shorelines, and the Nooksack River corridor (and forks) above Deming. In the Foothills, lakes are especially valuable for parks and related recreation development. Lake Samish (814 acres), Lake Whatcom (5,003 acres) and Silver Lake (173 acres) are the largest and each has existing and potential sites to be considered. Each is flanked on two or more sides by wooded hillsides rising 2,000 - 4,000 feet or more in elevation. The first two are close to Bellingham, the population and economic center of the county. Silver lake, a relatively shallow water body (30 feet), is more remote and not too distant from the Cascade unit described below. Lakd Samish is much deeper at 145 feet and Lake Whatcom is more than 300 feet deep. Water - oriented recreation (e.g. launching of small boats, river floating, canoeing and kayaking, fishing, shoreline trails, picnic sites, and swimming) are among the activities most suited to these areas. Athletic fields require large areas of flat open ground which are less abundant in the Foothills than in Whatcom Basin. CASCADE RANGE Farther east, the foothills rise with the west slope of the Cascade Range, leading to large areas of timber lands, rugged wilderness and recreation areas almost entirely under federal ownership. Of the County's 1.4 million acres, approximately two - thirds are within the Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest, the Mt. Baker, Noisy - Diobsud and Pasa en Wilderness Areas, the Mt. baker and Ross Lake National Recreation Areas, and North Cascades National Park. Much of this area is uninhabited and buried under winter snowpack at least six months of the year. Spectacular glacial -carved peaks flanked by high elevation alpine meadows, cascading streams, extensive forest lands, several hundred lakes, not to mention the Mt. Baker volcano, qualify the region as one of the more dramatic landscapes in the U. S. (Recreation planning for federal lands is within the jurisdiction of the agencies managing those lands. Therefore, this plan addresses these areas only to the extent of identifying existing or planned facilities as they relate to the overall recreation experience in Whatcom County.) II -4 LAND USE Most land development activity in the County has occurred in Whatcom Basin, which contains all seven of the County's incorporated cities and a large percentage of the population. Land use in the Basin could be characterized as a mix of urban centers, farms and woodlots, crisscrossed with many streets and highways. With the exception of the Nooksack River bottom, the shores of Lake Whatcom and Lake Samish, the base of Chuckanut Mountain and Columbia Valley (near Kendall), the land in the Foothills region is predominantly owned by private timber interests and the State of Washington and is managed almost exclusively for timber production. A network of logging roads penetrates the area in all directions, providing informal public access to many areas for limited recreational use. A number of rural homes and farms exist near the base of the foothills along with few commercial enterprises that support the traveling public Highways SR9 and SR 542. Arr. �, x'71.'• �^, ^„ 1 !l y LLF-----f9 41 II -5 Y or LLF-----f9 41 II -5 Y BRITISH COLUMBIA SKAGIT COUNTY The Cascade Range is almost entirely managed for forestry, recreation or wilderness and contains very little development outside the Mt. Baker. Ski Area, Baker Lake Resort and the towns of Glacier, Newhalem and Diablo. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS The Whatcom Territory was originally inhabited by native tribes of the Coast Salish people who occupied a large coastal region that reached well north into Canada. In the 1850's, white settlers made their home on the shores of Bellingham Bay, in pursuit of the rich natural resources the area had to offer. Upon statehood, Whatcom County was segregated from Skagit and San Juan Island Counties, and soon Bellingham became the economic center of the northern waters of the state. By the turn of the century, timber harvest, coal mining, fish processing and agriculture were the primary support industries for the more than 30,000 inhabitants. The population surpassed 50,000 by 1920. Since 1920 growth rates have varied considerably ranging from a low of 2.08% for the 1930 decade to a high of 30.15% for the 1970 decade. As can be seen by Table 1 on the next page, most of the growth in recent years has been occurring in the unincorporated areas and small cities. II -6 Table 1 Historical Population Growth Whatcom County - 1910+1980 Total County Unincorporated Other Year Population Areas Bellinaham Cities 1910 49,511 6.9 20,183 109,900 24,298 5,030 111,100 1.1 1920 50,600 (2.2 %) 19,621 (2.8 %) 25,585 (5.3 %) 5,394 (7.2 %) 1930 59,128 (16.8 %) 23,112 (17.8 %) 30,823 (20.5 %) 5,193 ( -3.7 %) 1940 60,355 (2.1 %) 25,860 (11.9 %) 29,314 (4.9 %) 5,181 ( -0.2 %) 1950 66,733 (10.6 %) 26,462 (2.3 %) 34,112 (16.4 %) 6,159 (18.9 %) 1960 70,317 (5.4 %) 25,990 ( -1.8 %) 37,230 (9.1 %) 7,097 (15.2 %) 1970 81,983 (16.6°•6) 34,004 (30.1 %) 39,375 (5.8 %) 8,604 (21.2 %) 1980 106,700 (30.1 %) 48,622 (43.0 %) 45,794 (16.3 %) 12,284 (42.8 %) Source: Whatcom Planning Department Since 1980 the County growth rate has gone up and down. In 1986 and 1987 the growth rate dropped substantially but since then has increased by a much greater amount. Table 2 Population Growth, 1980 -1989 Whatcom County Year Population % Change 1980 106,700 6.9 1981 109,900 3.0 1982 111,100 1.1 1983 112,100 0.9 1984 113,700 1.4 1985 116,000 2.0 1986 116,700 0.6 1987 117,200 0.4 1988 119,100 1.6 1989 121,700 2.2 * estimated Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management Most of the growth now occurring is in the unincorporated areas or in the small cities. As an example, the overall county growth rate between 1980 -1988 was 11.6 %. For the unincorporated areas it was 19.6% but for Bellingham is was only 1.8 %. II -7 Current projections by the Washington Office of Financial Management anticipate a 2.2% county -wide increase in population for 1989. This is the highest growth rate since 1981. For the 1980 decade, total growth is expected to reach 17% and for the 1990 decade 19 %. Based on these assumptions we can expect the following population: Year Population 1989 121,700 2000 140,364 GROWTH PATTERNS Most new growth in the County is found in the incorporated cities and their urban fringe. While growth rates are somewhat difficult to predict between individual growth areas, the pattern of growth can be predicted based on applications for building permits. Based on discussions with city and county planning officials, the largest increases in population growth and residential development are likely to occur in or near Bellingham (Urban Fringe, Lake Whatcom and Chuckanut -Lake Samish subareas). Areas around Ferndale, Lynden and Blaine, secondary urban centers in the county, may realize much of the remaining growth. Major industrial development at Cherry Point could attract greater numbers to Ferndale. Birch Bay and Point Roberts, summer resort areas long enjoyed (and substantially owned) by Canadians, and Semiahmoo, near Blaine, may be entering a significant period of growth as well. The ongoing expansion of service and utility infrastructures and improving Canadian investment economics will help fuel such a trend. II -8 CLIMATE AND SEASON The weather in Whatcom County is, in many ways, similar to much of the maritime Pacific Northwest. Mild and moist conditions derived from marine air masses (southwesterlies) move through the region almost year- round, producing abundant precipitation in all but the summer months. As a result, spring, fall and winter can be cool ((typically 30 -55 degrees F.), wet and breezy. In summer, the warm Pacific high dominates the pattern, bringing clear or partly cloudy skies and comfortable temperatures (65 -80 degrees F.). Annual rainfall averages 30 to 60 inches in the inhabited western portions of the county and increases to well over 100 inches in the North Cascades. Flooding of the Nooksack River and other low elevation streams is not uncommon in fall or spring, and tides are normally a foot or two higher in winter. Fog and occasional small thunderstorms are also known to occur in the region. In winter, it is not unusual for dry continental and high pressure arctic air masses to pour into the region from the north and east, resulting in cold and windy conditions, sometimes to an extreme. When the cold dry air collides with a moisture laden marine air mass, snowfall is likely, even in the lowland areas. Snow is very common in the foothills above 1,000 feet elevation and a substantial snowpack (10 to 20 feet or more) is produced in the higher mountainous areas, sustaining numerous alpine glaciers and contributing to the multitude of meltwater streams and rivers that run year - round. The high country (mostly federal lands) is usually buried in snow from late fall through early summer. Indoor recreation is not normally dependent on the weather and can occur any time. Many outdoor recreation activities, such as hiking, picnicking and nature study, are enjoyed all year as a benefit of the mild climate. Lowland park and trail use (below 1,000 feet) occurs each season, naturally increasing as the days become drier and warmer. Some activities such as field sports, camping and boating are more dependent on improved weather and are generally enjoyed late - spring through early fall. Winter sports, like downhill or cross - country skiing and snowmobilmg, are obviously limited by the presence or absence of sufficient snow in accessible locations. During a long spell of gray days in spring, residents may agree that the so- called "mild" winters are much too long, and summers too short. Nevertheless, the variety of recreation opportunities, the beauty of the natural landscape, and a tolerable climate, will continue to attract residents and visitors to Whatcom County in the years to come. II -9 SECTION III EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES INTRODUCTION Whatcom County enjoys a vast range of recreation areas, facilities and shorelines. These recreation opportunities are managed by many different organizations and include: Federal Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie and Okanagan National Forests, North Cascades National Park Complex State Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fisheries, Parks and Recreation Commission, Department of Wildlife Local Whatcom County Parks and Recreation, cities of Bellingham, Blaine, Lynden, Sumas, Everson, Nooksack, Ferndale; Western Washington University, Whatcom Community College, Port of Bellingham plus non profit organizations Commercial RV parks, commercial outfitters, private sport clubs, golf courses III - 1 Map of public land 111-2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES Table 3 Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities Whatcom County, Washington Area /Agency Facilities /Areas Incorporated Cities Bellingham 29 parks 1,770.0 acres Blaine 7 parks 272.3 Lynden 5 parks 349.9 Sumas 4 parks 12.0 Everson 4 parks 13.5 Nooksack 1 park 0.5 Ferndale 4 parks 22.5 Pt. Roberts P &R District 2 R,@rk$ $ Subtotal 56 2,523.2 Whatcom County Parks 22 park sites 2,139.5 Misc. Facilities 9 sites 1.5 Subtotal 31 sites 2,141.0 State Park Areas Birch Bay Recreation Area 193.0 Larrabee State Park 1,885.0 Peace Arch State Heritage Area 211. Subtotal 2,099.0 acres TOTAL PARK AND RECREATION AREAS 6,763.2 acres Table 4 Public Land and Open Space Whatcom County, Washington Area Acres Parks and Recreation Areas Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest North Cascades National Park Complex Paysaten Wilderness Area Dept. of Wildlife Dept. of Fisheries DNR Managed Areas Total Public Land 111-3 6,763 297,920 463,161 103,200 1,359 14 67.850 940,267 Acres (69 %) WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Whatcom County owns a number of existing developed parks, undeveloped park sites and senior centers. A summary of these facilities is listed below. Table 5 Existing County Park Facilities Whatcom County, Washington Site Acres Activities /Facilities DEVELOPED PARKS Bay Horizon Park 68.5 Hostel, Lions program for disabled Hovander Homestead Park 96.0 Picnic, museum, farm Tennant Lake 250.0 Interpretive center, hunting Smith & Northwest Soccer Complex 20.0 6 soccer fields Lighthouse Marine Park 21.7 Camping, picnic Pine /Cedar Lakes Park 300.0 Hiking, fishing, camping Plantation Rifle Range 25.0 Indoor /outdoor shooting ranges Samish Park 39.0 Swimming, picnicking, boating Semiahmoo Park 322.0 Museum, beach, picnicking Silver Lake Park 411.0 Camping, equestrian, picnicking Truax Park 3.7 Picnicking, playground Interurban Trail Trail system TOTAL DEVELOPED PARKS 1,556.9 Site Acres Potential Use UNDEVELOPED SITES Birch Bay Property Birchwood Property Haynie Community Club Site Euclid Site Lake Whatcom - South Smith Creek Site Little Squalicum Maple Falls /Glacier R/W Monument Park Ostrom Property Pleasant Valley School Site East Lake Samish Park 14.0 Incl. 5.6 acre park site 3.0 Undetermined 2.1 Undetermined 18.0 Swimming, day use 175.0 Swimming, day use 171.2 Day use, camping, swimming 13.1 Day use, beach access 112.7 Hiking, trails 8.2 Picnicking, beach access 38.6 Day use or camping 2.7 Undetermined Day use, lake access TOTAL UNDEVELOPED SITES 582.6 111-4 Table 5 (cont'd) Existing County Park Facilities Whatcom County, Washington Site Acres Activities /Facilities OTHER EXISTING FACILITIES Roeder Home 0.5 Historical, cultural arts Bellingham Senior Center 1.0 Senior activities Everson Senior Center * Senior activities Lynden Senior Center * Senior activities Blaine Senior Center Senior activities Ferndale Senior Center * Senior activities Sumas Senior Center 0.1 Senior activities Welcome Senior Center 0.8 Senior activities Pt. Roberts Senior Center * 0.1 Senior activities TOTAL FACILITIES 2.5 TOTAL PARK LAND 2,142.0 Facility managed by the County but owned by a city or other agency. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES BAY HORIZON PARK 68.5 Acres This parcel was once a government radar site and was acquired by the County through the federal land surplus program. Prior to receiving the site, nearly all of the equipment and furnishings were removed, leaving only the shell of buildings. Currently, the County does not program its facilities and instead leases out portions to tenants. The two major tenants are the Lions Clubs and AYH (American Youth Hostel). The Lions Club uses a number of the barracks and other buildings for their camp for the disabled called Camp Horizon. The Lions have put a considerable amount of time, effort and money into the site for their program. AYH offers a 48 -bed youth hostel and is part of a world -wide hostel program. The site offers a great deal of potential for expanded use, but will need a considerable of capital. One of the immediate needs is to remove the asbestos from the buildings and outside overhead steam lines. III -5 HOVANDER HOMESTEAD PARK 96.0 Acres Hovander Park bears the name of the family who owned and resided on the farm. The site was sold to the County in 1969 and is on the national registry of historical places. The original home contains many historical furnishings and is open to the public for viewing. The Retired Senior Service Volunteer Program (R.S.V.P.) sponsors public tours. The barn, which is the second largest in the County, is also well maintained and contains a number of old farm equipment pieces. Surrounding the homestead is about 90 acres of farm land. The Nooksack River borders the property on the west. At the north end of the property is a boat ramp and parking area. This area is maintained by the State Department of Wildlife. The site is not well maintained and the boat ramp continues to silt over. Other than the boat ramp, the park is very well maintained and is a facility that County residents should be proud of. TENNANT LAKE 250 Acres This park site is located adjacent to the Hovander property and was purchased by the County from the Neilsen family. The original homestead is well maintained and used as an interpretative center. From the house, a trail system and boardwalk runs out to Tenant Lake. Tenant Lake is managed by the State Department of Wildlife. A portion of the lake is open to hunting. In front of the house a see -touch and smell garden has been developed for the physically disabled. Directly east of the house is a refurbished look -out that was originally the well house. From the look -out the entire site can be viewed. Most of the site is in a wetlands condition. However, a five acre parcel directly north of the house could be utilized for some specialized recreation use. SMITH AND NORTHWEST SOCCER COMPLEX 20 Acres The County currently owns about 80 acres located at the southeast corner of the Smith and Northwest Road intersection. Near the east end of this site, the 20 acres of land was made available to the Whatcom County Soccer Association for soccer play. Six to nine soccer fields can be accommodated on the site depending upon their size. Once developed, it will be managed by the Soccer Association but supervised by the Whatcom County Park and Recreation Board. LIGHTHOUSE MARINE PARK 21.7 Acres This park site is found at Point Roberts and was acquired from the Point Roberts Park and Recreation District. It contains the beachfront, a park manager's residence, boat launches and a small 20 -unit RV campin& area. Because of the rough ocean waves, the floats are removed from the boat launch in the winter. Orca whales are often seen moving through this area close to shore. The existing master plan for the park calls for the development of showers and an additional restroom. 111-6 PINE /CEDAR LAKES PARK 300 Acres This site is located in the South County and consists of a two mile trail up to Pine and Cedar Lakes and several viewpoints. This park site is jointly owned by the Department of Wildlife and the County. At both lakes, there is a primitive campground. The Boy Scouts use the site extensively and help with trail maintenance. PLANTATION RIFLE RANGE 25.0 Acres This site is located on land owned by DNR. It consists of a high power range (300 yards) with 15 covered firing points; a trap field; a small bore and pistol indoor range (25 yards) with 12 firing points; an outdoor small bore range (100 meter) with 12 firing points; and a building for meetings, etc. The master plan calls for another high power range and indoor range. ROEDER HOME 0.5 Acres This home was donated to the County in 1971 and is on the registry of historical buildings. The home has been well maintained and is currently used for weddings, receptions, meetings and cultural arts programs. The caretaker for the home lives in an adjacent house also located on the site. The cultural arts coordinator program also works out of the home as well. SAMISH PARK 39.0 Acres This was the first major park built in 1969 by the County and offers a swimming beach and dock, a service building, manager's quarters, a fishing dock, trails, picnic sites and canoe rentals. The service building has a well equipped food service area and is rented extensively in the winter. A wheelchair ramp into the lake is currently being constructed. The park is developed and maintained at a very high standard. The lack of parking, however, is a severe problem. An unfortunate problem is that an access road to a private residence crosses through the park. SEMIAHMOO PARK 322.0 Acres This park is located on a 1.5 mile long spit across the bay from Blaine. The park has retained several buildings from the fish cannery era that are now restored for use as an interpretive center with exhibits, a library and a conference rental hall. The park offers clam digging, swimming, beach combing and picknicking. 111-7 SILVER LAKE PARK 411.0 Acres This park site is extensively used and provides camping, day use, boating and equestrian activities. Specific facilities include a camping area consisting of 80 camp sites (most of which have electrical and water service) and 6 cabins. The cabins are relatively primitive and only have cold running water. A separate group camping area is also available that will support about 25 trailers or other camping units. The day use area consists of a service building with food service and boat rentals, the park manager's quarters and picnic areas. Swimming is discouraged because of a parasite in the water that causes the skin to itch. The Horse Camp, located across the main highway, contains two stables for 64 horses, 30 camp sites, 2 shelters and a trailhead for nearby trails. Also on the park site are two large barns and another house. One of the barns is used for storage but the other has been used for summer programs such as movies and special presentations. The park receives an extreme amount of use. The demand for camp sites far exceeds the supply. Some of the long term needs are better cabins with better utility service, a laundromat and more full service camp sites. The original homestead called the Gerdrum House is located across the main highway and is of historical significance. TRUAX PARK 3.7 Acres This is a small neighborhood park site located near Lake Whatcom and contains a shelter building and some trails. It is completely surrounded by homes and is very difficult to find. This trail was acquired from an abandoned railroad and was developed as a joint effort by State Parks, the City of Bellingham, the County and Puget Sound Power and Light Company. The County portion is about five miles long. Three of the agencies, State Parks, the City and the County each maintain their own section. This is somewhat unfortunate in that each agency has their own maintenance standards. BELLINGHAM SENIOR CENTER 1.0 Acres Located in downtown Bellingham, this building provides senior services for the Bellingham area. Because administration of the entire senior services program is run out of this building, space for both the senior activities and administration has become quite limited. An additional problem is lack of parking. In the past, parking was available from an adjacent site but this has become increasingly difficult to secure. Part of the recent $2.5 million bond levy will be used to acquire additional parking area. This building is open five days a week and is available in the evenings for public meetings. 111-8 EVERSON SENIOR CENTER The building, located in downtown Everson, owned by the City and managed by the Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Department. The building appears to be in reasonable good condition but some minor improvements are underway. This center is open four days a week. LYNDEN SENIOR CENTER The Lynden Center is located in downtown Lynden adjacent to other storefront shops. It is owned by the City and managed by the County. The rear half of the building is raised approximately five feet which causes some access problems. It also makes it difficult to move food from the kitchen below to the dining area above. There are plans underway to add a second story over the front half of the building. With this addition will come an elevator, which will make access easier. BLAINE SENIOR CENTER The Blaine Center is located on city land but the building is owned and managed by the County. It is in good condition and is open four days a week. Proposed short term improvements include enlarging the restrooms and closing in the patio for additional center activities. FERNDALE SENIOR CENTER The Ferndale Center is located in Pioneer Park near the outskirts of Ferndale. The center is owned and managed by the County but is located on city land. A recent donation added a large recreation room to the center. It is open five days a week. SUMAS SENIOR CENTER 0.1 Acres This is the oldest of the senior centers managed by the County and in the poorest condition. The old two -story building was acquired for $1 from the Lions Club with the provision that should the site be sold, the Lions would have first option to buy it back. The upstairs has several pool tables but because of the steep steps is seldom used. There has been some talk of acquiring a new site for a senior center. 111-9 WELCOME SENIOR CENTER 0.8 Acres This site is located in the foothills area of the County and once was a small school building. It offers a limited nutrition and recreation program and is open three days a week. Some minor improvements to the building will be made over the next several years. PT. ROBERTS SENIOR CENTER 0.1 Acres This brick building is still owned by the Point Roberts Park and Recreation District and contains the senior center and library. Senior activities are managed by the County. PARK ATTENDANCE Park attendance on the whole has shown a 22% increase in the four year period 1983- 84 to 1987 -88. Silver Lake Park has shown the greatest increase at 32% for the four years. However, attendance at Samish Park has actually shown a 17% decrease in the same period. Table 6 Park Attendance Selected Parks In Whatcom County Because of the County's location on the I -5 corridor and its close proximity to Vancouver B.C. urban area, an inordinately large share of county park usage is by non- residents. This is illustrated in Table 7. III -10 Total Attendance Park 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 Silver Lake Park 72,000 92,400 63,500 83,200 95,100 Samish Park 37,900 59,400 27,800 33,700 32,300 Hovander Park 60,900 62,400 71,500 73,700 79,300 Plantation Rifle Range 9,100 8,900 .9,900 12,200 13,400 Lighthouse Park 54,300 52,200 48,200 58,300 65,200 Roeder Home 15,400 13,800 15,900 18,300 19,800 Semiahmoo Park 20.000 25.400 30.900 31.100 24.000 TOTAL 269,600 314,500 267,700 310,500 329,100 Because of the County's location on the I -5 corridor and its close proximity to Vancouver B.C. urban area, an inordinately large share of county park usage is by non- residents. This is illustrated in Table 7. III -10 Table 7 Park use by out -of- County Residents Whatcom County, Washington Park In- County Out -of- County Silver Lake Park Camping 67% 33% Day Use 76% 24% Hovander Park 96 0,6 4 0,6 Lighthouse Park Camping 7% 93% Day Use 7% 93% Samish Park 89% 11% Semiahoo Park 56% 44% Rifle Range 79% 21% TRAIL SYSTEMS The existing trail system in Whatcom County offers a wide range of recreational experiences and environments for trail users. Fields and forests, lakes, streams and wetlands, beaches, historical sites, outstanding views, wildlife and other features are the source of substantial outdoor enjoyment for residents and visitors alike. Hikers, horseback riders and bicyclists are all frequent users of trails, both as individuals and as organized groups. While most trails are suitable for foot traffic, bicyclists and horseback riders find many trails to be inadequately maintained or not built to appropriate construction standards. Mountain bike riding has experienced major growth over the last few years, creating new problems and opportunities for trail recreation. Poorly built or maintained trails are less enjoyable to travel and can cause erosion or other damage to the environment. Most of the present trail mileage in the County consists of "unofficial" user trails, generally in the foothills, across state and private lands that are managed for timber production and subject to logging. Areas that were logged twenty or more years ago are slowly being reforested and in many instances, the old road beds have become attractive routes for trail users. Several historic logging railroad grades have also been converted to trails. Informal user trails are widespread in the foothills, but because of ongoing logging operations and road building, and the difficulties in formalizing public access, only those that are uniquely valuable to the public's trail enjoyment, are specifically addressed in the plan. Most public trails are located within established city, county, state or federal parks, although many more trails can be found on private lands. Informal user trails are widespread, but because of the difficulties in formalizing public access most are unknown except to a few. An inventory of existing and potential trails in Whatcom County is found in Appendix, A -2. The trail name, use, type and approximate length is given. A summary of existing public trails is shown below WHATCOM COUNTY 10.5 miles foot trails 20.5 miles multi -use trails III - 11 CITY OF BELLINGHAM 6.7 miles foot trails 13.9 miles multi -use trails 8.1 miles paved bike paths MT. BAKER- SNOOUALMIE NATIONAL FOREST (WHATCOM COUNTY ONLY) 120.1 miles hiking trails PASAYTEN WILDERNESS AREA (WHATCOM COUNTY ONLY) 97.0 miles hiking trails NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK (WHATCOM COUNTY ONLY) 2.1 miles interpretative trails 188.0 miles hiking trails 63.0 miles equestrian trails 2.0 miles ORV trails 13.9 miles snowmobile trails In summary, these trails can be summarized in five categories as follows: 8.1 miles bike paths 17.2 miles urban foot trails 26.9 miles rural hikin& trails 407.2 hiking /backpacking trails 97.4 multi -use trails 63.0 equestrian trails 15.9 miles motorized trails 635.7 miles TOTAL Hiking, backpacking, horseback riding and simply "walking for pleasure" are among the most popular outdoor recreation activities in Whatcom County. An impressive 52.9% of the population uses trails. A similar percentage recognizes a need to acquire new areas and easements to assure a comprehensive trail network can be developed. During the public workshops, improvement and expansion of the trail system, including bicycle routes, were consistently mentioned as among our highest priorities. Despite strong interest in trails, publicly owned and maintained trails in unincorporated Whatcom County are few. Excluding trails in the city of Bellingham, on federal lands in the North Cascades, and short paths within developed parks, only five trails are regularly maintained for public use. They are: Pine & Cedar Lakes Trail (Whatcom County) 3 miles Interurban Trail (Interagency) 5 miles Fragrance Lake Trail (Larrabee State Park) 2 miles Lost Lake Trail (Larrabee State Park) 2 miles Tennant Lake Trail (Whatcom County) 2 miles 111-12 Two public trails are not regularly maintained and are somewhat fragmented due to vegetation, slides and erosion: East Lake Whatcom Trail ( Whatcom County) 3 miles Maple Falls to Glacier Trail ( Whatcom County) 6 miles Portion of two others cross private lands, but are used often by the public. Both are among the most scenic of the existing public trails: Chuckanut Ridge Trail (Larrabee State Park) 4 miles N. Sumas Mt. Trail (WA DNR) 5 miles Through the planning process, well over a hundred trails (existing and proposed) were identified. Each are described briefly in the trail inventory found in Appendix A -2. As funding allows, trails can be selected from the inventory that are considered most attractive for acquisition or development. The inventory is contained in a PC- compatible data base (R -Base) similar to other land use information systems used by the County. Table A -2 provides a summary of the data base, with the trail name, use type, trailhead location and approximate length (existing and proposed) noted for each. Cross - country skiing has increased in recent years, with most of the activity occurring near the Mt. Baker Ski Area and the Salmon Ridge facility east of Glacier. The total distance of groomed trails is variable, depending on snow conditions and demand. While there are a few opportunities for cross - country skiing in the western portion of the county, the majority of the activity occurs on federal lands at the higher elevations. Cross - country skiing has also been the most popular activity offered by the county's Outdoor Program. 111-13 WHATCOM COUNTY PARK OPERATIONS PARK AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION Management of park and recreation services in Whatcom County is headed by an appointed director. Management responsibilities are divided as shown below. PARK AND RECREATION BOARD PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR I DEPUTY PARK & RECREATION DIRECTOR SENIOR OUTDOOR SERVICES I I R CREATION I I A TSURAL ARTS I I MANAGERS I IREPAIR MAINTENANCE During the year, the Department hires about 33 full time employees and 80 part time or summer help employees. When broken down by function, employment is as follows: Table 8 Employment by Function Whatcom County Park and Recreation Department Full Time Part Time Function Employees Employees Administration 5 Recreation Services (1) 3 Senior Services 10 Park Operations Is TOTAL 33 (1) Includes cultural arts and outdoor programs 111-14 1 40 2 37 80 BUDGET ANALYSIS Over the years the County parks budget has shown very little increase averaging about 2% growth per year. Most of the increase has been for supplies. Salaries and wages have grown very little. What is also important to note is that the park and recreation budget has not grown in proportion to the County's overall budget. For instance, in 1988 the park and recreation budget was 9.2% of the total County budget, but in 1977 it was 19.4 %. Table 9 Budget - 1984 -1988 Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Department 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Expenses Salaries & Wages $1,090,996 $1,063,862 $1,093,830 $1,042,268 $1,116,410 Supplies 79,891 92,457 101,378 112,438 118,889 Services & Charges 291,511 229,001 221,220 231,952 238,013 Capital Outlay 3,825 8,425 12,350 3,725 53,600 Interfund Payments 650 72.030 90.760 91,503 68.190 TOTAL $1,466,873 $1,465,775 $1,519,538 $1,481,886 $1,595,102 Revenue from Fees and Charges $221,900 $229,250 $218,142 $212,143 $219,900 The above table indicates that while revenue has remained somewhat constant in the five year period, it has not grown at the same rate as the total budget. For instance, revenue was 15.1% of the total budget in 1984 but dropped to 13.8% by 1988. The largest expense in the budget is maintenance of existing park sites followed by the senior program. Administration only accounts for 16% of the budget. Over the years the cost per visitor has slightly decreased. This is because total usage of the parks and the recreation programs has gone up but the total budget has not increased accordingly. This is illustrated below. Park Total Participant Cost Per Year Attendance Programs Days Visitor 1984 269,600 466,819 736,419 $1.99 1985 314,500 444,579 759,079 $1.93 1986 267,700 457,630 725,330 $2.09 1987 310,500 463,974 774,474 $1.91 1988 329,100 499,548 828,648 $1.92 111-15 Table 10 Costs and Revenue - 1988 Budget Whatcom Department of Parks and Recreation Service Costs Revenue $13.66 $277,176 (17.0 %) $11.33 Administration $261,491 $31,800 Recreation Services 134,403 36,000 Senior Services 354,306 41,978 Park Operations 791,302 167,398 Capital Outlay 53.600 1.6% TOTAL $ 1,595,102 $277,1776 We were quite pleased to note that park operations return 21% of its budget through revenue. However, we were disappointed to see that recreation services-only return 27 %. This number should be at least 75 %. Table 11 Comparison of County Park Budgets 1988 -89 FY % of Park County Cost per Net Cost 2 County Budget Budget Capita (1) Revenue Per Capita Whatcom (3) $1,627,070 3.1% $13.66 $277,176 (17.0 %) $11.33 Skagit (4) 1,102,736 2.5% 15.58 115,658 (10.5 %) 13.94 Lewis (5) 942,748 7.6% 16.42 207,893 (22.0 %) 12.80 Snohomish (5) 923,070 1.6% 2.25 245,983 (26.6 %) 1.65 Thurston (5) 576,902 0.7% 3.86 -(6) - - Notes: (1) Gross cost of Park services per capita (2) Net cost after revenue is subtracted (3) Includes senior services program (4) Actual budget excluding senior services is $433,538 (5) No senior services program (6) No revenue data available 111 -16 RECREATION PROGRAMS Whatcom County has a moderately sized recreation program when compared to most park agencies and a fairly intensive program for a county park agency. However, the majority of activities is for senior services. A breakdown of the programs for 1987 is as follows: Senior Services 443,899 Participant Days Cultural Arts 18,325 Outdoor Recreation 2.228 TOTAL 464,452 Participant Days Within the senior service program, activities at the senior centers and the transportation program constitute most of the activity. Table 12 Summary of Senior Services Activities - 1987 Whatcom County Activity Participation Senior Centers Bellingham Senior Center Blaine Senior Center Everson Senior Center Ferndale Senior Center Lynden Senior Center Pt. Roberts Senior Center Sumas Senior Center Welcome Senior Center Subtotal 81,490 16,724 5,600 19,840 29,300 3,115 4,725 2,200 162,994 Transportation Program Rides 150,981 Nutrition Program Congregate meals served 69,923 Home delivered meals 51,450 Information and Case Management 8.551 TOTAL 443,899 111-17 Participation in the other programs is shown on Tables 13 -14. Table 13 Participation in Cultural Arts Program - 1987 Whatcom County Activity Participant Days Adult Classes 2,918 Children's Classes 2,170 Workshops 136 Gallery 2,350 37 Highland Games 4,000 Folkdance Festival 4,500 Whatcom County in Bloom 276 Other 1.975 TOTAL 18,325 Table 14 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Programs - 1987 Whatcom County Park and Recreation Program Activity Participants Participant Days Cross County Skiing 278 783 Mountaineering /backpacking /hiking 28 105 Children's Programs 37 185 Sailing 90 293 Bicycling 53 184 Canoe /kayak /rafting 243 M TOTAL 729 2,228 111-18 SECTION IV RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION Identifying recreation needs is a very important part of a park and recreation plan. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most difficult tasks because it deals with community values, climate, population characteristics, current interests, economic conditions, size of the community, expectations and many other variables. What might be right for one community will probably not be right for another. The problem is compounded by the fact that underestimating the need can result in over - utilization of facilities whereas overestimating the need can mean spending money for facilities that are not needed. In this section we studied the demand for recreation facilities and activities and developed a quantifiable statement of need based on existing and future population growth. This process included five steps. They are: An analysis of national trends in recreation participation 2. An analysis of the recreation survey in Whatcom County 3. Results of the public workshop meetings 4. Development of park and facility standards 5. Identification of park and facility needs NATIONAL TRENDS IN RECREATION PARTICIPATION A significant number of shifts have occurred in recreation patterns in our nation. Many of these changes have come about because of changing work habits, concern about our health, population and household composition changes, raising energy costs and other factors. The end result is that the public is demanding access to more facilities and activities. In addition, recreation shifts occur from time to time because of fad activities or new technology. Conversely, the old standby activities such as softball, basketball, tennis, etc. go through a cycle of interest of their own. Some of these changes are discussed below. A. Increased interest in exercise: Recreation is viewed as an important factor in maintaining adult health. From a fad in the early 1970's, exercise has become a way of life for nearly half of the people in the U.S. Based on the latest Gallup Poll, 51% of the population exercise on a regular basis. This is a dramatic change from the 25% in 1961. B. Travel costs: While the public is generally traveling less than ten years ago, the change is not as dramatic as it was immediately after the first gasoline shortage. We have found that people are still willing to pay for travel costs associated with recreation activities. IV - C. Increase in leisure time: The number of hours worked per week continues to decrease. While just a few years ago the average work week was 48 hours, the number is now down to 40 or less. The concept of flex time also makes it possible to recreate at non peak hours of the week. This coupled with multiple work shifts means that recreation facilities can be utilized at a more constant level. D. Increased interest in women's sports: With the passage of the Title IX Amendment to the Education Act, women are now offered greater access to sport facilities. The result has been a dramatic increase in recreation interests and a nearly doubling of demand for some type of facilities. E. Changes in population characteristics: The American population is aging. According tote 1980 Census, 15% of the population is over 65 and this figure is increasing. This will mean a demand for more senior activities. Another important change is that nearly one third of the population lives in a household with only one adult (elderly people who live alone, single adults and single parent households). Single parent households now make up 11% of all households. These people need opportunities to meet other people within the limits imposed by their financial resources and time. Also, single parents need nearby recreation activities for their children, especially supervised after - school or summer programs. F. Trends in ho using: The rising cost of land, housing and energy are causing a decline in single family housing units in both numbers and size. As densities increase there will be greater need for additional nearby park and open space. Some of this can be supplied by private facilities located within each development. G. Changes in technology: Changes in technology have had a significant impact on recreation participation by making it easier to effectively participate. A good example is skiing where new design in skis, bindings and clothing has made it easier, safer and more comfortable to ski. Tennis has also gone through this same transformation by developing a more flexible and forgiving racket. H. Changes in recreation preferences: On a national scale, recreation interests change. Some are more related to fads whereas others such as tennis and softball maintain a rather constant level. Some of these national changes that are of interest are discussed below. o Physical fitness continues to be a national pastime. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 51% of the adults claim to follow some kind of daily regime aside from their job or daily house work. Percent who engage in physical fitness activities: 1986 51% 1977 47% 1982 47% 1961 27% 1980 46% Another sign of this fitness trend is the fact that 10% of the adults and 20% of the 18 -24 year old group belong to a health club or a fitness center. In general, the young, well educated or affluent, participate IV-2 A the most. Over 30% of the adults over the age of 60 do not participate in any outdoor activity. While physical fitness activity has shown a dramatic rise when compared to 1961, since 1977 the level of interest has not risen as fast. In fact, it is our opinion that this level will remain constant for the next decade. The change we expect to see is that for those who participate, their level of participation will rise. Jogging is not as popular as when it hit its peak in 1984. Percent who jog 1986 13% 1985 15% 1984 18% 1982 14% 1980 12% 1977 11% 1961 6% Twice as many men jog as women and those who have attended college are more apt to jog. The 18 -24 age group has the most joggers. We have also noticed this same trend in our own surveys. Walking for pleasure. swimming, bicycling and fishing are the most common activities. The top 27 activities are: Percent Participating Walking for Pleasure 54% Swimming 43% Bicycling 35% Fishing 35% Pool, billiards 26% Camping 25% Hiking 25% Bowling 22% Softball 22% Weight training • 21% Calisthenics 20% Volleyball 20% Basketball 19% Bicycle touring, racing 18% Motorboating 18% Aerobics, dancercize 16% Baseball 16% Weight lifting 16% Table tennis 15% Any form of weight training, including weight lifting, body building, Nautilus, etc. IV -3 Body building 14% Hunting 14% Frisbee 13% Golf 12% Tennis 12% Canoeing, rowing 11% Target shooting 11% o The top ten men's activities are: 1. Swimming 46% 2. Fishing 44% 3. Bicycling 36% 4. Pool /billiards 35% 5. Jogging /running 31% 6. Basketball 29% 7. Camping 29% 8. Softball 28% 9. Weight training 27% 10. Bowing 24% o The top ten women's activities are: 1. Swimming 41% 2. Bicycling 33% 3. Aerobics /dancercize 26% 4. Jogging /running 26% 5. Camping 22% 6. Fishing 22% 7. Bowling 21% 8. Calisthenics 19% 9. Pool /billiards 17% 9. Softball 17% 9. Volleyball 17% o Bicycling riding, volleyball, baseball, soccer and basketball continue to increase in popularity. o Softball and tennis have remained at near the same level since 1983. o Aerobic dancing/iazzercise have shown some decrease in popularity. o Racquetball appears to have leveled off in popularity. o Walkin for pleasure is a new recreation category that was surveyed for the first time in 1986. While no trends are available, it represents the No. 1 activity. IV -4 RANDOM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SAMPLE DESIGN AND SELECTION A survey of public attitudes, recreation interests and participation characteristics was made in Whatcom County during February 7 -27, 1989. Questionnaires were distributed to randomly selected households located throughout the County. Each member of a selected household age 10 and over was asked to fill out a questionnaire. Computed on a county -wide basis, 383 valid returns were needed to obtain a 95% confidence level. However, because many of the questions were to be answered only by those 18 and over, we increased the sample size so that a minimum of 383 adult returns would be received. (We actually received a higher number because of the good response rate.) The survey data is often analyzed by four survey areas. A map of the four areas is shown below. BRITISH COLUMBIA WHATCOM COUNTY Lynden Rd fill?( H IN Y COASTAL SURVEY AREA • FERNDALE Sister Rd. Badger Rd. LYNDEN EVERSON L NOOKSACK VALLEY SURVEY AREA C ... .. • S Mt. •0 BELUNGHAM BELLINGHAM BAY SUMAS ,..iYiiifiFi ^ f i i • • Hwy. •••••• •••0 J i • • • FOOTHILLS • • SURVEY AREA i ...• BELLINGHAM URBAN AREA: \ SURVEY AREA .rL� • • t � • • s LAKE UMISH IV -5 A It 91 WHATCOM COUNTY SIZZIT COUNTY I' 1 HI W' �I I LLI al �I FI al 1 = I 1 1 I _J r-- i L -'1 i I I I 1 L -� ri 1 I 1 Based on the random sample method utilized, community-wide results are statistically accurate within an expected_ maximum error range of approximately 5% (plus or minus) at a 95% confidence level. In other words, if the sample was randomly selected 100 times, 95 times out of 100 the obtained results would vary no more than 5% (plus or minus) from the results if everyone in the county were surveyed. In cases where information is analyzed by the four areas, the confidence level will be lower due to the smaller sample size. Some of the results are compared to the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. This information was derived from past recreation surveys conducted by JCD. The NORTHWEST AVERAGE is a weighted average based on population size for the last 15 communities surveyed. A summary of the results for the Whatcom County survey is shown below. County 1988 Population 119,100 No. Households Surveyed 282 No. Questionnaires Distributed 892 No. Questionnaires Returned 621 Return Ratio 70% 0 General Overview We are very pleased with the high rate of responses to the survey. The 70% return ratio is about 10% higher than average and about 20% higher than our last survey. We also noted a substantial higher number of people who filled out the entire questionnaire rather than just a portion. This was particularly true for the open ended questions in which the respondent was asked to write in their own answers. There were several county -wide issues that were prominent throughout the survey. They were also reflected in the workshop meetings as well. The first was the stated need for an indoor swimming pool. Perhaps it is because a bond measure for an indoor pool recently failed. However, in all the surveys I have completed, I have never seen such a strong desire expressed for a specific type of recreation facility. The second issue was the awareness and concerns about the way the County is growing. Issues such as the need to acquire open space and shoreline access, concerns over solid waste, pollution and other environmental issues were very prominent. There was also a strong desire and feeling of support to increase planning regulations. It was interesting to see how many responses there were dealing with the concern over the loss of farmland. Noticeably absent were issues dealing with taxes, schools, traffic and government operations. While many of these issues do not relate to parks and recreation, they will often show up in a survey. IV -6 is User Characteristics 1. Location of Residence Survey Area No. Returns % of Sample Nooksack Valley 144 23.2% Bellingham Urban 378 60.9% Coastal Area 76 12.2% Foothills 23 3.7% Total 2. My Age is: 621 Me Bracket No. Responding % of Sample 10-17 133 21.5% 18 -24 51 8.2% 25 -35 96 15.5% 36 -54 230 37.1% 55 -64 55 8.9% 65 -75 34 5.5% Over 75 21 3.4% 3. How long have you lived in Whatcom Coun ? Whatcom Snohomish Chico, Anchorage County County California Alaska 0 -3 years 10% 11% 28% 24% 4 -6 years 9% 20% 10% 32% " 7 -10 years 10% 12% Over 10 years 72% 69% 50% 44% " Includes 4 -10 years It is interesting to note that 72% of the population in Whatcom County have lived there more than 10 years. This is significantly higher than most communities we have surveyed. IV -7 Generally, people who move into a community bring with them their recreation desires and attitudes from their previous living environment. As an example, a family having lived in a community offering a high level of recreation service will more than likely desire that same service in their new community. While Whatcom County is growing, it does not have the amount of new people one might expect. However, a 10% ratio of people living in the County three years or less still represents about 11,500 persons. 4. Do you travel outside Whatcom county to participate in recreation activities? 65.5% Yes 34.5% No We find the ratio of people traveling outside the County to participate in recreation activities to be quite high. However, when asked what types of facilities they used when traveling outside, the answer was surprising. No. Responses Activitv /Facili 109 Camping area 63 Parks outside County 54 Skiing 39 Fishing 33 Swimming 32 Hiking 31 Boating 23 Facilities in B.C. 21 Competitive sports 20 Ocean beaches 13 Zoos, museums, etc. 11 Hunting 9 Bicycling 4 Golf 4 Sailboarding 4 Marine Parks 4 Beachcombing What was surprising to us was the number of camping and related responses when the County has many of these facilities now. The low number of responses to competitive sport facilities was also surprising. Most of the facilities listed above are family related or of an unstructured nature. IV -8 5. If you answered "yes" to question #3, why do you travel outside Whatcom County? 16.8% No facilities available in Whatcom County 20.1% Better facilities available outside the County 2.5% Facilities are closer or more convenient 0.8% Facilities are better maintained 34.5% More variety of activities and facilities 25.4% Other More variety was the biggest reason for traveling outside the County to participate in recreation activities. This is a common answer and does not reflect adversely on the recreation services offered in the County. However, nearly 38% felt that no facilities were available, not as well maintained or there are better facilities elsewhere. There were a number of written comments by respondents who felt that Canadian residents were taking up most of the facilities. This could account for the high ratio who felt that no facilities were available. Under the 'other" answer, responses given were: 12 For a variety and a change 8 Weekend trips 8 Visit friends or relatives 7 See the country or on vacation 5 Just to get away from home 5 To get to a warmer /better climate 4 To camp 3 Better fishing 6. Do you feel that more park areas and facilities are needed in Whatcom County? Total Youth Adult Yes 51.3% 63.4% 47.9% No 28.0% 17.6% 30.8% No Opinion 20.7% 19.1% 21.3% It is good to see that over 50% of the public feels that more park areas are needed. However, we are surprised that 20% do not have an opinion on the subject. We also analyzed the responses by youth (10 -17) and adults (18 +years). As might be expected, a much larger ratio of youth feel that more parks are needed. IV -9 7. What do you feel are the 3 most important recreation needs in Whatcom County? This was an open ended question in which the respondent was asked to give an answer in their own words. The results were as follows: 159 85 Swimming pool Hiking /walking trails 69 Bicycle trails 67 Swimming areas 65 Camping areas 49 Beach /shoreline parks and access points 29 Ice skating rink 24 Tennis courts 20 Youth activities 20 Basketball courts 19 Baseball /softball fields 18 Indoor recreation center 17 Soccer fields 17 RV parks 17 Access to fishing areas 17 Multi -use trails 15 Boat ramps 15 Picnic areas 15 Sport fields 12 More park areas 10 Boating areas 10 Golf courses 10 Recreation programs 9 Family activities 9 Playgrounds Judging by the results, the swimming pool issue is not dead yet. In fact, if swimming pool and swimming areas were added together, the results would even be more dramatic. Also, if bicycle, hiking /walking and multi -use trails were added together, the results would be greater than the swimming pool response. IV -10 8. How often have you visited or used County parks in the last 12 months? Nooksack Bellingham Coastal Foothills All Valley Area Area Area Area s Not at all 13% 7% 17% 9% 10% 1 -5 times 53% 44% 46% 73% 47% 6 -10 times 22% 21% 17% 14% 20% 11 + times 13% 28% 20% 4% 23% The respondents in the Nooksack and. Coastal areas appear to use the parks the least amount. The Bellingham area residents use the parks the most. 9. If you seldom use or don't use County parks, what are your reasons? 11.1% Don't know where they are 16.7% Don't have the facilities I'm interested in 4.6% Feel unsafe 11.1% Too far away 8.2% Not interesting or enjoyable 20.3% Too crowded 28.0% Other Other than the "other" category, the concern over the parks being too crowded was the primary reason people don't visit the parks. In our last three surveys, the "feel unsafe" response was very prominent. In Whatcom County, this is not a problem yet. Under the "other" category we received the following responses: 44 Lack of time; too busy 3 Nothing available 3 Poor climate for outdoor activities 3 Parks always full 2 Too many trees; can't see the sun 2 'Please drop ORV plans" The response of "lack of time" or "too busy" is a very common response. IV -11 10. What additional facilities or improvements do you feel are most needed at the following parks? This was another open ended question. The responses received for each park was as follows: Silver Lake 20 More /better campsites 19 Improve swimming conditions ('"The Itch ") 11 More /better showers 10 More cabins 7 More hiking trails 6 Better playground 3 More parking 3 More picnic tables 2 More boat rentals 2 Upgrade cabins 2 Construct golf course 2 Improve roads 1 Provide restrooms in cabins 1 Provide showers in horse area 1 Plant more fish 1 Need better security Hovander Park 16 More picnic tables /areas 15 Add more animals 14 Add more /better playground 7 Need camping area 4 Clean /improve animal compound 3 Need river beach /access 3 Improve basketball court 2 Need more things to do 2 Need more parking 2 Rent horses 1 Provide handicap access 1 Improve boat ramp 1 Provide snack bar IV -12 Tennant Lake 10 More trails 2 Need access to lake by boat 1 Open walkways all year 1 Need more restrooms 1 Rent canoes 1 Need more variety in garden 1 Provide cassette tours 1 Provide guided tours 1 Need better visibility 1 Need readerboard on the trail Samish Lake 31 Need more parking 14 Park area needs to be larger 12 Improve boat ramp 8 Expand swimming area 4 Provide more picnic tables 3 Provide overnight camping 2 Improve restrooms 2 Provide cabins 1 Need more trails 1 Rent boats Seimahmoo Park 8 Need more picnic areas 4 Need more hiking /walking trails 3 Need more parking 2 Improve playground 2 Expand museum 2 Improve restrooms 2 Provide cabins 1 Add picnic shelters 1 Park looks closed 1 More facilities 1 Need more grass areas IV - 13 Lighthouse Park 5 Improve picnic area 3 Provide showers 3 Improve restrooms 2 Add more camping sites 1 Need larger display area 1 Construct fishing dock 1 Need more beach access 1 Improve boat ramp 1 Provide food concession 1 Construct playground 1 Improve water quality 1 Add cabins Plantation Rifle Range 2 Increase hours of use 2 Add archery range 1 Construct combat rifle range 1 Provide kids day 1 Need more shooting ranges 1 Need 500 yard range 11. If, in the future, Whatcom County were to expand its park and recreation program, where do you feel the emphasis should be placed? In this question we asked the respondents to prioritize their answers from a choice of listed projects. We analyzed the results in two different ways: first, by counting the number of first choices and a second method by weighting the scores. Shown below is the number of first choices given for each type of park improvement project. No. of 1st Choices Type of Park Project 87 Develop existing park lands on Lake Whatcom 85 Develop tidelands along Birch Bay for access 71 Develop more trails in the County 70 Provide recreation programs and sports leagues in rural communities 59 Other 49 Develop another park at Samish Lake IV -14 We also analyzed the responses by weighting the answers by giving a value of 6 to a first choice, a value of 5 to a second choice, etc. The results of this type of analysis was as follows: 1. 1,526 Develop park lands on Lake Whatcom 2. 1,432 Develop tidelands on Birch Bay 3. 1,387 Develop trails in the County 4. 1,175 Provide recreation programs and sports leagues 5. 1,158 Develop another park on Lake Samish 6. 570 Other Based on either type of analysis, the results are still the same. The greatest interests are developing parks on Lake Whatcom and Shoreline access at Birch Bay. Under the "other" category, we received the following responses: 9 Develop indoor swimming pool 6 Construct more boat ramps around the County 5 Develop racquetball courts 5 Provide saltwater access and parks 4 Develop marine parks 2 Expand outdoor program 2 Provide more saltwater boat ramps 12. Do you feel that Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Department should provide recreation programs such as sport leagues, arts and crafts, cultural arts, special interest classes, etc? Total Age Age Age Responses 18 -24 25 -54 55 + Yes 65% 80% 67% 49% No 14% 6% 13% 24% No Opinion 21% 14% 20% 27% More of the young adults show a greater need for recreation programs and the senior population the least. We also analyzed the same question by survey area. The results were as follows: Nooksack Bellingham Coastal Foothills Valley Area Area Area Yes 54% 68% 67% 67% No 25% 9% 14% 29% No Opinion 21% 23% 19% 5% IV -15 The "yes" results were nearly the same for all four areas. The Bellingham area showed a much lower ratio of "no" responses. This is probably because the City already has a substantial recreation program and the residents are aware of the value of recreation services. 13. If you are age 55 or over and do not use the senior centers in the County, what are your reasons? 3.3% Not conveniently located 60.0% Too busy with other activities 3.3% Don't feel welcome 17.8% Not enough time Don't have transportation to reach them 7.8% Don't have activities I'm interested in 7.8% Other We asked for only one answer to this question. However, many respondents marked more than one answer so we calculated the total number of responses. The predominant answers of "too busy" and "not enough time" are universal responses when asked why they don't participate more. We were pleased with the few responses to the "do not feel welcome" issue. In fact, there were only three total responses. The transportation program must be working because there were no responses in this category. 14. Do you currently use any city or county trails for recreation purposes? Total 18 -24 19 -35 36 -54 55 -64 65 -75 75 + Responses Age Age Ag_e Agee Age Awe Yes 53% 52% 52% 63% 36% 29% 28% No 47% 48% 48% 37% 64% 71% 72% It is very interesting and encouraging to see how many ppeople use the existing trail systems. However, please note that the greatest use is by those under the age of 55. IV - 16 15. Do you feel the County should acquire land and access easements for a comprehensive trails system? Total 18 -24 15 -35 36 -54 55 -64 65 -75 75 + Responses Age Age Aix Age Age Age Yes 53% No 15% No Opinion 32% 48% 47% 61% 40% 41% 38% 15% 12% 13% 27% 18% 23% 37% 41% 26% 33% 41% 39% It is encouraging to see how much positive response there was to this question. The response is fairly uniform across all age groups. We also analyzed this question according to the length of time lived in the County. The results were as follows: 0-3 4 -6 7 -10 Over 10 Years Years Years Years Yes 48% 63% 67% 50% No 10% 14% 9% 17% No Opinion 42% 23% 24% 33% We thought there might be a distinction between new residents and the old residents. No trend appears evident. 16. Whatcom County has many miles of saltwater and freshwater shoreline. Most of it is privately owned. How important is it that public access be obtained for the following types of shoreline? Very Somewhat Not Important Important Important Saltwater Shoreline 66.8% 24.0% 9.2% Lake Shoreline 59.0% 31.2% 9.8% Stream & Wetlands 39.4% 38.9% 21.7% Nooksack River 41.2% 39.0% 19.8% The responses indicate much more concern about gaining access to saltwater shorelines. Streams, including the Nooksack River, did not receive as strong of support. We also analyzed the question by the amount of time the respondent has lived in the County. The results were as follows: Note: The following tables includes only the livery mportant" responses. IV -17 Length of Time in the County 0 -3 Years 4 -6 Years 7 -10 Years 10 + Years Saltwater Shoreline 61% 48% 72% 69% Lake Shoreline 60% 50% 53% 60% Streams & Wetlands 36% 17% 22% 44% Nooksack River 30% 20% 27% 46% It appears that the very new (0-3 years) and the very old (10 + years) have the greatest concern about acquiring shoreline access. We also analyzed the same question by survey area to see if any patterns emerged. The results were as follows: (only the "very important" responses are included). Nooksack Bellingham Coastal Foothills Valley Area Area Area Saltwater Shoreline 63% 66% 74% 65% Lake Shoreline 59% 59% 63% 55% Streams & Wetlands 37% 41% 41% 25% Nooksack River 40% 43% 38% 35% The coastal area showed the strongest support for all types of shoreline access and the foothills area the least amount of support. 17. What share of the county budget do you feel should go for park and recreation services? Existing Recommended Ratio Ratio Law and Justice 57% 51% Administration 18% 15% Social Services 6% 11% Park, Recreation, Sr. Services 7% 13% Other Services 12% 10% While our primary intent was to see how the public felt about park, recreation and senior services when compared to other county services, we let the respondent make the judgement as where other county services should be maintained. We were encouraged to see that the public supported a much greater share of the budget for park related services. What surprised us, however, was the willingness to cut the law and justice budget. IV - 18 18. Recently County residents approved a $2.5 million levy to pay for upgrading existing park areas and facilities. Would you be willing to finance new park development if it meant raising your property taxes by: Total Nooksack Bellingham Coastal Foothills Responses Valley Area Area Area Up to $10 annually 39% 35% 43% 28% 38% Up to $20 annually 21% 26% 18% 28% 19% Up to $30 annually 16% 11% 20% 13% 10% Won't Support 24% 29% 19% 30% 33% Based on the results of this question, 76% of the respondents would support up to $10 and 37% would support up to $20 annually for new park development. $20 annually on an average house value of $60,000 would raise about $13 million on a 20 year bond. The greatest support appears in the Bellin &,ham area. This is interesting because a bond measure for a public pool recently failed. We also analyzed the results of this question by the length of residency in the County. We found that those new to the County showed stronger support for a tax measure, whereas those living the longest in the County showed the least support. 19. Recognizing that it may increase the cost of new housing, should the County require developers to pay a fee for new parks, public access and recreation facilities for future residents in their subdivision? Total Nooksack Bellingham Coastal Foothills Responses Valley Area Area Area Yes 66% 60% 66% 77% 74% No 34% 40% 34% 23% 26% While a strong majority supported a park fee, we expected the "yes" vote to be much larger. The greatest support is in the coastal and foothills area. We also found that those living in the County the longest showed the least support. IV -19 20. How satisfied are you with the way the County is developing? Length of Time in the County Total 0 -3 Years 4 -6 Years 7 -10 Years 10 + Years Very Satisfied 6% 8% 6% 9% 6% Satisfied 44% 44% 53% 38% 44% Neutral 30% 34% 31% 24% 29% Dissatisfied 16% 14% 6% 23% 16% Very Dissatisfied 4% - 3% 6% 5% It is encouraging to see that 50% of the public is satisfied with the way the County is developing, although a pessimist might also say that 20% are unsatisfied. We also analyzed the responses by survey area. Nooksack Bellingham Coastal Foothills Valley Area Area Area Very Satisfied 4% 7% 7% 5% Satisfied 51% 44% 36% 43% Neutral 27% 32% 28% 19% Dissatisfied 17% 13% 23% 29% Very Dissatisfied 1% 5% 7% 5% The Nooksack Valley and Bellin &ham area seemed to be the most satisfied. We also asked for comments to this question and received the following: 8 County is not controlling growth 6 Growth is occurring too fast 5 Too much development is occurring 5 County is "too mall" oriented 4 Too much population growth is occurring 3 Too many mobile homes 3 Poor quality of development is occurring 3 No planning is occurring 2 No protection of natural areas /open space is occurring 2 No citizen involvement in County affairs 2 County is not preserving farmland 2 County needs more industry IV -20 21. What do you feel are the three major land use issues facing Whatcom County in the next five years. This was another open ended question The responses were as follows: 62 Solid waste 46 Housing * 40 Preservation of farmland 37 Watershed protection; water quality 24 Shoreline access 23 Zoning is inadequate in the County 23 Industry * 22 More park areas needed 21 Logging practices and clear cutting 20 Need to confine urban sprawl 19 Need to control population growth 18 Pollution * 16 Need to acquire open space 14 Need better land use controls 14 Need to control commercial development 13 Need to preserve wetlands 12 Overcrowding and overdevelopment 12 Traffic and roads 10 More planning needed 10 Canadians 8 Downtown development 7 Alaskan Ferry 7 Need to protect wildlife habitats 6 Poor development is occurring 6 Need to protect the environment 5 Development along Guide Meridian 3 Future use of Cherry Point 3 Taxes 3 Overcrowding of the Lake Whatcom area * Not sure of the intent of the comment Note: Issues receiving surprisingly low responses: taxes, schools, traffic, government administration IV -21 Current Recreation Participation Activity Estimating recreation demand is difficult to quantify because of the many factors that influence recreation participation and interests. There have been many approaches tried for identifying this demand ranging from the use of national surveys and standards to measuring actual participant hours. Recognizing this problem, JCD began accumulating recreation participation information on communities throughout the Pacific Northwest. Presently, JCD has data on communities representing a combined population of over one million people. The average participation rate in a given 30 day period for all these communities is called the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. By comparing participation rates for Whatcom County with the NORTHWEST AVERAGE or other similar areas, we can determine where the County is different from the norm. This then gives us a clue in developing meaningful standards for Whatcom County. At the same time, one must also keep in mind that many factors will influence local participation patterns. They include: o Lack of facilities o Climate o Poor quality of facilities and programs o Present recreation trends o Fad activities o Cost of using facilities and programs o Present economic trends The following participation rates are shown for both indoor and outdoor activities. The per capita occasions for a 30 day period refers to the average amount of participation per person in 30 days when the activity is in season. These activities are ranked so that the most popular activities in Whatcom County area appear first. The survey questionnaire listed 75 activities. However, only the more popular activities are listed. For a comparison, we have included the NORTHWEST AVERAGE and that for Snohomish County. IV -22 Table 15 Recreation Participation Rates for a 30-day Period Whatcom County -Top 55 Activities- IV - 23 Per Capita Occasions per 30 Dam Activity Whatcom N W Snohomish Rankina Activity County Average County 1 Watching TV, video 9.9 7.5 9.4 2 Reading for Pleasure 8.4 5.5 7.2 3 Walking for Pleasure 6.3 5.1 4.8 4. Watching Sports 5.2 4.4 - 5. Bicycling 4.7 3.9 3.4 6. Camping 4.6 3.1 2.9 7. Swimming, outdoor 4.5 3.5 3.4 8. Gardening 4.4 - - 9. Exercising, aerobics 4.1 2.5 1.6 10. Driving for Pleasure 4.0 3.5 3.8 11. Picnicking 3.9 3.1 2.9 12. Swimming, indoor 3.3 2.9 3.4 13. Personal Computers 2.7 2.6 - 14. Bicycling (touring) 2.7 - - 15. Power Boating 2.6 2.0 1.7 16. Basketball 2.6 2.0 2.1 17. Baseball 2.6 1.9 2.1 18. Playing Table Games 2.6 2.2 1.6 19. Freshwater Fishing 2.5 2.5 2.7 20. Softball 2.4 2.0 2.4 21. Watching Cultural Events 2.4 2.2 - 22. Camping (tent) 2.4 - - 23. Jogging, running 2.3 2.4 2.8 24. Hiking, backpacking 2.2 1.7 1.4 25. Camping (RV) 2.2 - - 26. Needlecraft, sewing 2.2 - - 27. Photography 2.1 2.0 1.9 28. Saltwater Fishing 1.9 2.0 1.9 29. Volleyball 1.7 1.4 1.3 30. Dancing 1.6 19 1.7 31. Bowling 1.6 1.6 1.9 32. Tennis 1.6 1.6 1.4 33. Creative Writing 1.5 1.1 1.0 34. Gourmet Cooking 1.5 2.0 1.4 35. Football 1.5 1.3 1.5 IV - 23 Recreation Participation Rates for a 30-day Period Whatcom County -Top 55 Activities- (continued) Per Cal2ita Occasions per 30 Days Activity Whatcom N W Snohomish Ranking Activity County Average County 36. Weightlifting 1.5 1.6 1.8 37. Water Skiing 1.4 1.0 1.0 38. Soccer 1.4 1.3 1.5 39. Downhill Skiing 1.4 1.1 1.0 40. Golf 1.3 1.1 0.9 41. Sledding 1.3 1.2 1.4 42. Painting, sketching 1.3 0.9 0.8 43. Sailing 1.2 0.6 0.7 44. Gymnastics 1.1 0.9 0.8 45 Bicycling (BMX) 1.1 - - 46. Hunting 1.1 1.2 1.2 47. Roller Skating 1.0 1.1 1.3 48. Bicycling (Mt. Bike) 0.9 - - 49. Billiards, pool 0.9 1.7 1.8 50. Horseback Riding 0.9 0.8 1.0 51. Badminton 0.8 0.7 0.7 52. Track and Field 0.8 0.9 1.1 53. Whale Watching 0.8 - - 54. Tubing (water) 0.7 - - 55. Handball /racquetball 0.6 0.8 1.2 Observations from Table 15 (Recreation Participation Rates): o Generally, Whatcom County follows the same ranking as the Northwest Average for the first ten activities. The exception is "exercise, aerobics ", which is considerably higher. We have found a trend of increasing interest in this activity. o Overall, recreation participation is Whatcom County is about 19% higher than the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. o Out of the top ten activities, five can be offered by the County. IV -24 Table 16 Top Ten Recreation Activities 10-17 Age Group Per Capita Occasions Age All Age Ranking 10-17 Groups All Agnes 1. Watching TV, Video 13.2 9.9 1 2. Reading for Pleasure 8.5 8.4 2 3. Swimming, outdoor 7.8 4.5 7 4. Watching Sports 7.4 5.2 4 5. Bicycling 6.9 4.7 5 6. Basketball 6.9 2.6 16 7. Baseball 6.4 2.6 17 8. Exercising, aerobics 5.6 4.1 9 9. Swimming, indoor 5.5 3.3 12 10. Personal Computers 4.9 2.7 13 Observations of Table 16: • Participation rates for the top ten youth activities are about 52% higher than for the population as a whole. • Except for watching TV and sports, the top ten activities for youth do not correspond to the population as a whole. • Participation rates for the top ten youth activities are higher in every case than for the population as a whole. • Out of the top ten youth activities, seven could be offered in a recreation program. IV -25 Table 17 Top Ten Recreation Activities Senior Population Group (Age 55 +) Per Capita Occasions Age All Age Ranking 55+ Groups All Ages 1. Watching TV, video 18.8 9.9 1 2. Reading for Pleasure 16.5 8.4 2 3. Walking for Pleasure 15.9 6.3 3 4. Driving for Pleasure 13.1 4.0 10 5. Gardening 11.7 4.4 8 6. Watching Sports 11.1 5.2 4 7. Freshwater Fishing 7.4 2.5 19 S. Watching Cultural Events 6.6 2.4 21 9. Playing Table Games 6.1 2.6 18 10. Needlecraft/sewing 6.1 2.2 26 Observations of Table 17: • The top three senior activities are in the same order as the population as a whole except is twice as high in participation. • The level of participation for the senior top ten activities is about 136% higher than for the population as a whole. This is a unique feature. o Only three of the top ten activities could be offered in a recreation program. Table 18 Participation rates for all Trail Related Activities All Age Groups Whatcom Northwest County Ratio Activity County Average to NW Av. Walking for Pleasure 6.3 5.1 +23% Bicycling 4.7 3.9 +20% Bicycle (touring) * 2.7 - - Jogging /running 2.3 2.4 -4% Hiking /backpacking 2.2 1.7 +29% Bicycling (BMX) * 1.1 - - Horseback Riding 0.9 0.8 +12% Bicycling (Mt. Bike) * 0.9 - - X- Country Skiing 0.6 0.6 - ORV (4X4) Riding 0.5 0.4 +25% Dirt bike /ATV riding 0.4 1.2 -200% * Included under bicycling category IV -26 Observations of Table 18: • If the dirt bike /ATV riding activity is removed from consideration, trail related activities are about 18% higher than for the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. Dirt bike /ATV riding is very low. • Bicycle touring is a new recreation activity considered in the survey. It appears to be a very popular activity. • Jogging /running is below the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. We have noticed this trend in the last five surveys. It appears to have lost some of its popularity. Table 19 Participation Rates for Competitive Sports All Age Groups Whatcom Northwest County Ratio Activity County Average to NW Av. Basketball 2.6 2.0 +30% Baseball 2.6 1.9 +37% Softball 2.4 2.0 +20% Tennis 1.6 1.6 - Football 1.5 1.3 + 15% Soccer 1.4 1.3 +8% Gymnastics 1.1 0.9 +22% Track and Field 0.8 0.9 -13% Handball /racquetball 0.6 0.8 -33% Observations of Table 19: o In general, participation in competitive sports is higher than or the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. o Participation in gymnastics in high school is the first time we have seen that. o We were surprised that participation in soccer was not higher. Table 20 Participation Rates for Swimming Whatcom Northwest County Ratio Activity County Average to NW Ave. Swimming, indoor 3.3 2.9 +14% Swimming, outdoor 4.5 3.5 +29% 1V -27 Observations of Table 20: o Participation in swimming is much higher than the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. o With the lack of indoor pools in the County, we cannot account for the high participation rate for indoor swimming unless they are swimming outside the County. o Outdoor swimming is a very popular activity in Whatcom County. o An analysis of those who swim indoors revealed that in a given 30 day period, 59% swim 1 -5 days, 12% swim 6 -10 days, 11% swim 11 -15 days, 6% swim 16 -20 days and 12% swim nearly everyday. Table 21 Participation Rates for Outdoor Nature Activities All Age Groups Whatcom Northwest County Ratio Activity County Average to NW Av. Camping 4.6 3.1 +48% Freshwater Fishing 2.5 2.5 - Tent Camping * 2.4 - - Hiking /backpacking 2.2 1.7 +29% RV Camping * 2.2 - - Saltwater Fishing 1.9 2.0 -5% X- Country Skiing 0.6 0.6 - Canoe /kayaking 0.6 0.7 -17% Mountain Climbing 0.4 0.5 -25% White Water Rafting 0.2 0.5 -150% Snow Mobile Riding 0.2 0.5 -150% * Participation rates included under camping Observations of Table 21: • Except for camping and hiking /backpacking, which are considerably higher in participation, the rest are below average. • We are surprised that saltwater fishing is slightly below average. We cannot account for this item. o One possible reason for the lower than average participation rates in this category is that three surveys in Alaska (Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau) had very high participation rates in the outdoor nature activities. IV -28 0 Activity Preference Respondents were also asked to rank their top nine preferred recreation activities if facilities were available. The activity rankings were then scored with a weighted value by giving a first choice a value of 9, a second choice a value of S, etc. The total weighted score was then added up for each activity. Shown in Table 10 are the top ten preferred activities. The weighted score is shown only for ranking purposes. Table 22 Top 20 Preferred Recreation Activities Ranking Activity Weighted Score 1. Indoor Swimming 696 2. Walking for Pleasure 638 3. Outdoor Swimming 577 4. Picnicking 479 5. Tent Camping 474 6. Hiking /backpacking 462 7. Reading for Pleasure 438 8. RV Camping 409 9. Freshwater Fishing 407 10. Bicycle Touring 377 11. Power Boating 324 12. Downhill Skiing 320 13. Horseback Riding 308 14. Tennis 305 15. Exercising /aerobics 293 16. Saltwater Fishing 287 17. Softball 285 18. Watch TV, video 283 19. Golf 274 20. Bowling 262 IV -29 Observations of Table 22; o Indoor swimming continues to show up in the survey as a very desirable recreation activity. o If tent camping and RV camping were combined, it would be the No. 1 desired activity. o Tennis, which is No. 14, is the first competitive sport to appear on the list. Playing softball was No. 17. o Out of the top 20 preferred activities, 12 are activities that could be offered in a park and recreation program. IV -30 PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETINGS Meetings were held around the County in early February to encourage the public to participate in a discussion on recreation needs in the County. The time and place of the meetings were: Area Date No. Participants Blaine February 6 13 Lynden February 8 16 Bellingham February 9 20 While the weather happened to be bad that week, those who came out actively participated. The meetings were held in a workshop fashion in which groups of 4 -6 people worked together to address specific issues or questions. The questions addressed and a summary of the responses are listed on the next two pages. IV - 31 2. WHAT TYPE OF PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES DO YOU FEEL THE COUNTY SHOULD PROVIDE? 5 Indoor cultural arts and crafts programs 4 Develop plan to acquire parks and open space 3 Music festivals 3 Develop trails plan 3 Expand outdoor recreation program Provide rovide aquatics program 3 Summer and after - school programs 2 Teen programs 2 Inform public of park facilities and programs 2 Environmental educational classes 1 Expand all services 1 Promote parks better 1 Provide transportation to facilities 1 Don't provide sport league services 1 Coordinate programs with the schools 1 Family programs 1 Handicap programs 1 Hire professional staff to run programs 1 Supervise parks 1 Maintain parks better WHAT DO YOU FEEL ARE THE GREATEST PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS IN WHATCOM COUNTY? 6 More trails 6 Waterfront parks and access points 5 Indoor swimming pool 3 Bandstands in parks 2 Sports fields 2 Camping facilities 1 Complete trail system around Pine and Cedar Lakes 1 RV park 1 Fitness trails 1 Connect parks with a comprehensive trails system 1 Indoor recreation center 1 Maintain existing trails 1 Arboretum IV -32 SECTION V FACILITY DEMAND ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO IDENTIFYING DEMAND There are several approaches to estimating demand for park and facility needs. They include participation ratios, user trend analysis, results of surveys, public meetings, Foals and participation models. Since we will be using a combination of them, each is briefly described below. Participation Ratios Participation ratios are guides by which a community can estimate in quantifiable terms the number of acres or facilities required to meet the population demand. By attaching a standard to a population variable it is easy to forecast future needs as the population grows. Standards were first established nationally based on "Standard Demand" and have been modified at state and local levels to meet their demand. These standards were first established by committees of recreation professionals who set down in an easily understood format what "seemed" to be right based on practical experience in the field. These standards were felt to be most useful in quantifiable terms, i.e. 10 acres of park land per 1,000 population served. The most recognized standards are those developed by the National Recreation and Park Association. In 1983 they published a report titled "Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards" that is well recognized in the recreation field. Over the years we have perfected the standards approach by comparing participation levels of a specific community or area with the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. This average is a weighted average of the last 16 surveys completed and represents well over one million people. Using this information plus a comparison of facility ratios to participation levels, the NRPA standards can be modified to meet local needs. User Trend Analysis Under this approach, facility demand estimates are developed by extrapolating historical use statistics for each facility. If local statistical information is used, the results can be reasonably accurate because it reflects use in the specific community. However, the trend analysis approach can be influenced by local conditions or current trends in recreation interests. As an example, if one charts tennis playing over the last twenty years, a cycle of interest and level of play emerges. Also, operating conditions such as quality of the facility, its location, user fees and hours of operation can all play an important role in the level of use. V- Recreation Surveys Using the questionnaire approach, future facility needs are developed from survey information on user characteristics, participation patterns, opinions and perceived needs. If the questionnaires are drawn from a statistically valid sample, a good reliable sampling of information can be derived. The difficulty with surveys is convertin& the information to quantifiable terms. As an example, if 1000 persons expressed an interest in playing tennis, how many tennis courts will it take to satisfy that expressed need? It is also difficult in the survey approach to measure future recreation participation because it is impossible to accurately forecast how much use an individual would make of a facility if it were available. There are just too many variables to make that kind of judgement. Public Meetings Some communities rely quite heavily on input from the general public to assess the needs. This approach may not reflect the true community need because special interest groups often do not represent the true community's interest. Also this approach has the same problem of not being able to quantify the needs. Goals In some instances, community goals are expressed as the need without quantifiable or statistical analysis to support the goal. An example might be, "It is our goal to acquire as much saltwater shoreline as possible ". Goals reflect a community's desire. While this approach is not the most ideal, in some instances it is the only option possible. In the above example, it would be very difficult to come up with a statistically valid standard such as XX lineal feet of shoreline per 1000 population. It is a valid approach if the goal can be supported by a true evaluation of community values and desires. Participation Models Participation models are refined statistical formulas for establishing a quantifiable standard. They are based on actual participation characteristics taken from individual users. When a large sampling is taken, a fairly accurate statistical profile can be made. The most accurate participation models are developed for a specific area and facility. Unfortunately, these models are very costly to develop because of the survey information needed. V -2 The Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) conducted a detailed diary survey in 1976 of park and recreation users in the state of Washington. Each participant was asked to record the frequency, schedule, number of participants and other characteristics for 82 specific outdoor activities. In 1983 the IAC conducted a similar study for 24 outdoor activities. This information has been used by the IAC to develop their own state -wide park and recreation needs assessment. RECREATION DEMAND IN WHATCOM COUNTY To quantify the demand for recreation facilities and areas, standards will be developed in this section. Developing the standard will utilize one or more of the alternative approaches previously described. These standards will apply to the following five major recreation groups in Whatcom County. They are: 1. Competitive Sport Facilities 2. Trails 3. Aquatic Facilities 4. Outdoor Leisure Activities 5. Open Space and Shoreline Access 1. Competitive Sport Facilities Competitive sport facilities include tennis courts, softball fields, youth league baseball fields, soccer fields and indoor recreation centers. While the Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Department may not provide such facilities, it should, nevertheless, monitor and see that the demand for these facilities is being met by some agency. Tennis Courts NRPA Standard: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard 1 court per 2,000 population Average 40 courts 1 court per 3,043 population 1 court per 2,500 population While tennis participation is about average, the existing facility ratio is low. In fact, the average ratio for the last six communities we have surveyed was one court per 2,021 population. However, being a county with significant rural population, we feel that a goal of one court per 2,500 population will be adequate. This standard means that an additional nine courts are needed at the present time and an additional 20 will be needed by the year 2000. V -3 Softball Fields 275 -300' outfield for slow pitch; 225' for men's fast pitch and 250 outfield for women's slow pitch. NRPA Standard: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 1 field per 5,000 population 20% above average 29 equivalent fields 1 field per 4,200 population 1 field per 4,500 population * Equivalent fields takes into account additional play made possible by field lighting. A lighted field is equivalent to an additional 1/3 of a field. " While softball play is 20% above average, the current facility ratio is also above average. The present inventory of 29 equivalent fields does not include many multi - purpose fields located on school grounds. These could be used if the need ever arises. It is our recommendation that the County try to maintain the present ratio of quality and maintained fields. This means that by the year 2000 an additional four fields will be needed. Youth Baseball Fields Little league, pony league and 7 -ball; 200' foul line NRPA Standard: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 1 field per 5,000 population 37% above average 13 equivalent fields 1 field per 9,361 population 1 field per 9,000 population In many communities, youth baseball clubs build and maintain their own sport fields. In Whatcom County most play is in Bellingham or at Bender Field in Lynden. There are many school sites in which practice play can occur and as a result the existing sports fields are used primarily for league play. Because of this, a lower than normal standard is recommended even though play is above average. The recommended standard of 1 field per 9,000 population means that the present inventory of fields is adequate but by the year 2000 an additional four fields will be needed. V -4 Soccer Fields Field Dimensions: youth soccer 55x100 yards; adult soccer soccer 65x110 yards; championship soccer 75x120 yards NRPA Standards: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 1 field per 10,000 population 8% above average 23 fields 1 field per 5,291 population 1 field per 5,000 population Although soccer play was somewhat average, it was surprising to filftd that it was not even higher. Based on present trends, it can be assumed that soccer will continue to grow in Whatcom County. Because soccer has grown so much in popularity in the last decade, the NRPA standard is considered to be low. Soccer is different from many other field sports in that almost any size field will do. It is common to overlay soccer over softball fields to increase field use. However, soccer is now becoming a year round sport. The result is the need for independent fields that will stand up to play in adverse weather. For the last six communities studied, it was found that the facility ratio was one field per 3,250 population. A discussion with the Whatcom County Soccer Association revealed that with the addition of the 12 fields at the Smith and Northwest site, adequate fields will be available. This fact plus the possible use of school fields for practice leads one to recommend a standard reflecting the present ratio. Indoor Recreation Centers The development of multi - purpose recreation centers is very popular in the northwest. This has come about because of the increased interest in indoor recreation and exercise brought about because of the long winters. Before constructing an indoor recreation center, a thorough feasibility study should be made. However, for this report we will highlight some of the mayor issues that need to be considered. o Service Area Population While most recreation centers serve a population exceeding 30,000 persons, some communities as small as 15,000 have them. The real issue is how much the community is willing to financially support. Because they are a specialized facility, their primary market area can easily reach a five mile radius and their secondary market area will reach out to 15 miles. V -5 o Impact of Competing Facilities We have seen in some communities a strong concern expressed by private clubs over the prospect of a public recreation facility being constructed in the community. While this is a legitimate concern, we have found that public and private facilities can work well together. Often a public facility will generate more business for private clubs by offering an aggressive teaching program and in effect creating more participants in the community. o Overall Interest The recreation survey revealed some but not a lot of interest in a recreation center. o Costs The total project cost for a recreation center can run as much as $100 per square foot. For an average sized recreation center with a gym, locker rooms, meeting /craft rooms, administration space and multi - purpose exercise space, the cost could easily reach $3 million, excluding land costs. Revenue from programs and services will probably not offset the operating cost. In fact, for a 30,000 - 40,000 sq. ft. facility, the deficit could easily exceed $100,000 annually. 2. Trails If all trail related activities were combined, it would be the No. 1 recreation activity in Whatcom County. Walking for pleasure was by itself the third most popular activity. The survey and the workshop meetings showed a very strong desire for more trails. In fact, it was the No. 2 desired activity following indoor swimming. Trails activities include walking for pleasure (urban walking trails and rural hiking trails), hiking and backpacking (longer hikes, usually occurring in the National Forest or National Park), horseback riding and bicycling. While some of these activities, particular)y those occurring in the National Forest or Park, may be by non residents, we will only identify the demand created by Whatcom residents. It is our assumption that most activities generated by non residents will occur in the National Forest or Park, in which case the County does not have jurisdiction. V -6 The following trail standards were developed utilizing the ap mi roach developed by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. Using this as a base, the standards were modified to reflect local conditions. This method converts estimated participation in various activities into trail requirements. Estimated participation comes from the recreation survey. Walking for Pleasure This includes close -in urban walking trails and longer rural hiking trails. Most rural trails are unpaved, whereas the urban trails may be a combination of paved and unpaved trails. Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 23% above average 20.6 miles urban hiking trails 30.0 miles rural hiking trails 0.4 miles per 1,000 population 1.1 miles per 1,000 population The formula for developing the standard is as follows: A. Total Participation: 766,710 occasions B. % of use on average peak day: 1.05% C. % who wish to use trail: 80% D. Daily Activity occasions per mile: 48 Formula: A x B x C = 134 miles of trail needed in 1988 D Assume: 25% rural hiking trails and 75% are urban walking trails Hiking /Backpacking Includes typical trails in the National Forest and Park Existing Participation: Existing Inventory Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 29% above average 405.1 miles (National Parks, Forest 3.3 miles per 1,000 population 1.6 miles per 1,000 opulation (local demand only The formula for the above standard is shown on the next page. It should be noted that the standard reflects only local demand. Because the Forest and Park Service attract many non - County residents, a much higher standard will be required. V -7 A. Total Participation: B. % of use on average Park day: C. % who wish to use a specific trail: D. Daily occasions per mile: 1988 Demand: 200.1 miles Horseback Riding 267,740 occasions 1.0% 90% 12 Also includes multi -use trails where horseback riding is also permitted. Existing Participation: Existing Inventory Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 12% above average 63 miles 0.5 miles per 1,000 population 1.0 miles per 1,000 population Most trails used by horseback riders are either multi -use trails or unofficial trails such as logging roads, etc. As far as we know, there are no trails either designated or used exclusively for horseback riding. The formula for developing the equestrian standard is: A. Local Participation: B. % of use on average park day: C. % who wish to use specific trail: D. Daily activity occasions per mile: 1988 Demand: 125.9 miles Includes off -street paved bike trails Existing Participation: Existing Inventory Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: Bicycling 109,530 0.92% 75% 6 20% above average 8 miles 0.06 miles per 1,000 population 0.35 miles per 1,000 population When looking at a standard for bicycle trails, one must also look at the bicycling experience. In Whatcom County most paved trails are in parks and intended primarily for local use within the park. The Inter -Urban Trail is the only genuine bike trail in the County and it is unpaved and unsuitable for bicycling in some places. The formula for the bike trail standard is: A. Local participation: 571,990 B. % of use on average park day: 1.12% C. % who wish to use specific trail: 60% D. Daily activity occasions per mile: 90 1988 Demand: 42.7 miles 3. Aquatic Facilities Even though two recent bond measures for a swimming pool failed in Bellingham, the recreation survey revealed a very strong interest in indoor swimming. The survey also revealed a considerable amount of indoor swimming is now occurring. With a limited amount of indoor pool space now available, some swimming must occur outside the County. The present inventory of indoor pools in Whatcom County is: University Pool YMCA pool in Lynden YMCA pool in Bellingham YWCA pool in Bellingham Bellingham Athletic Club Park Athletic & Recreation Club Closed to the public Open to the public Open to the public Open to the public Private Private Indoor Swimming Pools 25 meter 6 lane pool = 3,608 sq. ft. water area; 25 meter x 25 yard ell pool = 4,996 sq. ft. water area; 50 meter 8 lane pool = 8,610 sq. ft. water area NRPA Standard: Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: MWE 1 pool per 20,000 population 14% above average 10,073 sq.ft. water area (includes private pools) 82.8 sq.ft. water area per 1,000 population 124 sq.ft. water area per 1,000 population As a point of reference, we list the following facility ratios for public pools: Whatcom County Vancouver USA Area: King County: THPRD * 49.0 sq.ft. water area per 1,000 population 50.2 sq.ft. water area per 1,000 population 52.5 sq.ft. water area per 1,000 population 206.8 sq.ft. water area per 1,000 population * THPRD = Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District located in west Portland. While Whatcom County has a fairly high ratio of indoor pool area, 41% is private and the remaining are Y pools. There are also two other issues that should be considered. The first is that the available pools are small and only one is of a competitive length. The second issue is that the three Y pools are not entirely open to the public because they are also used for other programs. As a result, competitive swim programs and swim instruction are quite limited. The standard identified at the end of this section was developed over the years utilizing past aquatic studies we have completed plus existing operating information acquired from other communities. Our experience has shown us that a swimming pool should be designed to accommodate about 60% of the average daily attendance. This standard will comfortably meet peak hour demand. Based on the recreation survey, the annual per capita indoor swim is 2.9 occasions. This, multiplied by the population of 121,700, gives us an annual demand for swimming at 852,930 occasions. From past research we know that a peak winter month demand is about 15% of the total annual demand and that about 75% of the total swimming activity will occur in shallow water (5 feet or less). This then gives us: 52,940 peak 30 -day swimming demand Shallow Water Needs Multiply 52,940 monthly swims x 75% Divide by average of 30 days per month Multiply by the 60% peak load factor Multiply by 27 sq.ft. per swimmer (1) (1) Code requirement. In the near future th sq.ft. V -10 = 39,705 shallow swims = 441 dailyy swims = 265 peak swimmers = 7,155 sq.ft. water area requirement will change to 25 4. Deep Water Needs Multiply 52,940 monthly swims x 25% Divide by average of 30 days per month Multiple by the 60% peak load factor Multiply by 27 sq.ft. per swimmer (2) = 13,235 deep water swims = 441 daily .swims = 265 peak swimmers = 7,155 sq.ft. water area (2) Code requirement. In the near future the requirement will change to 40 sq.ft. Therefore: Total Indoor pool area demand: 15,095 sq. ft. water area Subtracting the 10,073 square feet of pool area now available, it means tha. an additional 5,022 sq. ft. of indoor pool is now needed. By the year 2000. this number will increase to 8,304 sq. ft. Outdoor Leisure Activities Overall, participation in outdoor leisure activities was somewhat higher than the NORTHWEST AVERAGE. This was especially true for camping. In this section we shall look at the demand for some of these activities. Swimming Beaches Includes freshwater and saltwater beaches Existing Participation: 29% above average Existing Inventory: 2,376 lineal ft. Existing Facility Ratio: 19.5 lineal ft. 1,000 population Recommended Standard: 71.3 lineal ft. per 1000 population The above recommended standard reflects only local demand. Since much of th't existing inventory is at facilities that attract non - residents, the actual need is mum higher than what is reflected. A. Total local participation: 547,650 occasions B. % of use on average peak day: 1.98% C. % who wish to use beach: 80% D. Daily activity per lineal foot: 1 1988 Demand: 8,675 lineal feet V -11 Boating Demand identified in No. launch lanes required Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 30% above average 481aunch lanes 1 lane per 2,535 population 1 lane per 1,430 population The above standard reflects only local demand. Many of the existing launch ramps are unimproved or in poor condition or unusable because of lack of maintenance. A. Total local participation: B. % of use on average peak day: C. % who wish to use ramp: D. Daily activity per launch lane: 1988 Demand: 85 lanes Camping Includes tent and RV camping (public and private) Existing Participation: Existing Inventory Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: 316,420 occasions 1.43% 90% 48 48% above average 1,570 camp sites 12.9 sites per 1,000 population 15.3 sites per 1,000 population Identifying the demand for camping is difficult because Whatcom County attracts so many non - resident visitors. At the same time, the survey revealed that many Whatcom residents travel outside the County to camp and do so for many reasons. An analysis of camping at the two county parks revealed the following ratio of in vs. out -of- county campers. Resident Non - Resident Silver Lake Park 67% 33% Lighthouse Marine Park 7% 93% A survey of the four primary providers of campsites in the County (state parks, the County, U.S. Forest Service and private campgrounds) revealed that they are full on summer weekends and, in general, mostly occupied during the entire three summer months. V -12 For this analysis we shall assume that resident campers who wish to camp outside the County will balance the non - resident camper who wishes to camp inside the County. A. Total Participation: B. % of use on average peak day: C. % who wish to use campsite: D. Daily no. occasions per site: 1988 Demand: 1,864 sites Includes designated picnic sites Existing Participation: Existing Inventory: Existing Facility Ratio: Recommended Standard: Picnicking 559,820 occasions 1.11% 90% 3 26% above average 863 sites 7.1 sites per 1,000 population 4.8 sites per 1,000 population There is a wide ranse of quality of picnic sites. The above inventory includes primitive sites provided by the U.S. Forest Service as well as sites found in urban parks. A. Total Participation: B. % of use on average peak day: C. % who wish to use facilities: D. Daily occasions per site: 1988 Demand: 579 sites Off -Road Vehicle Riding Includes riding on dirt bikes and in 4x4 vehicles Existing Participation: Dirt bikes; ATVs 4x4 vehicles Existing Inventory: Recommended Standard: Dirt bikes, ATVs 4x4 vehicles V -13 255,570 occasions 1.51% 90% 6 200% below average 25% above average 2 miles (U.S. Forest land) 0.24 miles per 1,000 population 0.33 miles per 1,000 population Whatcom County has for some time attempted to secure a site for off -road vehicle riding. Currently, riding is occurringg on private land and in all cases on undesignate ORV riding areas. The problem with this kind of activity is that it is unsupervised, the trails are not maintained and as a result many adverse environmental impacts occur. If ORV riding were contained within a managed area, many of these impacts could be alleviated. Dirt Bike/ 4x4 ATV's Vehicles A. Total Participation: 48,680 60,850 B. % of use on average peak day: 0.9% 1.98% C. % who wish to use trail: 40% 60% D. No. occasions per mile: 6 18 1988 Demand: 29 miles 40 miles Golf Courses Includes private clubs, public courses, private commercial courses and resort courses Existing Participation: 18% above average Existing Inventory 9.5 equivalent courses (see below) Existing Facility Ratio: 1 course per 12,811 population Recommended Standard: 1 course per 17,400 population While golf play is somewhat above average, there is a very large inventory of golf courses. The inventory is as follows: 13 total golf courses 6 18 -hole golf courses 7 9 -hole golf courses 11 courses open to the public For analysis purposes, a 9 hole course is equivalent to a .5 golf course A. Total Participation: B. % of use on average peak day: C. % who wish to use course: D. No. occasions per course: 1988 Demand: 7 18 -hole golf courses V -14 158,210 occasions 0.79% 85% 160 5. Public Open Space and Shoreline Access Determining acquisition needs for public land through comparative standards is rather difficult for a number of reasons. First, a standard assumes that land currently owned is fully developed and in the case of Whatcom County, 10 of the 23 sites it owns are undeveloped. Second, large public land owners such as the U.S. Forest Service and Park Service seldom need to acquire new land in order to Eadditional recreational opportunities. Third, some activities such as hunting, visiting the beach, open space requirements, etc. would be difficult to estimate the magnitude of space needs. To calculate this type of space need would be misleading and inaccurate. A fourth reason is that acquisition is often difficult because of an unwilling seller or the lack of money to purchase a site. Instead, we recommend that the issue of land acquisition be handled through goal statements. These goals will be developed based on the public desire and interest in acquiring public open space. The survey and public workshop meetings revealed a high interest and desire to preserve open space and acquire shoreline access. When asked to identify the greatest land use issues currently facing the County, shoreline access ranked fourth and the need to acquire open space ranked 13th. Public Open Space The present inventory of public land excluding U.S. Forest Service and the National Park is: County Parks State Parks City of Bellingham Other cities Dept. of Wildlife Dept. of Fisheries Dept. Natural Resources TOTAL 2,141 Acres 2,190 1,770 752 1,359 14 67.850 76,076 Acres (118.9 sq. mi.) Total area in County 11,115 sq.miles Total Area Forest Service /Park Service 1,350 sq.miles Total "other" land 765 sq.miles Total public land in the County, 1,468.9 sq.miles (69 %) Total public land in the "other area 118.9 sq.miles (16 %) The above analysis reveals a &reat deal of public land in the County. However, if you analyze the location of this land, you will find that a majority of the public land in the "other" land classification is found in East County. V -15 Shoreline Access A breakdown of shoreline access reveals the following: Ownership No. Sites Lineal Feet Saltwater Freshwater State Parks 2 8,300 7,000 Dept. Wildlife 23 60,580 Whatcom County Parks 17 9,075 32,500 Dept. Fisheries 1 3,000 Seattle City Light 4 124,940 Cities 4 1,250 10,850 Misc. Areas 14 4.325 117 TOTAL 60 22,950 313,987 The above table reveals a very small amount of saltwater shoreline in public ownership. In fact, it represents less than 6% of the County's saltwater shoreline. While there is considerably more frontage of public freshwater shoreline available, most of it is in small segments. In fact, if the two large segments on Gorge and Diablo Lakes are not considered, the average segment length is 3,712 lineal feet. V -16 SUMMARY OF FACILITY NEEDS Based on the demand standards identified in this section and the inventory of existing facilities identified earlier, the following table represents the needs for recreation facilities in Whatcom County for 1989 and the year 2000. TABLE 23 SUMMARY OF FACILITY NEEDS WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Area of Facility Recommended Standard Existing Inventory Demand 1989 2000 Additional Needs 1989 2000 Competitive Facilities Tennis Courts 1 court per 2500 pop. 40 courts 49 56 9 16 Softball Fields 1 field per 4500 pop. 29 fields 28 32 - 3 Youth Baseball Fields 1 field per 9000 pop. 13 fields 14 16 1 3 Soccer Fields 1 field per 5000 pop. 23 fields 25 28 2 5 Trails Rural Hiking Trails 1.1 mi. per 1000 pop. (25 %) 34 mi. 34 39 - 5 Urban Hiking Trails 1.1 mi. per 1000 pop. (75 %) 17 mi. 100 115 83 98 Hiking/ Backpacking Trails 1.6 mi. per 1000 pop. 405 mi. 195 225 Bridle Trails 1.0 mi. per 1000 pop. 63 mi. 122 140 59 77 Bicycle Trails 0.35 mi. per 1000 pop. 8 mi. 43 49 35 41 Aquatic Facilities Indoor Pool 124 sq.ft. per 1000 pop. 10,073 sq.ft. 15,091 17,410 5,024 7,337 Outdoor Leisure Activities Swimming Beaches 71.2 I.f. per 1000 pop. 2,376 I.f. 8,677 9,996 6,301 7,620 Boat Ramps 1 lane per 1430 pop. 48 lanes 85 98 37 50 Camp Sites 15.3 sites per 1000 pop. 1,570 sites 1,862 2,148 292 578 Picnic Sites 4.8 sites per 1000 pop. 863 sites 584 674 * - Dirt Bike /ATV Trails 0.24 mi. per 1000 pop. - mi. 29 34 29 34 4x4 Trails 0.33 mi. per 1000 pop. - mi. 40 46 40 46 Goff Courses 1 course per 17,400 pop. 91/2 courses 7 8 - - Open Space and Shoreline Access Open Space No Standard 119 sq.mi. Shoreline Access Saltwater No Standard 4 mi. Freshwater No Standard 59 mi. * Does not reflect demand from non - residents Demand based on 1988 population of 121,700 and year 2000 population of 140,400 V -17 SECTION VI RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF SERVICE INTRODUCTION An important element of this study was the determination of service levels and es of services that should be offered by the County. To effectively and efficiently satisfy all park and recreation needs, many levels of government, private clubs and commercial suppliers must meet their individual responsibilities. Whatcom County cannot and should not attempt to meet all the needs demanded by its residents. Therefore, the issue is then, what level of service should the County provide? The illustration below will help to identify the optimum role for Whatcom County. The two key variables for operating a park system in an efficient manner is low operating costs and producing revenue. As can be seen below, the cost of service goes up as the level of service is increased. However, the rate is not constant. As an agency begins to offer services in steps four and five, the cost per service is greatly reduced. The reason is that in steps four and five much more revenue is produced to help offset the operating cost. RECREATION SERVICE MODEL 5 COST OF Nicer 4 SERVICES 1n�� 3 Ct 2 1. Limited Park Development 1 2 Additional Staff Added 3. Eq=ded Park System 4. Limited Recreation Programs Offered S. Major Recreation Facilities and Programs Offered LEVEL OF SERVICE VI-1 To put it another way, steps 2 -3 will produce $.05 of revenue for every $1.00 spent. Steps 4 -5, on the other hand, will generate about $.95 of revenue for every $1.00 spent. To illustrate the importance of this concept, we would like to compare two cities in Oregon. In 1986, the City of Gresham (population 55,000) had a moderate sized park system but did not offer any recreation programs of any type. The City of Hillsboro (population 40,000) on the other hand, had a medium sized park system but a fairly extensive recreation program including some indoor facilities. The difference in their operating cost is illustrated below. Gross cost per capita is the result of dividing the cost of the total park and recreation program by the population of the city. Net cost per capita is the result of subtracting the revenue from the total operating cost and dividing by the population size. Revenue rate is the ratio of revenue_ and total operating cost. Gross Cost Net Cost Revenue city Per Capita Per Capita Rate Gresham, Oregon $9.38 $9.38 -0- Hillsboro, Oregon 25.29 11.04 56% The information above illustrates that while Hillsboro first appears to be offering a much more expensive program, in reality Hillsboro taxpayers are paying nearly the same rate as Gresham, yet Hillsboro is providing three times as many services. The reason for the difference is that for every $1.00 spent on park and recreation services in Hillsboro, $.56 is returned as revenue. In Gresham no revenue is produced. In Whatcom County this same type of analysis should be made. What needs to be studied is the = cost of services rather than the gross costs. For instance, if a program or service can be offered that operates on a break -even basis or nearly so, then the cost of that service, be it staff, equipment or facilities, should not be a factor for denying that service. Currently Whatcom County is somewhere between steps three and four, which is the most expensive place to be. By moving up to steps 4 and 5, the greatest expansion of service for the least amount of money spent will occur. By careful planning and managing of services, this stage could produce $.95 of service for $.05 of county money. VI - 2 CURRENT SUPPLIERS OF RECREATION SERVICES Another important step in this study was to identify agencies and organizations that currently provide recreation services in the County. The Recreation Service Matrix, shown below, illustrates the role each ma'or agency in the County has assumed. Primary responsibility is defined as a leaJership role. A secondary role is considered a supportive role. RECREATION AREA OR ACTWITY v ©vv ©vv ©vv ©vv ©vv ©vv ©vvovaova ©v SMALL URBAN PARKS LARGE URBAN PARKS REGIONAL PASSIVE PARKS Ron REGIONAL SPORTS FACILITIES •���• LARGE WILDERNESS AREAS iiiiiiiii■ ■■■■ ��■■■ ■■■■■■ MESHWATER SHORELINE SALTWATER SHORELINE ■■■■■■......■■■■■■ ,� ...."MEMO ■■■ ��i�� iii■■■••■ � ■■� ��� HISTORICAL/CULTURAL ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�ii■■■■■■iii ... son ■■■ mom son Non man ■E ..N-.64.IC� ►JV►/►J u�`/ RECREATION PROGRAMMING • PRIMARY 0 PARTIAL O SECONDARY I LAND ACOUISRION 2 DEVELOPMENT /OPERATION 3 PROGRAMMING VI -3 Observations of the Recreation Service Matrix 1. As a whole, the County is reasonably well served. There are no major service voids or overlaps. 2. Bellingham is the only agency that is providing large urban parks. These are used by all residents in the County. 3. Bellingham is the only agency that provides major regional sports facilities. Most County residents and those living in the small cities use Bellingham facilities. 4. There are a number of federal and state aggencies that manage large wilderness areas. This is one area where Whatcom County Parks need to thoroughly evaluate itself in terms of its own involvement. _ _ 5. There is some duplication of camping services between Whatcom County, state and federal agencies and private suppliers. 6. While many agencies are somewhat involved in acquiring and managing trails and shoreline areas, no agency, including Whatcom County, has taken on this responsibility as a primary role. 7. Whatcom County appears to be the only agency involved in historical preservation. RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS The service level model shown on the next page illustrates the recommended level and types of services Whatcom County should offer. This model was developed after careful evaluation and discussion by the Park and Open Space Advisory Committee, County staff and others. VI -4 WHATCOM COUNTY PARK AND OPEN SPACE PLAN RECOMMENDED SERVICE LEVELS Present Recommended Service Service Service Notes PARK AND OPEN SPACE Small Urban Parks 0 See Note No.1 Large Urban Parks 0 0 Regional Day Use Parks is • Regional Sport Facilities 0 See Note No.2 Camping Areas • • See Note No.3 Greenbelts, Open Space • See Note No.4 Freshwater Shoreline Facilities • See Note No.4 Saltwater Shoreline Facilities • See Note No.4 Urban Trails 0 See Note No.5 Non Urban Trails 4 • See Note No.6 Bicycle Trail Systems • Historical Preservation • • Golf Course 0 0 Swimming /Aquatic Facilities 0 � See Note No.7 Mufti- purpose Recreation Centers See Note No.7 Other 0 See Note No.8 RECREATION PROGRAMS Outdoor Programs General Recreation Programs Sport Leagues Senior Programs Programs for the Physically Disc 0 No Service Offered • 0 0 bled 0 Partial Service Offered VI -5 0 Full Offered NOTES 1. Whatcom County should only construct and maintain small parks if a local service district is formed to pay for the improvements and its maintenance. 2. The County should provide only the land. Local clubs should pay for the construction, maintenance and scheduling of sport fields. 3. Some close -in primitive camping should be provided for organized groups. 4. The County's first priority should be to acquire land for future use. 5. Coordination and planning only. 6. Include water trails in this category. 7. A special taxing service district should be formed to pay for the construction and operation of the complex. The facility itself could be managed by City, County staff or even a third organization. 8. Under the 'other" category the following recommendations are made: o The County hould continue to assess its role in the ORV program. its past effort to develop an ORV riding area, in order to minimize environmental degradation, created some controversy. Between the state DNR, the Forest Service and the County, some joint solution may be possible. o The County should provide the land and may organize a community garden program. VI -6 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES It is important for the County to establish goals and objectives because it is a means of determining a direction and a way of measuring the success of a park and recreation program. Outlined below are definitions of goals and objectives along with their statements for the Department of Parks and Recreation to follow. Goal A goal is a statement of the County's aspirations as it relates to park and recreation services. It is the desirable quality which the County wishes to achieve. A goal must be realistic and flexible enough to allow a discussion of how it is to be achieved. Goals are long range and usually remain unchanged throughout the practical life of the plan. Objectives Objectives are working and measurable statements which Identify specific steps needed to achieve the stated goal. Often one goal will have a number of objectives. • GENERAL PARK AND RECREATION SERVICES Provide a broad range of park and recreation services in an efficient manner based on what County residents need and can afford. Objectives 1. Continue to monitor park and recreation service needs throughout the County and encourage others to provide the identified service needs. If other agencies cannot provide them, then the County should. 2. Stress a good public image and the importance of public relations to all employees of the Park and Recreation Department. 3. The County should expand its outdoor recreation program and experiment with limited cultural arts and education programs in the smaller cities. VI -7 • PRESERVATION OF NATURAL AREAS Goal Preserve and protect significant land parcels for parks, trails, open space and shoreline access. Objectives 1. Require when appropriate or make it advantageous to land developers and land owners to dedicate land for public use. 2. Create a real estate tax (or some other form) to help pay for the acquisition of parks, open space and shoreline access. 3. Develop mechanisms for land banking of public open space. 4. Prime open space and natural areas should be designated and prioritized for future acquisition. 5. Work with the State and Federal Government to pursue the designation of the north and south forks of the Nooksack River System as Federal Natural Wild and Scenic Rivers. • TRAILS Goal Expand outdoor recreation opportunities for County residents by providing en oyable trails for hiking, riding, bicycling, walking and other trail activities in a sae environment. ObJectives 1. Incorporate existing and proposed trails into a comprehensive and integrated system of looped and interconnected trails which give users a wide choice of routes and environments. 2. Establish a trails advisory committee to plan and advocate trail planning, development and maintenance. 3. Continue to update the trails inventory to identify all designated and non - designated trails in the County. 4. Work with private property owners and developers to acquire trail corridors or easements. Monitor land development proposals to insure that existing trails are not lost. 5. Provide non motorized access to regional recreational and outstanding scenic areas in the County. 6. Reduce conflicts between the various trail user groups and provide appropriate signage. 7. Bike lanes should be provided where appropriate in conjunction with major road improvements. • PARK FACILITIES Goal Within the recreation services to be offered by the County, provide a range of recreation areas and facilities for all interests and age groups. - Objectives 1. Develop facilities and areas that will be particularly attractive to Whatcom County residents. 2. Develop facilities to a high standard. Maintain them at that same high standard. 3. Design and develop recreation facilities for low maintenance. • FUNDING Gal Develop a stronger financial base for recreational services. Objectives 1. Increase the ratio of the park and recreation budget when measured against the total County budget. 2. Design future recreation facilities and areas with the ability to charge user fees. 3. Investigate new innovative methods of financing facility development, maintenance and operating needs. 4. Consider joint ventures with private clubs, public agencies, commercial operations and other groups to build and maintain facilities. 5. Provide facilities that will encourage tourism. VI -9 SECTION VII RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND STANDARDS The following policies and design standards apply to the acquisition and /or development of day use parks, multi -use camping areas, trail systems, specialized facilities, shoreline access areas and recreation resource management areas. • DAY USE PARKS Definition: Day use parks are large regional parks designed to offer a wide range of passive day use activities. They often contain facilities or recreation opportunities that county residents are willing to travel some distance to reach. In most cases, they are located in the rural areas of the County, although there are some exceptions. Often a feature will dominate the site. Examples are the farmstead at Hovander Park, the nature interpretative areas at Tennant Lake and the Lake Shoreline at Samish Park. Policy Statements and Design Standards: 1. Because the cities currently provide the highly developed urban parks, the County's role should be to provide rural day use parks that are centered around a unique feature or recreation opportunity. These parks should generally be no less than 50 acres in size. 2. Because of the unique features of the site, location within the County is not too important although they must have good road access. 3. Development standards will vary according to the use intended. For the intensive use park areas, all facilities and improvements should be built at a high standard and designed to be easily maintained. 4. All parks must be designed to create a minimal impact upon surrounding property and to the site itself. 5. Day use parks should be designed with one entrance and control point so that entrance fees can be charged. 6. If possible, day use parks should be located on an existing or proposed trail route. 7. The parks should be designed to accommodate a range of age groups and interests. 8. The County should only accept sites that meet the above standards. VII - 1 • MULTI -USE CAMPING AREAS Definition: Multi -use camping areas provide camping opportunities in addition to other uses. Lighthouse Marine Park and Silver Lake Park fit this category. While many activities and facilities are possible, camping is the primary function for this type of park area. The type of camping can vary from primitive camp sites to the full service RV site. It should be recognized that much of the camping activity use will be from non - county residents. Policy Statements and Design Standards: All the policy statements and design standards for day use parks should also apply to multi -use camping parks. 2. Because camping areas will attract many non - county residents, they should be recognized for their tourism value but at the same time County residents should not significantly subsidize the cost of camping. 3. A wide variety of camping types should be offered including primitive sites, tent sites, full service RV sites and group camping areas. 4. The camping areas should be physically separated from the other parts of the park with the ability to be closed off during winter months. 5. Most camping areas should be designed to a high standard with full service hookups, flush toilets and restrooms, showers, laundry and other support facilities. 6. In general, the total number of campsites should be kept below 200 at a park and the density within the camping area below S sites per acre. Size and densities above the recommended standard tends to lose the enjoyment and desired camping experiences. 7. Because campin areas will attract large RV trailers and other vehicles, access to these sites should be from good county roads. is TRAIL SYSTEMS Trail systems in this study include unpaved foot trails, paved and unpaved multi -use trails and paved bike paths. Multi -use trails are designed for one or more of the following activities: bicycle riding, mountain bike riding, walking and hiking and horseback riding. Unpaved foot paths are primarily for walking and hiking, although a compacted gravel surface is suitable for mountain bikes as well. VII -2 SECTION VIII ACTION PLAN INTRODUCTION The recommendations contained in this section are intended to implement a portion of the plan described in the previous section. Resources to develop the plan will come from many sources with some discussed in this section. Please note that the plan will not develop on its own and will require constant vigilance and effort. Listed below in Table 25 are all of the projects and actions required to complete the entire plan. Table 25 Projects required to Implement the Park and Open Space Plan Whatcom County Site No. Project Planning Acquisition Development Upgrade Other PARK DEVELOPMENT 1 Monument Park • 2 Heron Rookery • 3 Lighthouse Marine Park • 4 Lilly Point Access • • 5 Semiahmoo Park • 6 Haynie Road Site • 7 Dakota Creek Access • • • 8 California Creek Access • • 9 Birch Bay Property • 10 Birch Bay Access • • 11 Bay Horizon Park • 12 Birch Bay State Park • 13 Cherry Point Day Use Park • • • 14 Pleasant Valley Sch. Site • 15 Berthusen Park • 16 Hovander Boating Facility • • 17 Hovander Park • 18 Tennant Lake • 19 Rec /Aquatic Complex • • 20 Nooksak Estuary Int. Center • • • VIII - 1 Table 25 Projects required to Implement the Park and Open Space Plan Whatcom County (continued) Site No. Project Planning Acquisition Development UPgrade Other 21 Birchwood Property • • 37 • 22 Little Squalicum Park • • 39 23 Lummi Island Park • • • • 24 Lummi Mountain RRMA • 46 Red /Black Mountain RRMA 25 Euclid Park • • 48 Bodigers Pond • 26 Truax Park • 27 Squalicum Mountain RRMA • 28 Plantation Rifle Range • 29 Smith Creek Park • • 30 Larrabee State Park • 31 Pine /Cedar Lakes • 32 Chuckanut Mountain RRMA • 33 Samish Park • 34 Lookout Mountain RRMA • 35 East Lake Samish Park • • 36 Lake Whatcom Park -South Bay • • 37 Stewart Mountain RRMA • 38 Nooksack -South Fork RRMA • 39 Skookum /South Fork Park Site • • 40 Van Zandt Dike RRMA • 41 Major Boating Access • • • 42 Nooksack River Day Use Park • • • 43 North Sumas Mt. RRMA • 44 Ostrom Property • 45 Yedder Mountain RRMA • 46 Red /Black Mountain RRMA • 47 Silver Lake Park • 48 Bodigers Pond • VIII - 2 Table 25 Projects required to Implement the Park and Open Space Plan Whatcom County (continued) Site No. Project Planning Acquisition Development Upgrade Other SHORELINE ACCESS A -1 Maple Beach • • A -2 Gulf Road • A -3 Pt. Roberts Marina • A -4 Blaine Harbor • A -5 Drayton Harbor • A -6 Drayton Harbor Viewpoint • A -7 California Creek • A -8 Birch Point • A -9 Birch Bay Village • A -10 Cottonwood Beach • A -11 Aldergrove Overlook • A -12 Trig Road Access • A -13 Lake Terrell • A -14 Unick Road Access • A -15 N. River Access • A -16 Pt. Migiey • A -17 Lummi Beach • A -18 Ferry Dock Beach • A -19 Lovers Bluff • • A -20 Portage Island • A -21 Inati Bay • A -22 Rejl Harbor Beach • A -23 DNR Campground (Lummi I.) • A -24 Neptune Beach • • A -25 Sandy Point • • A -26 Lummi Bay • • A -27 Fish Point • • A -28 Bancroft Rd. Access • A -29 Locust Rd. Access • • A -30 Toad Lake • • VIII - 3 Table 25 Projects required to Implement the Park and Open Space Plan Site Whatcom County (continued) No. Proiect Planning Acquisition Development Upgrade Other A -31 Upper Chuckanut • • A -32 Lower Chuckanut • • A -33 Squalicum Lake A -34 WWU- Lakewood Facility A -35 Sudden Valley Marina A -36 South Bay Boat Launch A -37 State Trout Hatchery A -38 Cain Lake A -39 Nooksack R.-River Rd. • A -40 Nooksack R: Guide M. • A -41 Wiser Lake A -42 Nooksack R: Timon Rd. • • A -43 Nooksack R.-Abbott Rd. • • A -44 Judson Lake • • A -45 Everson • A -46 Lake Fazon A -47 Nooksack R: Nugents Cor. A -48 Silver Lake Boat Launch A -49 Maple Falls • • A -50 Boulder Creek • A -51 N. Fork (Eastwood Rd.) • • A -52 Nooksack Fish Hatchery A -53 N. Fork (Silver Lake Rd.) • • A -54 N. Fork (N. Fork Rd.) • • A -55 N. Fork (Mosquito Lk. Rd.) • • A -56 Canyon Lake • A -57 Middle Fork (Mosq. Lk. Rd.) • A -58 Mosquito Lake • • A -59 N. Fork (Glacier) A -60 S. Fork (Strand Road) • VIII - 4 Table 25 Projects required to Implement the Park and Open Space Plan Whatcom County (continued) Proiect Plannina Acauisition Develoament UDarade Other A -61 Hutchinson Creek A -62 S. Fork (Acme) • • A -63 Donovan Park A -64 E. Lake Samish B. Launch A -65 Sumas River Access • A -66 Cornell Creek Rd. Access • TRAIL SYSTEMS Nooksack Trail • • • Coastal Bike Route • • Dewey Valley Trail • • • Lake Whatcom - Samish Rte. • • • 70 Mile Loop • , _ • • Saar Creek Trail • is • Sumas Connection • • • Blaine Commuter Route • • Lummi Mt. Trail System • • • Chuckanut /Lake Samish Trail System • • • SW Stewart Mountain Trail System • • • North Sumas Mountain Trail System • • • FUNDING SOURCES County General Fund County funds from the annual operating budget Capital Improvement Fund County funds allocated to major capital projects One Year Special Levy A property tax for construction and /or operation levied for only one year. Requires 60% majority approval of 40% of the voters who voted at the last election. The recent park improvement levy was this type. VIII - 5 Bond Measure A property tax for the sale of construction bonds. The tax assessment can be levied up to 30 years. Requires a 60% majority approval of 40% of the voters who voted at the last election Councilmanic Bonds A tax assessment initiated by the County. The limit is based in a percent of the total assessed valuation of the County. Revenue Bonds Revenue from the operation of the facility pays for the capital cost and debt service. Does not require a vote of the people. It is suggested that the cost of the new cabins at Silver Lake be funded in this manner. State Bicycle Funds Funds from state gas tax is distributed to each city and county for bicycle trails on a per capita basis. HUD Grants Grants from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development for a wide variety of projects. Most are distributed in the lower income areas of communities. Grants can be up to 100 %. NOVA Program Grants from the Nonhighway /Off -Road Vehicle Activities Program administered by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. These grants will pay for the planning, acquisition development and maintenance of off -road vehicle trails. Grants can be up to 100 %. The County used this program to pay for the ORV planning studies. This is a good source of money for the cross county trail development program. Aquatic Land This program, funded by the State Enhancement Fund Department of Natural Resources, will fund up to $80,000 for the acquisition and development of waterfront parks, public access and environmental protection. Initiative 215 Funds received from boating gas tax are Boating Funds allocated to marine related projects. U to $150,000 per project is available but a 50% match is required. State Legislative Funding While there currently is no money allocated, it is very possible that the state legislature through a state referendum or through a general appropriation will provide a grant program for park and facility improvements. VIII - 6 LWCF Grants distributed from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Grants pay 50% of the cost of acquisition and development. At one time, this was a major funding program for recreation improvements. Under the present administration, the program has been cut severely. The program is administered locally by the Washington State Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation. Park Revenue Revenue from park operations can be used to pay for capital projects. Volunteer Efforts Volunteers can contribute a great deal in terms of cash, materials and labor to park improvements. Department of Ecology Grants from the Coastal Zone Management Account. Grants pay 50% and are primarily used for shoreline acquisition and public access. Conservation Futures Levy RCW 84:34.210 permits counties to levy up to $.0625 per 1,000 assessed valuation for the acquisition of shoreline and open space areas. The money cannot be used for development or maintenance. There is no restriction on the length of time of the levy and it does not require voter approval. In Whatcom County, this levy could generate about $256,000 revenue annually. Transfer of Development A process wherein the development rights Rights of a specific parcel of desired open space land is transferred to a second parcel of land more suitable for development. The second parcel is then permitted a higher level of development. If the two parcels are owned by two different land owners, the increased value of the second parcel is given to the owner of the first parcel. Work Release Program An alternative to jail time by providing community services such as working on a park maintenance crew or providing other recreation services. VIII - 7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT PRIORITIES The following criteria were used to prioritize all projects. They are not listed in any type of order. 1. Shoreline access should have the highest priority; particularly saltwater shoreline. 2. Land for major park sites should be acquired while land is still available. 3. One additional camping area should be developed in the next six years. 4. An easy but highly visible trail section should be developed as a demonstration project. 5. Trail acquisition should be an on -going effort. 6. The planning of the Chuckanut Mountain Recreation Resource Management Area should occur immediately in order to preserve the access and beauty of the area. 7. Some new park development should occur in the next six year period but upgrading of existing park sites should come first. The capital improvement plan shown on the next page assumes that money for acquisition and development will come from many sources previously described. However, the whole development program centers around a $4.9 million county bond measure for park development and a $600,000 five year conservation futures levy for open space acquisition. That money when leveraged against grants and other sources will create another $1.4 million worth of park improvements. The conservation futures levy will be used primarily for shoreline acquisition. However, another $150,000 has been allocated to acquire development rights and access easements within the Chuckanut and Lummi Mountain RRMAs. The $50,000 allocated for the acquisition of the Heron rookery is only seed money with the rest to come from private donations, foundations and other sources. VIII - 8 Table 26 Six Year Capital Improvement Plan Whatcom County Park and Open Space Plan 1990 -1996 Project Priority Project Action Required Project Cost Bond Measure NOVA Funds ALEA Funds Boating Funds Dept. Revenue Consv. Ecology Bonds Futures YEAR 1 1. Lighthouse Marine Park Development $188,000 $143,000 $45,000 2. Lake Whatcom Trail Clearing Development 71,000 $71,000 3. Heron Rookery Part. acq. 50,000 50,000 4. Misc. Shoreline Access Acquisition 100,000 50,000 50,000 5. Trail Acquisition /Develop. Acq /Dev. 500,000 500,000 6. Semiahmoo Park Upgrade 59,000 59,000 7. Chuckanut Mountain RRMA Planning 25,000 25,000 YEAR 2 8. Smith Creek Park - Phase I Development 940,000 730,000 80,000 130,000 9. Chuckanut Mountain RRMA Acquisition 100,000 100,000 YEAR 3 10. Misc. Shoreline Access Acq /Dev. 100,000 100,000 11. Lummi Island Park Acq. /Dev. 1,195,000 1,030,000 25,000 140,000 12. Nooksack Trail - Phase I Acq. /Dev. 396,000 198,060 198,000 13. Hovender Boating Facility Development 35,000 35,000 YEAR 4 14. Misc. Shoreline Access Acq /Dev. 100,000 100,000 15. Little Squalicum Park Development 150,000 70,000 80,000 18. Lummi Mountain RRMA Planning 25,000 25,000 17. S. Lake Whatcom - Phase I Development 800,000 800,000 18 Silver Lake Park Development 602,000 172,000 430,000 19. Lake Whatcom Trail Dev. Development 290,000 145,000 145,000 20. Nooksack River Day Use Park Acquisition 150,000 150,000 YEAR 5 21. Lilly Point Access Acq. /Dev. 128,000 39,000 39,000 50,000 22. Indoor Rec Center Planning 25,000 25,000 23. Lummi Mountain RRMA Acq /Dev. 50,000 50,000 YEAR 8 24. Cherry Point Park Acquisition 600,000 600,000 25. East Lake Samish Park Dev -Phase 1 250,000 250,000 TOTAL $8,929,000 $4,961,000 =343,000 $291,000 $315,000 $89,000 $430,000 =500,000 Note: A donation of land or money may change the project priorities. While essentially all trails are suitable for foot traffic, bicyclists and horseback riders find many trails not adequately maintained or built to appropriate construction standards. Poorly built or maintained trails are less enjoyable to travel and can induce damage to the environment. User conflicts may occur between all three groups. Horseback riders often express concern with mountain bikes that suddenly appear at a bend or rise in the trail, spooking the animal and endangering both riders. One possible solution to this problem is to require a bell on the mountain bike, thereby alerting others of their presence. Hikers complain about similar problems, but are generally more concerned with ersonal safety and damage to trails caused by the two rider groups. Motorized (ORV use of trails is generally incompatible with non - motorized use for similar reasons. Noise and safety issues and environmental impacts preclude motorbikes from most of the trails identified in this plan. Solutions to user conflicts require some separation of use by designating specific loops or segments for articular users. Hikers comprise the largest user group, but tend to have the lowest impact on the trail. Although all trails are essentially available for hiking, trails that are particularly narrow, steep or fragile and those subject to heavy pedestrian use should be designated for hikers only. In addition, trails, loops or alternate routes should be designated for the horseback and mountain bike rider groups where conditions warrant. Old logging roads in reforested areas provide some of the best riding trails since they are much wider than a footpath for easier passing, and their base is usually firm and less prone to damage. It is not enough, however, to simply direct horses and bikes to old road grades. They are often seeking the same views and aesthetic experience that hikers wish. Some trails will therefore need to be improved to a higher standard to accommodate the use. On shared routes, appropriate design elements need to be implemented to avoid conflicts and to enhance the trail experience for each group. The difficulties in obtaining continuous access through private lands is a major issue in trail development that can discourage citizens, planners and administrators from pursuing what might otherwise be a worthwhile project. Access is usually obtained by way of a gift or purchase of an easement or parcel of land containing the trail corridor. On private timber land, access is normally permitted in most areas on an informal basis with the understanding that closures may occur due to togging, fire danger or other circumstances. Horse club volunteers have been successful in obtaining permission to construct new trails on private and state timber land with and without formal easements. In developed areas of the County where multiple properties are involved, the task becomes more complicated since one uncooperative landowner can obstruct the trail. Concerns range from vandalism, fire and nuisances to liability and invasion of privacy. In most cases, trail design, careful facility planning and public education will help avoid these problems. An existing statute (RCW 424.210) already protects landowners from liability where they allow public access to their land without charge. Where access is denied, alternate routes, use restrictions, or in extreme cases, condemnation, may need to be considered in order to complete a project. A more friendly alternative, the "handshake agreement ", has been experimented with in some areas and found to be successful in most instances (see "Pathways Across America ", Spring 1989 newsletter, by the American Hiking Society and the National Park Service). Here, a reluctant landowner is approached with the plan and asked to allow public access for an indefinite period, while retaining the right to close the trail at VII -3 any time if problems should occur. The trail is closed once a year to help avoid problems with adverse possession. The experience has been that once a trail is developed, impacts to the landowner are found to be minimal or nonexistent, initial fears are dispelled and the trail remains open indefinitely. Rarely are the agreements withdrawn. Later, the land owner may find it advantageous to grant an easement or sell the property for permanent public use, thereby reducing property taxes. Policy Statements and Design Standards for trails: 1. Trails should be interesting and attractive. Trails which follow natural water courses, traverse interesting scenery or cross areas of outstanding beauty provide interesting and enjoyable experience for the trail user. 2. Trails should be looped and interconnected to provide a variety of trail lengths and destinations. 3. Trails should link other recreational uses in the Foothills area and connect to existing trail systems in the National Forest. 4. The wet climate of Whatcom County may preclude extensive multi -use of some trails or seasonal limitations on their use. 5. Trail routes should take into account soil conditions, steep slopes, surface drainage and other physical limitations that could impact the area from over use. 6. Bicycle trails should provide opportunities for the recreation rider as well as the touring and commuter bicyclist. 7. Bicycle routes and paths should minimize the conflicts between motorists and bicyclists. 8. Hiking trails should have a variety of lengths and grades for the casual stroller as well as the serious hiker. 9. Hiking trails should reach areas of natural beauty with the purpose of permitting the hiker to seek areas of solitude and away from the man -made environment. 10. Equestrian trails should be accessible most of the year. Some equestrian trails should be close -in to the urban areas. 11. Adequate parking, signage and trash receptacles should be provided at all major trailheads. 12. Where public funds are used to construct or maintain dikes, levees or reventments, public access should be provided for trail purposes. VII -4 o 0 a C"WN DMWAAL r MAJMOM WNW amwws mu. fm LA"Al iANG� N ATIJPT- TP WLt� AMOOuxt rte. z' wct tau. IVAAD $41 s• SkM urAR^%JLt WPAVeD WVJNCA / E4UESM4,A 'rIZA%U Up iv ves�o a►e�t IIW MUL..TI - PU?%?05 ✓ PAVED -T'RA%U5 VII -5 K%V EK O� �d. Oki - 5-TREO,-f 8►C.YU fl LANIE, FLNC.t T1tA1 L DIKE ACPRtGULTt "%- OPEA SMC& RiVr-- R- FRONT -M.At L - s a. ,p 0� s+ w VII -6 0 SPECIALIZED RECREATION AREAS Definition: Specialized areas include a wide variety of park areas and indoor facilities. For this study, they include a nature interpretative center, some very small park sites and other miscellaneous areas. Policy Statements and Design Standards: 1. Because these facilities are unique, specific standards are not included here but described in the next section. • SHORELINE ACCESS AREAS Definition: Shoreline access areas include saltwater beaches and bluffs, rivers and streams and lake frontage. Access may be via a public park area, a street end or just a trail easement. Access includes both physical access to the water and visual access from points above. Policy Statements and Design Standards: 1. It shall be the policy of Whatcom County to acquire for public use as much of the saltwater shoreline as possible. A reasonable goal is to acquire for public access a minimum of 15% of the saltwater shoreline and adjacent tidelands in Whatcom County. 2. The County shall work with the state and federal government to pursue the designation of the north and south forks of the Nooksack River as Federal Natural Wild and Scenic Rivers. 3. The County shall make every effort to implement the Nooksack River plan. 4. Pedestrian, interpretative and small boat access sites should be provided for a diversity of public shoreline. • RECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS Definition: These open space areas are identified as large undeveloped parcels of land having unique or attractive natural features. Often they will also contain extensive trail systems. They lack distinct boundaries and are intended to emphasize open space and recreation values. The land may or may not be in public ownership. It is not intended for Whatcom County to acquire these parcels of land but rather to secure conservation VII -7 and access easements to insure that public access is maintained and unique scenic areas preserved. Policy Statements and Design Standards: 1. Each of the Recreation Resource Management Areas (RRMA) identified in the plan should be thoroughly studied to identify its unique features, scenic duality and open space value. Studies should then be made to determine how these qualities can be preserved for future generations. 2. Trail systems within the RRMAs should be used for non - motorized trail activities only. 3. While Whatcom County will probably not own the land within the RRMAs, it should take on a major management role to insure that its recreation and open space value is maintained. 4. A special advisory committee should be formed of users and land owners of the RRMAs. Their role will be to inventory, plan and prepare recommendations regarding the management of these areas. • OFF -ROAD VEHICLE RIDING AREAS Recognizing that it is better to regulate and manage where off -road vehicle (ORV) riding may occur, the County attempted twice to develop an area for exclusive ORV use. Both proposals were met with controversy and not pursued. However, ORV riding still occurs and in many instances on land not suitable for that use and without the owner's permission. The end result is that ORV riding is impacting neighbors and the land in which riding occurs and in general creating a problem for a legitimate recreation activity. Recognizing that there will continue to be a demand for ORV riding, the County should continue to assess its role in the ORV program. Between the State Department of Natural Resources, the Forest Service and the County, some joint solution may be possible. VII -8 SPECIFIC SITE RECOMMENDATIONS • PARK AREAS In this section, specific recommendations are made for sites identified in the plan. Please refer to the plan maps found in this section for the location of the sites and their respective site number. Site 1 Monument Park (8.2 Acres) Shoreline Access Because so much of the park use in Pt. Roberts is by non - county residents, we - recommend that new park development in the area be kept at a minimum and the emphasis be placed on shoreline access. With this in mind, we recommend that development at Monument Park be kept at a minimum. At one time, consideration was given to selling the site but the deed restrictions prohibit that action. Specific recommendations for this park site are: o Develop a 10 -15 space paved parking area o Construct a trail and stairs or develop other means to gain access to the beach below. o No development recommendations are made for the property on the east side of the street. Site 2 Heron Rookery RRMA This area is currently under private ownership and contains one of the largest Heron rookeries in North America. Since some development is now occurring in the immediate area, an attempt should be made to preserve this area and control public intrusion into the rookery. VII -9 r F_ 4\2 IFS'. .. - . . . _ Ew •.Q`' I +,+ — � w �.}� _ � -�� -- � -.. � ` r __rte .a.n:J.-' ` .. �.. ��c`��-��� � �•' - II _. F45 0 0 O12 D � � , 1 RDlne i I v°0 t,•r I ( � . •.3 ' _ - • mad O 98 D 1. '.`\ /: p ^�, ... i ' � �1• .. t- D �' - - -- •ter.... �� _ E_ _ 1 0. "o �� �a. �' 4�•:._. �� -_ '' - __ .���.- _� +.; � - - - •' - - i Ali _ . . I + of ., ,.F �� �:�_�. �_, r• -.z .L_� L - vs _t4 ,0 h _ {c.'rssRS.- .\ .•I .. 10 C _ s.; Y ZC. "L.. 2CDC J i a.. +..��: . • .__. 20 Fs - o / RS f 1 V R - -- - = - - - ------ - - - - -- - — ------------ _ WHATCOM COUNTY PARK AND R OPEN SPACE PLAN PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS t PROPOSED FACILITIES • TRAILS C OVERNIGHT CAMPING D DAY USE S SPECIALIZED FACILITIES W WATERFRONT FACILITIES RS REC. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREA SITE NUMBER Site 3 Lighthouse Marine Park (21.7 Acres) Multi -Use Camping Area Some minor additions to the park are recommended including the expansion of the RV camping area. Even though most of the camping is by Canadian residents, the County should consider additional camping sites because of the revenue they produce. Specific recommendations include: o Reconstruction of the boat ramp with floats constructed in the middle of the ramp o Construction of a new restroom /shower in the camping area o Addition of 10-12 camp sites with partial hook -up service Site 4 Lilly Point Access Shoreline Access Lilly Point offers excellent views and beach areas. Because of the instability of the bluff, the site is more appropriate for trails and shoreline access than for active park use. Specific recommendations are: • Parking for 15 -20 cars on top • Trails down to the beach • Picnic and view sites on top • Acquisition and preservation of the beach area and an old- growth stand of big leaf maples Site 5 Semiahmoo Park (322.0 Acres) Day Use Park Only minor improvements are recommended for this park site. They include: o Add large picnic shelter building o Add more picnic sites o Expand parking area VII - 11 Site 6 Haynie Road Site (2.1 Acres) This site was acquired several years ago for a community center. Because it is small and not well located for a community or senior center, it is recommended that the land be sold. The money derived from the sale should be used to acquire other public park land or shoreline access. Site 7 Dakota Creek Access Shoreline Access It is recommended that Dakota Creek be developed as a river trail. Because it is influenced by tidewater action, small boat access is limited to the first 2 -3 miles. Recommendations include: o Provide parking near the mouth of the creek for about five cars o Construct a trail from the parking area to the creek's edge for launching of hand carried boats o Provide an informal destination point for picnic activities, etc. at the upper reaches of the boating area Site 8 California Creek Access Shoreline Access It is recommended that California Creek and lagoon also be developed as a river trail. Because of tidewater action, small boat access is limited to about 2.5 miles. Recommendations include: o Provide parking for 3 -5 cars o Construct trail down to the creek from the parking area Site 9 Birch Bay Property (6.5 Acres) Day Use Park The County currently owns a 6.5 acre site on the southeast corner of Anderson Road and Cedar Avenue in the community of Birch Bay. Because of its size and location, it is more suited as a neighborhood park than any other use. Based on the policies established earlier regarding neighborhood parks, the County should only develop this site if a special service district is formed to pay for its construction and maintenance. VII -12 Site 10 Birch Bay Access Sites Shoreline Access There exists within the Birch Bay area several street right of ways that extend into the tidelands. These street ends are currently undeveloped. If improved for parking, they could provide parking in an area that is very short during the summer months. In addition, several places exist where the tidelands and Birch Bay Drive meet. In these cases the shoreline should be protected from erosion and additional parking provided. If possible, a designated bicycle /walking trail should be created. The County should continue to support the boulevard concept as earlier proposed. In addition, the County should continue to acquire tidelands when they become available. Site 11 Bay Horizon Park (68.5 Acres) Specialized Facility The County currently leases out or makes available to non profit groups the use of this property. While many of the buildings are used, some of the larger ones still remain vacant. Currently the County does not actively manage or program the site. It is our conclusion that using the site for major indoor or outdoor recreation use would be a very costly venture in both construction and maintenance. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the County continue to lease out the site to non profit groups for community service functions and hosteling. Site 12 Birch BE State Park Multi -Use Camping Area No recommendations are made for this site. The County should continue to share information with the state in terms of camping activity. Site 13 Proposed Cherry Point Day Use Park (30 Acres) Day Use Park Currently Puget Power owns large amounts of land in the Cherry Point Industrial area. One site located on the shoreline west of Gulf Road is an ideal site for a day use park. It contains some wetlands, a small road, about 800 lineal feet of shoreline and some upland area. It is recommended that about 30 acres of land in this area be acquired for a day use park. Possible facilities and activities in this park could include: o Nature trails and interpretative stations o Picnic area o Multi -use open play areas o Beach area o Parking for about 50 cars VII - 13 Site 14 Pleasant Valley School Site (2.7 Acres) Because this site is small and does not fit into the overall park development program, it is recommended that the property be sold and the money used to acquire other public park land or shoreline access. Site 15 Berthusens Park (300 Acres) Day Use Park Berthusen's Park is owned and managed by the City of Lynden. Without the financial resources and trained professional park staff, it has been difficult for the city to adequately manage and maintain the facility. Since this park fits in very closely to the types of park areas Whatcom County offers, it is suggested that the County approach the City with a proposal to manage the park as a joint effort. Site 16 Proposed Hovander Boating Facility Waterfront Park This site is actually a part of Hovander Park and is intended as a temporary take -out point for boaters floating the Nooksack River. It could also be used by touring bicyclists but should be restricted from becoming a typical automobile oriented camping area. Limited in size, it will be used for day use and primitive overnight camping only. Road access to this site would be prohibited except for maintenance equipment. Recommended facilities include: o Beach area and take -out point for rafts and small boats 0 5 -10 picnic sites o Are MEEM4 o Ru VII -14 Site 17 Hovander Park (96 Acres) Day Use Park This park is one of the premier parks in the County system and care should be given to not overdevelop the site. Some minor improvements are recommended and include: o Repair dike to eliminate seasonal flooding o Develop trail system to connect to the boating facility (Site No. 13) o Construct picnic shelter o Add 5 -10 picnic sites o Add more playground equipment o Provide a community garden site Site 18 Tennant Lake Interpretative Center (250 Acres) Day Use Park No changes are recommended to this site. The five acre parcel of land directly north of the homestead could be used for some specialized recreation activity. It should, however, fit into the overall theme of the park. Site 19 Proposed Indoor Recreation /Aquatic Complex Specialized Facility See Indoor Recreation Section Page VII -41 Site 20 Nooksack Estuary Interpretative Center Specialized Facility An interpretative center for plant and wildlife native to the Nooksack River is proposed for this area. The interpretative center itself is proposed on a bluff overlooking the estuary. Boat tours into the river delta would be part of the program offered at this center. Specific facilities would include: o Interpretative building (about 2,500 sq. ft. floor area) o Parking for 50 -100 cars o Boat dock o Trails along the shoreline o View points VII - 15 Site 21 Birchwood Property (3.0 Acres) Because this site is small and does not fit into the overall park development program, it is recommended that the property be sold and the money used to acquire other public park land or shoreline access. Site 22 Little Squalicum Park Site (13.1 Acres) Day Use Park This existing park site is located in a ravine downstream from the Bellingham Vocational Technical Institute. The property starts at the school and continues downstream to the saltwater shoreline. Much of the ravine is over one hundred feet wide at the bottom and quite flat. With that characteristic, many uses are possible. At the beach the County currently has about 200 lineal feet of shoreline. It is possible that negotiations with the owners of the cement plant and the Port of Bellingham could result in a much larger beach area. Convenient parking may be a problem. Parking at the Votech School is available but is about 2500 feet from the shoreline. Recommended facilities for this park site are: . o Paved trail system from the parking lot to the beach o Limited multi -use open grass play areas o Picnic sites o Restrooms Site 23 Proposed Lummi Island Park Multi -Use Camping Area A day use park for the island residents and a camping area for county residents is proposed on the west side of Lummi Island. A minimum of 35 -50 acres will be needed to accommodate all the uses. Because of the unique character and access requirements (access is by ferry or boat only), it is anticipated that this site will be heavily used by county residents. Proposed facilities include: o About 50 camp sites o beach area o Boat ramp and portable floats 0 15 -25 picnic sites o Multi -use play area o Children's playground VII - 16 Site 24 Lummi Mountain Recreation Resource Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Areas Site 25 Euclid Park Waterfront Park This existing park site is a triangle shaped parcel of land containing about 700 feet of lake frontage. Located near Bloedel Donovan Park, it is undeveloped and has a heavy cover of deciduous trees. Except at the shoreline, the rest of the site has fairly steep terrain. A small creek in the middle of the site dumps into Lake Whatcom. Without extensive grading and drainage work, most of the site is unsuitable for active use. Its greatest value is its shoreline. Recommendations for this site are: • Develop a small open play area at the shoreline • Provide 8 -10 picnic sites • Provide parking for about 25 cars, • Construct a trail the length of the site terminating at Lakeway Drive o Improve the beach area and shoreline Site 26 Truax Park (3.7 Acres) Specialized Facility Truax Park, a very small park with a shelter building. The site is very difficult to locate_ and is seldom used. Because it doesn't fit into the type of parks the County wishes to offer and is poorly located, it is recommended that either the site be sold or given to the City of Bellingham for a neighborhood park. No additional improvements are recommended. Site 27 Squalicum Mountain Recreation Resource Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Areas VII - 17 Site 28 Plantation Rifle Range (25.0 Acres) Specialized Facility This site is leased from DNR. The rifle range is well developed but adding additional facilities would require more land and a higher lease amount. Specific recommendations are: o Add two more trap houses o Add another small bore indoor shooting range Site 29 Smith Creek Park (271.2 Acres) Multi -Use Camping Area This site is located on the east side of Lake Whatcom and at the end of North Shore Drive. Only about 1,650 lineal feet of shoreline is available, although between this site, the railroad right of way and the south Lake Whatcom site, over 24,900 lineal feet of shoreline exists. This proposed park has three major features: (1) the shoreline, (2) the existence of excellent winds for sailboarding and (3) the possibility of developing a major trail system into the mountains to the east. From the top of these mountains great views of the county are possible. Whatcom County is currently realigning North Shore Drive up Smith Creek approximately 1,000 ft. to help eliminate the washout problems. Unfortunately this will divide the park into two sections. Recommended facilities are: 0 50-75 camp sites o Group camping area o Major day use area with picnic sites, play areas, etc. o Beach area o Group picnic area o Park manager's quarters o Trail system connecting to the Stewart Mountain RRMA Site 30 Larrabee State Park Multi -Use Camping Area No specific recommendations are made except to encourage the state to acquire more land in the area. (See Site No. 32 - Chuckanut Recreation Resource Management Area) VII - 18 Site 31 Pine /Cedar Lakes Multi -Use Camping Area This site offers a close -in hiking and primitive camping experience not normally found so close to an urban area. No additional improvements are needed except better signage of trails and to connect them to Samish Park and Larrabee State Park. Site 32 Chuckanut Mountain Recreation Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Areas Site 33 Samish Park (39 Acres) Day Use Park Because of its size limitations, only minor improvements are recommended. While there is currently a parking shortage, adding more spaces will only result in over -use of the park. In the long run, the County should seek to acquire more land or develop the other county park site on the lake. Currently, an adjacent landowner has a driveway that extends through the park site to their home. If possible, this site should be acquired in the future. Specific recommended improvements are: o Construct trails for the disabled o Construct a trail up to Pine and Cedar Lakes o Add a shelter building Site 34 Lookout Mountain Recreation Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Areas 4 wt L V11- 19 Site 35 East Lake Samish Park (24 Acres) Day Use Park Several years ago a proposed County RV campground was proposed for this site but was met with considerable resident opposition. Because of the marshy shoreline, beach development will be very costly. Recommended facilities for this site are: o Small beach area o Parking for 50 cars o Large open play area 0 15 -25 picnic sites o Restrooms o Children's playground Site 36 Lake Whatcom Park - South Bay (75 Acres) Day Use Park This site is found at the south end of Lake Whatcom and is currently owned by the County. This park is located in a very quiet and peaceful park of the lake. It is recommended that this setting be maintained when the park is developed. Because there are no boat ram s in this part of the lake, it is hoped that the restriction of a boat ramp in the park will hel to reduce the amount of power boating in the area. The adjacent fish hatchery will offer additional activities an interest in the park. There is land available to develop a camping area. However, camping in this park should not occur until the camping area in Smith Creek Park is fully developed. Recommended facilities for this park include: o Beach and swimming area o Small boat access (canoes, etc.) o Large open multi -use play area 0 15 -30 picnic sites o Group. picnic area o Shelter buildings o Parking for 50 -100 cars o Trail system through the park and connecting to the proposed Smith Creek Park (Site No. 29) o Park managers quarters VII -20 Site 37 Stewart Mountain Recreation Resource Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Areas Site 38 Nooksack -South Fork Recreation Resource Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Areas Site 39 Skookum /South Fork Site Multi -Use Camping Area This site is located within the South Fork of the Nooksack River RRMA and is adjacent to Edfro -Dye's marsh area. This park site will offer a wide range of recreation opportunities including camping and day use activities. It can also act as a trailhead for an interpretative trail system that extends along marshes and wildlife areas and along the river gorge. Site 40 Van Zandt Dike Recreation Resource Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Area Site 41 Proposed Major Boating Access Waterfront Park This proposed site is located at the junction of the main stem and south fork of the Nooksack River. It will be a ma take -out point for rafts coming down the main stem of the river and tubers floating t�e South Fork. It is also a starting point for boats heading down the main stem. Because the currents are somewhat tricky in this location, care must be given in locating the exact spot. Facilities proposed for this site include: o Good put -in and take -out beach o Parking area o Small day use area o Portable toilets VII - 21 Site 42 Proposed Nooksack River Day Use Park Day Use Park This proposed park will be a major day use park for Whatcom County. The general location is in the vicinity of Goshen Road. Because a sanitary landfill exists in the vicinitgy, ground water testing should be made before a park site is located in this area. Proposed facilities for this park are: o River access, including boat launch 0 25 -30 picnic sites o Large open play areas o Shelters and restrooms o Parking for 200 cars o Group picnic area o Children's playground o Splash pool o Trails o Park manager's quarters Site 43 North Sumas Mountain Recreation Resource Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Area � I I"A 1111%,;-. 1 "t� --6 .. , -" 7 1* 19--dorl TEE ;; VII -22 Site 44 Ostrom Property (38.6 Acres) Day Use Park This undeveloped park site is located on both sides of South Pass Road. It is recommended that this park serve as the trailhead for the North Sumas and Vedder Mountain Recreation Resource Management Areas and also as a basecamp for organized hiking groups such as the Boy Scouts, etc. Specific facilities recommended for the Ostrom property are: o Small day use area with open grass area 0 3 -5 picnic sites o Trailhead o Parking for 25 cars o Pit toilets Site 45 Vedder Mountain Recreation Resource Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Area Site 46 Red -Black Mountain Recreation Resource Management Area RRMA See Recreation Resource Management Area Site 47 Silver Lake Park (411 Acres) Multi -Use Camping Area Silver Lake Park is another premiere park in the county system. It is heavily used for day use, camping and equestrian activities. Only minor improvements are recommended. The biggest improvement suggested is replacing the six old primitive cabins with revenue from 10 new full- service cabins. An economic feasibility analysis completed during the study revealed that 10 new cabins would pay -off the debt service in 7 -8 years. The other major change is to add a splash pool in the park. Currently, swimming is discouraged because of the "itch ". A splash pool eliminates the problem of lifeguards or water quality control yet gives the visitor the opportunity to play in the water. Suggested new facilities for Silver Lake Park are: 0 10 new cabins o New restroom with flush toilets in camping area VII -23 • Improvement of the walking trails • Construct a control station at the entrance for collecting gate fees • Splash pool • Develop more equestrian trails that connect to Red and Black Mountain RRMAs Site 48 Bodigers Pond Specialized Facility Bodigers Pond is a small lake area near the town of Glacier. The pond and the surrounding marsh and wetlands offers a place to study the plant and wildlife native to the area. Development of this area should involve local residents. Recommended improvements are: o Interpretative trail system and boardwalks o Viewing blinds 0 2 -3 picnic sites o Parking for about 10 cars VII -24 • SHORELINE ACCESS The plan also recommends a number of shoreline access areas. The inventory shown below offers a wide variety of access opportunities from which the County may select appropriate sites for planning, acquisition or development. In some cases, the area may be a length of shoreline whereas in other instances it may only be a single access point. These sites are indicated on the adjoining shoreline access plan map. A summary of them is listed below. Table 24 Shoreline Access Opportunities Site Status Owner No. (1) (2) Name Action Needed PARK SITES 1 U WC Monument Park Parking, trail 3 D WC Lighthouse Pt. Beach Boat launch 4 A PRIV Lily Pt. Parking, trail 5 D WC Semiahmoo Park 7 U WC Dakota Creek Parking, boat launch 8 A PRIV California Creek Parking 10 U PRIV, WC Birch Bay Access Dev. access 12 D WA Birch Bay State Park 13 A PRIV, WA Cherry Point Beach Park site 16 U WC Hovander Marine Park Boating, camp sites 18 D WC, WA Tennant Lake 20 A PRIV, WC Nooksack River Estuary Parking, viewpoint, trails 22 U WC, Port Little Squalicum Beach Park site 23 A PRIV Lummi Island Park Proposed Park site 25 U WC Euclid Park Park site 29 U WC Smith Cr. (Lk. Whatcom) Park site 30 D WA Wildcat Cove Larrabee State Park 31 D WC, WA Pine /Cedar Lakes Park site 33 D WC Lake Samish Park 35 U WC East Lake Samish Park site 36 U WC Lk. Whatcom Park - South Bay Park site 39 U PRIV Skookum Cr. /S. Fork Park site 41 A PRIV, WA S. Fork Boating Access Parking, boat launch 42 U PRIV Nooksack R. Day Use Park Park site 47 D WC Silver Lake Park SHORELINE ACCESS ONLY A -1 A PRIV Maple Beach Parking A -2 D PRIV, WC Gulf Road A -3 D PRIV Pt. Roberts Marina A -4 D Blaine Blaine Harbor A -5 U WC, Blaine Drayton Harbor Parking, trail A -6 A WC Drayton Harbor Viewpoint Parking, viewpoint VII -25 Table 24 (continued) Site Status Owner No. (1) (2) Name Action Needed A -7 A PRIV California Creek Parking, trail A -8 U WC Birch Point Parking, trail A -9 D PRIV Birch Bay Village Marina A -10 D WC Cottonwood Beach A -11 U WC, WA Aldergrove Overlook Viewpoint, trail A -12 U WA Trig Rd. River Access Parking, trail A -13 D WA Lake Terrell Interpretive display A -14 U WC Unick Rd. Access Parking, trail A -15 D WA Nooksack River (Ferndale) Upgrade A -16 A PRIV, WA Pt. Migley Parking, viewpoint A -17 U Lummi Lummi Beach Signage A -18 U WC, Lummi Ferry Dock /Beach Signage A -19 A PRIV Lover's Bluff Parking, trail A -20 A Lummi Portage Island Trail A -21 A PRIV Inati Bay (Yacht Club) Trail A -22 U WA Reil Harbor Beach Trail A -23 D WA DNR Campground (Lummi Is.) Trail A -24 A Lummi Neptune Beach Develop access A -25 A Lummi Sandy Pt. Parking, viewpoint A -26 A Lummi Lummi Bay- Aqua. Dike Parking, trail A -27 A Lummi Fish Point Parking, trail A -28 U PRIV Bancroft Rd. Access Parking, trail A -29 A PRIV Locust Rd. Access Parking, trail A -30 D WA Toad Lake A -31 A PRIV Upper Chuckanut Parking, Vail A -32 A PRIV Lower Chuckanut Parking, viewpoint, trail A -33 D WA, PRIV Squalicum Lake A -34 D WA WWU- Lakewood Facility A -35 D PRIV Sudden Valley Marina A -36 D WA South Bay Boat Launch A -37 D WA State Trout Hatchery A -38 D WA Cain Lake A -39 U WC, WA Nooksack R. -River Road Parking, trail A -40 D WA Nooksack R. -Guide Meridian Trail A -41 D Wa Wiser Lake A -42 A PRIV Nooksack R: Timon Road Parking, trail A -43 A PRIV Nooksack R. -Abbott Rd. Parking, trail A -44 A PRIV Judson Lake Parking, boat launch A -45 D Everson Riverside Park - Everson Upgrade A -46 D WA Lake Fazon A -47 D WA Nooksack R.- Nugents Corner A -48 D WA Silver Lake Boat Launch A -49 A PRIV Maple Falls Parking, trail A -50 D WA, PRIV Boulder Cr.- Nooksack R. Upgrade, trail A -51 A PRIV N. Fork (Eastwood Rd.) Parking, trail VII - 26 Table 24 (continued) Site Status Owner No. (1) (2) Name Action Needed A -52 D WA Nooksack Fish Hatchery PRIV = A -53 A PRIV N. Fork (Silver Lake Rd.) Parking, trail A -54 A WC, PRIV N. Fork (N. Fork Rd.) Parking, trail A -55 A PRIV N. Fork (Mosquito Lk. Rd) Parking, boat launch A -56 U PRIV Canyon Lake Parking, boat launch A -57 U WA Middle Fork (Mosq.Lk.Rd.) Parking A -58 U WA Mosquito Lake Parking, trail A -59 D US N. Fork (Glacier) A -60 U WC, PRIV S. Fork (Strand Rd) Parking A -61 D WA Hutchinson Creek A -62 A Acme South Fork (Acme) Parking A -63 D Bel'ham Donnovan Park Existing park site A -64 D WA E. Lake Samish B. Launch A -65 U PRIV Sumas River Access Parking, boat launch A -66 U PRIV Cornell Creek Rd. Access Parking, boat launch (1) (2) E = Existing Public Shoreline - developed U = Existing Public Shoreline - undeveloped A = Acquisition Recommended WC = County WA = State (Dept. Game or Wildlife) PRIV = Private PORT = Port of Bellingham 0 TRAIL SYSTEMS The trail plan presented in this report consists of three basic elements. First are the cross - county routes which are presented on the park plan map. This system will form the backbone to which most other trails will connect. Each of these trails is described later. The second element is major trail planning areas. Four areas are identified in this section along with maps describing the general trail locations. The third trail element is found in the recreation resource management areas. The first two trail plan elements described in this section begin on page VII -29. VII -27 r I 1 . /s 13 5 IL \ - = - -? - - -- - -- - - -_ -- - ------ - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- - - - WHATCOM COUNTY PARK AND' OPEN SPACE PLAN SHORELINE ACCESS SCAlf 11 11-1 EXISTING PUBLIC SHORELINE UNDEVELOPED SHORELINE. RECOMMENDED SHORELINE ACQUISITION W WHATCOM COUNTY S OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES P PRIVATE J SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE v Trail Use A. Cross County Routes 1. Nooksack Trail Multi -Use 2. Coastal Bike Route Bike Route 3. Dewey Valley Trail Multi -Use 4. Lake Whatcom /Lake Samish Bike Loop Bike Route /multi -use 5. 70 Mlle Loop Multi -Use 6. Saar Creek Trail Multi -Use 7. Sumas Connection Bike Route 8. Blaine Commuter Bike Route Bike Route 1 -- B. Major Trail Planning Areas 1. Lummi Mountain Hiking 2. Chuckanut /Lake Samish Area Hiking /mountain biking /equestrian 3. Southwest Stewart Mountain Hiking /mountain biking /equestrian 4. North Sumas Mountain Hiking /mountain biking /equestrian A. Cross County Routes 1. Nooksack Trail (multi -use) From the mouth of the Nooksack River at Bellingham Bay to the glaciers of Mt. Shuksan, this conceptual route is easily the most attractive to all user groups. Hikers, horseback and bicycle riders, residents and visitors alike, will all enjoy the quality and character of this unique trail. Per mile development costs will likely be very reasonable due to the large amount of existing dikes and abandoned railroad grades that can be used and the availability of substantial public lands over the majority of the route. It is a major project requiring multi- agency cooperation. Beginning at the large undisturbed estuary (Site No. 20), a few miles northwest of Bellingham, the first leg of the route will follow existing dikes and river banks, passing the Lummi Indian Reservation. Continuing up the river, the trail eventually reaches into the National Forest, connecting with campgrounds on the North Fork and trails at Heather Meadows and the Mt. Baker Wilderness. The final leg of the Nooksack ends within the North Cascades National Park, completing an exceptional traverse from the saltwater to the glaciers. The Nooksack Trail concept includes a wide variety of attractions and facilities suited to enjoyable day and overni &ht outings. The scenic route connects with a number of other trails creating many loop possibilities. Ecological and historic elements offer extensive interpretative opportunities. Special events, such as the annual Ski to Sea race might utilize portions of the route as an alternative to running and biking on the VII -29 busy Mt. Baker Highway. The North Fork is also under serious consideration for Wild and Scenic River designation, further emphasizing the value of the Nooksack Trail. It is a significant opportunity that may be unparalleled anywhere in the U.S. 2. Coastal Bike Route (bicycle trail) This scenic bicycle touring route extends from Bellingham to Blaine, passing a number of viewpoints, parks and shoreline access areas along the way. The 30 mile route follows Marine Drive around the bay, past the large natural estuary and the junction of the Nooksack Trail, and on to Haxton Way (paved bike lanes recommended to this point). The route proceeds west along the quiet Red River Road to Lake Terrell Road, Mountain View, Rainbow and Henry Roads, passing the Lake Terrell wildlife areas on the way to the Cherry Point beach. Moving north on Powder Plant Road, west on Aldergrove Road (fine viewpoint) and north on Pt. Whitehorn Road, the rider arrives at Birch Bay State Park (day and overnight facilities). From the state park, the route follows Helweg and Bay Roads to Bay Horizon Park, then Alderson Road to Birch Bay Drive and Shintaffer Road. Here, one could follow the new road and bike paths to Semiahmoo Park or continue on to Blaine by way of Drayton Harbor Road, Blaine Road and Portal Way where the Blaine - Ferndale Commuter route is met. The route ends at the international Peace Arch Park. Some short stretches are busy enough that bike lanes or paved paths are desirable for safety, while the less traveled roads should be signed to caution motorists to watch for bicycles. 3. Dewey Valley Trail (multi -use) This multi - purpose trail follows an abandoned railroad bed for its entire distance and offers a level direct route from the Bellingham area to the eastern part of the County. The west end intersects the Lake Whatcom- Lake Samish Loop and other existing and planned trails within the city. This pastoral 10 mile route passes large farms, wetlands and forested areas in gently rolling terrain and meets the Nooksack Trail near Cedarville Road. With a compacted gravel surface, the trail would offer a safer and more enjoyable alternative to riding along the shoulders of the Mt. Baker Highway. The route is almost entirely in private ownership; however, several large holdings would ease the number of agreements or acquisitions necessary to develop the trail. 4. Lake Whatcom /Lake Samish Bike Loop (some multi -use) A bike route around Lake Whatcom has Ion been desired in the community, a goal that could be satisfied with this proposed loop connecting both lakes. Beginning at Bloedel Donovan Park in the city, the route would follow North Shore Drive (bike lanes recommended) all the way to its terminus at Smith Creek, the site of a proposed county park. The VII -30 3 mile segment from here to Blue Canyon is in a wilderness -like setting and would receive much use by hikers and possibly horseback riders (should be reconstructed to a compacted gravel surface). At Lake Whatcom Park - South, the route heads southwest along an old logging road to Cain Lake. Lake Samish is reached by way of another old road past Squires Lake, then either East Lake Samish Drive or an old road grade on the opposite side of I -5. Old (Lake) Samish Road is followed to Arroyo Park, then the Interurban Trail or Chuckanut Drive to Fairhaven Park and various routes through the city. Several paved roads offer alternatives for touring bikes that may prefer not to ride on a gravel surface. 5. 70 -Mile Loop (partially a combination of the above) This route completes a central loop system in the County by interconnecting other routes that make up the backbone of the trail network. Essentially the route proceeds from Bellingham along the first part of the Coastal Route, then along the Nooksack Trail to Deming, then south along Highway 9 (bike lanes) to Wickersham. Here a multi - purpose path is suggested north of Mirror Lake and Anderson Creek to connect with the Lake Whatcom -Lake Samish Loop. The latter route completes the 70 Mile Loop. This loop would be of interest to bicyclists primarily. 6. Saar Creek Trail (multi -use) Beginning at the city park in Sumas, this attractive multi - purpose trail follows the abandoned railroad right of way to Maple Falls where it meets the Nooksack Trail. Several old trestles and the Saar Creek gorge add interest to northwestern third of the route. To the southeast, the trail mostly parallels county roads. Again, much of the route is in private ownership. 7. Sumas Connection (bike route) This is a bicycle route on existing county roads that connects Everson with Sumas, and the Nooksack Trail with the Saar Creek Trail. The connection also completes various routes from all other cities in Whatcom County with Sumas and the border crossing. 8. Blaine Commuter Bike Route (bike route) This is a direct route paralleling Portal Way that offers the quickest way to reach Blaine from Ferndale or Bellingham. A paved bike path or bike lanes are recommended. A link with the Blaine Rest Area on I -5 (Creasy Road) should be accommodated to provide restroom and picnic facilities for bicyclists who prefer not to ride on the freeway. VII - 31 B. Major Trail Planning Areas Some areas of the County offer unique multi -trail opportunities. Four of these areas are discussed below. Maps illustrating the approximate location of these trails follow. 1. Lummi Mountain The existing trail up Lummi Mountain from Seacrest Drive follows old logging road grades across several privately owned parcels and reaches a spectacular viewpoint on the west overlooking Lummi Rocks, Rosario Strait and the San Juan Islands. Another trail leads from Scenic Estates to the protected beach at Inati Bay on the east shore. Both have been frequently used by the public for many years. A DNR boaters campground exists south of Reil Harbor across the channel from Eliza Island. A hiker -only trail network is proposed that interconnects the Lummi Mountain and Inati Bay trails in the vicinity of the campground, with further trail extensions to Carter Point at the southern tip of the island. Portions of these routes follow old road grades, minimizing the amount of construction necessary. The western high route follows a gentle ridge and is particularly attractive in terms of island views, while the east trail stays low and offers access to the shoreline. This trail system would accommodate day or overnight use (at the existing campground only) and would easily be among the two or three most enjoyable loop trails in the County. 2. Chuckanut /Lake Samish Area Easily the most popular trail area in western Whatcom County, Chuckanut Mountain offers excellent opportunities for hikers, horseback riders and mountain bikers in an "urban wilderness" setting. The area is convenient to Bellingham and is generally accessible year round. Major features include the saltwater shoreline, forested slopes up to 1,900 feet above sea level, mature trees, cliffs, rock outcrops and other clearings offering fine views of the San Juan Islands, the north Cascades, Lake Samish to the east and a number of small lakes including Fragrance, Lost, Mud, Pine and Cedar. Most of the County's developed trails (excluding federal lands) are found here: Interurban, Fragrance Lake Trail, Lost Lake Trail, and Pine and Cedar Lakes Trail. Other user trails of significance are Chuckanut Ridge, North Lost Lake and Clayton Beach Trails (enters Skagit County). Three parks are also found in the vicinity: Larrabee State Park, Lake Samish Park and Arroyo Park (trailhead only). Developed trailheads are found at Larrabee and Arroyo Parks at the start of the Pine and Cedar Lakes Trail. A roughly developed viewpoint, Gates Overlook is located at the end of the Cleator Road near the top of Chuckanut Ridge. VII - 32 3. (EXCLUDING BELLINGHAM) SHOULD THE COUNTY PROVIDE RECREATION SERVICES IN THE CITIES? IF SO, WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES SHOULD THEY BE? 6 Yes 4 Help cities to finance and coordinate programs 2 Band concerts 1 Provide transportation services 1 Help cities plan and develop parks 1 Provide summer and weekend programs 1 Indoor recreation classes 1 Sport programs for youth 4. (BELLINGHAM ONLY) SHOULD THE COUNTY ACQUIRE OPEN SPACE FOR TRAILS AND WATERFRONT ACCESS? IF SO," WHAT TYPE AND WHERE? 6 Yes 2 Provide waterfront access 2 Preserve wetlands 1 Acquire and protect unofficial trails 1 Provide better information on existing trails 1 Convert gravel pit on Chuckanut Drive into parking lot 1 Connect Pine and Cedar Lakes with trail to the south 1 Develop trail along dike of Nooksack River in area of Hovander Park 1 Develop trail on railroad right -of -way in vicinity of Blue Mountain Canyon 1 County could work with horse clubs to clear trails IV -33 pppl TRAIL PLAN LUMMI MOUNTAIN AREA SCALE IN MILES 2 LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED MULTI-USE TRAIL -PUBLIC imiiiiii�■ oo❑ MULTI-USE TRAIL - PRIVATE o0 HIKING TRAIL- PUBLIC W -WNW■ oa0000 HIKINGTRAIL - PRIVATE 00000 00000 TRAILHEAD , TRAIL PLAN CHUCKANUT /LAKE SAMISH SCALE IN MILES AREA LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED MULTI -USE TRAIL- PUBLIC ==n MULTI -USE TRAIL - PRIVATE o 0 0 HIKING TRAIL- PUBLIC 00=300. HIKING TRAIL - PRIVATE • • • • • 00000 TRAILHEAD . Large areas of public land and private timberlands contain additional user trails, many in the form of old logging roads and unofficial way trails that are frequently used by the public. With only a few miles of new trail construction, a number of trail loops and linkages can be developed that will create a highly attractive trail network for each user group. Some segregation of users is desirable to minimize conflicts and hazards, and to prevent bicycle and stock damage to the more sensitive trails. Primary emphasis should be on improving or reconstruction the Chuckanut Ridge, North Lost Lake and Clayton Beach Trails, and developing the new linkage to Pine Lake. The Samish Ridge Trail from Pine Lake to Lake Samish Park should follow. A ma'or trailhead facility should be developed in the city at the old quarry near junction of Chuckanut Drive and California Street. Limited ORV use has been known to occur in some areas (unauthorized in Larrabee Park, city and count+ park land, and on developed trails). Such use should be prohibited or discouraged in the Chuckanut area due to user conflicts and environmental impacts. 3. Southwest Stewart Mountain The proposed County park at Smith Creek on the east shore of Lake Whatcom offers an excellent opportunity for a major trailhead with several potential routes of special interest to hikers and horseback riders. The East Shore multi - purpose trail (to be reconstructed) would connect with the county park site at the south end of the lake. Above this trail, two short (hiker -only) loops are suggested that climb 100 to 500 feet above the lake through large old growth timber to several excellent viewpoints above the cliffs. Another trail off the higher loop would extend northeasterly to the top of Stewart Mountain and intersect a new trail leading up Olsen Creek from the Y Road. Old road grades could be used in most areas. A low route from Olsen Creek to Smith Creek now exists and would also be maintained. Finally, a figure -8 loop trail hiker -only) would lead up Smith Creek offering a variety of choices for short or long, easy to moderately strenuous trips. Natural amenities include waterfalls and cascades, two major gorges, high cliffs, wildlife and mature forests all within close proximity of the lake shore and within a unique wilderness -like setting. Trails in the Lake Whatcom area are severely lacking and this system, developed in conjunction with the new county park, would go a long way toward improving the situation. VII - 35 TRAIL PLAN SOUTHWEST STEWART 9CAIEIN MILES MOUNTAIN AREA • 0 1/z 1 ■ LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED MULTI -USE TRAIL- PUBLIC L JE: =. ''n MULTI -USE TRAIL - PRIVATE =o= HIKING TRAIL - PUBLIC ■�■■��■ a00000 HIKING TRAIL - PRIVATE TRAILHEAD 7* 4. North Sumas Mountain The north end of Sumas Mountain is relatively undisturbed by logging or development and is often visited by hikers and horseback riders by way of the Lost Lake and Friendly Cabin (Nooksack Mine) Trails. All traverse mostly public and some private lands, thus acquisition or easements are needed. The lake trail begins from Westergreen Road and the Friendly Cabin Trail begins at the south end of Sealund Road. The County has acquired a parcel on South Pass Road (Ostrum site) that would make an ideal trailhead for both areas. New trails are suggested to extend from this site to where the cabin trail enters public land. Several outstanding viewpoints exist, including a clearing at the top that provides panoramic views of the Nooksack and Fraser Valley, Mt. Baker and the North Cascades. C. Cross - Country Skiing No specific recommendations are made for developed cross - country ski trails, althou &h several opportunities do exist which should be pursued. The proposed Nooksack Trail, for example, might serve as a multi -use trail much of the year and as a ski route during the winter. The emphasis should be placed on cooperative planning with the Forest Service and the private sector to ensure optimal facilities are provided. VII - 37 } �� TRAIL PLAN NORTH SUMAS MOUNTAIN SCALE IN MILES AREA «, 0 In 1 2 ILEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED MULTI- USETRAIL - PUBLIC ­5 o=-1n MULTI -USE TRAIL - PRIVATE � -imii =o= HIKING TRAIL- PUBLIC Now.. o000oo HIKINGTRAIL - PRIVATE •---0 00000 TRAILHEAD RECREATION PROGRAMS As was discussed in Section VI, Whatcom County is in a position where it can expand its level of recreation services at very little additional cost. The reason for this is that the County can offer new recreation programs where the user traditionally pays all of the direct cost. New or additional facilities will not be required because the senior centers, school buildings and existing park facilities can accommodate the new activities. The benefits of an expanded program are many, but three important reasons are: o Many people in the County will be served. It is estimated that up to 20% of the population could be served. o Many age groups, particularly the youth will be given activities to occupy their time where none now exist. o Development of a large recreation program will create a strong public support base. Specific Recommendations: 1. Provide non sport related youth programs. 2. Expand the outdoor program in terms of number and type of activities. 3. Provide limited expansion of the cultural arts program (music, arts and crafts, etc.) in the communities utilizing existing school buildings. 4. Provide more county -wide major events (i.e. Whatcom County in Bloom, Highland Games, International Folkdance Festival, etc.). Seek corporate sponsors to help finance the events or actually run the event. 5. Provide limited outdoor recreation programs in existing parks. 6. Develop a living history program. 7. Utilize the senior centers in evening hours to offer programs in fitness, general recreation, classes and teen /youth activities. 8. Offer nature interpretation programs at Silver Lake Park and other future camping sites. Seek tourism money to help finance the cost. 9. Leave sport scheduling and other related programs to the City of Bellingham and private sport groups. VII -39 SENIOR PROGRAM Whatcom County has enjoyed a very active and successful recreation program. With its eight centers, the County is well covered and convenient to most residents. The exception is the Newhalem area. With the recent approval of the parks levy, most senior centers will be upgraded to improve the level of service. The exception is the Bellingham Senior Center where additional space is badly needed. The options available for solving the space needs problem at the Bellingham Center are: 1. Add on to the present building. 2. Construct a new and larger facility in Bellingham and sell the old facility. 3. Construct a second smaller facility in Bellingham. It has been suggested that recreation and senior service programs be conducted at the Norbel Nursing Home when that activity ceases in three years. It has been our experience that converting a building such as the nursing home to a recreation facility is very costly to operate and program. In addition, the room dimensions are such that without major remodeling, they will be difficult to use. Of the three options listed above, we favor No. 3 because two centers in the Bellingham urban area will cover the region better and make it more convenient to the users. This will be especially true if the new center were to be located in the north quadrant of the city. Specific Recommendations: 1. Construct a new senior center in the vicinity of Smith and Northwest roads. Approximate size: 10,000 - 12,000 square feet. The center could be a part of a recreation center complex. Move senior administration into this building. 0 Utilize the existing senior center-, fnr more recreation programs and comm during the off - hours. 3. Add more senior related progr� as health programs, classes, exe programs and travel. VII -40 INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES The recreation survey revealed a very strong desire for an indoor public swimming pool and a moderate amount of support for a recreation center. Recognizing that a proposal to build a swimming pool has been defeated twice by the voters of Bellingham, we still feel that the need exists for such a facility. Recognizing this need, we recommend that a multi -use recreation /aquatic complex be developed in Whatcom County. We base this on the following: o Participation in swimming is high even though access to public swimming pools is quite limited. o The interest in developing an indoor swimming pool was yM high. o The long winters and inclement weather will place a strong demand and interest on indoor recreation activities. o Other communities with a much smaller population have had good success with recreation centers. Kent Commons, for example, has over 92,000 participants annually in its recreation center. It has also captured a very substantial part of the meeting /reception market. Recommended Location The primary service area of a typical multi -use complex is about five miles with the secondary service area reaching out another five miles. With this in mind, to reach the majority of the population, the center should be somewhere in the Bellingham urban area. If possible, it should be in the north end in order to partially serve Ferndale and the communities to the north. If possible, the site should be visible and have access to a major arterial street. The failure of the last two swimming pool tax measures indicate that Bellingham residents by themselves will not support the proposal. Our recommendation is that a special tax district be created to fund the construction and operation of the facility. The Bellingham School District might be a possible boundary. Recommended Facilities We feel that activities and facilities proposed will be a major key to its success. In our opinion, the complex should provide the following: VII - 41 o Activities and facilities that will be of interest to the maximum number of interest groups. • Activity area for senior groups. • Swimming facilities. • Active and passive recreation areas. • Space for meetings, small conferences, trade shows, etc. • Administrative space To be specific, we recommend the complex contain the following: Aquatic Component • Indoor ell pool (25 yard x 25 meter - 6 lanes) • 20'X 40' shallow training tank • Public viewing area • Portable deck seating for 300 -500 persons • Outside sun deck • Hydro therapy pool • Sauna • Storage o Estimated Floor Area: 17.000 sq. ft. Recreation Component o Multi- purpose gymnasium (70'x 104') o Large special purpose reception /aerobics room o Shower /dressing room (also used by swimmers) o Arts /crafts room (1 -2) o Weight room o Running track o Racquetball courts (2 -3) o Storage o Estimated Floor Area: 24.700 sq. ft. VII - 42 Specialized Areas • Meeting rooms (2 -3 of 500 sq. ft. each) • Large warming kitchen • Administrative space • Restrooms • Entrance /control and lobby • Storage o Estimated Floor Area: 5.200 sg. ft. Senior Center Element • Senior activity room • Senior lounge • Pool /activity room • Administrative space • Restrooms • Storage o Estimated Floor Area: 4.800 sa. ft. Lease Space o Lease space for quasi - public service organizations o Estimated Floor Area: 5.000 sq. ft. Site Requirements Total floor area: Parking @ 1 space /150 sq. ft. floor area: Landscaping @ 30% Total Site Area VII -43 56,700 sq.ft. 132,300 56.700 245,700 sq.ft. 5.6 acres Financial Impact Estimated project cost: (@ $100 /sq.ft.) (includes site improvements but excludes land acquisition costs): $5.6 - $6 million Estimated operating costs: $600,000 Estimated operating revenue: $400,000 Management Responsibility There are several ways this facility could be managed. They include: 1. A County operation 2. A City of Bellingham operation 3. A special taxing district operated by either the City or the County 4. A special taxing district with its own staff and board of directors Of the above alternatives, we recommend either the third or fourth alternative. RECREATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS The plan identified nine areas of the County that because of their unique scenic quality, trail system or other features should be carefully planned and preserved for public use. A discussion on each of these areas is found below. Site 24 Lummi Mountain RRMA Lummi Mountain occupies the south half of Lummi Island, the only major island in Whatcom County. With the exception of the Scenic Estates subdivision, nearly the entire area is undeveloped. Steep, mountainous terrain, mature forests, rocky coastlines, critical wildlife habitat (eagles, peregrine falcons), small streams and wetlands, outstanding scenic vistas and overall aesthetic value in the County. Trail opportunities are significant, some following old road grades from logging that occurred long ago. Several trails across private lands penetrate the area and substantial public lands (state and federal) exist to the south. (See the discussion under Major Trail Areas.) County officials should make every effort to preserve the natural character of the area and acquire private lands as needed to assure it is not lost to development or clearcut logging practices. VII - 44 Site 27 Squalicum Mountain RRMA This smaller area at the north end of Lake Whatcom has opportunities and concerns similar to those described for Lookout Mountain. It should be generally managed in the same way. Site 32 Chuckanut Mountain RRMA As discussed previously, the Chuckanut area offers substantial recreation and open space opportunities convenient to the major population center of the County. Development and land use planning activities in the area need to be highly sensitive to these values. (See also the discussion under Major Trail Areas.) Site 34 Lookout Mountain RRMA This area between Lake Samish and Lake Whatcom contains numerous old and new logging roads used by hikers, horseback riders and mountain bikers to access extensive forests and views. Nearly all the land area is privately owned and managed for timber production. Active logging, road construction and the lack of public facilities make it difficult to develop and maintain a public trail system in the area. An ideal trailhead is available in an undeveloped portion of Lake Padden Park. The RRMA designation recognizes the need to plan sensitively for future development and forest practices so that open space and recreation values are not lost. Site 37 Stewart Mountain RRMA In addition to the proposed trail network concentrated in the areas of Smith Creek, Olsen Creek and the southeast shore of Lake Whatcom, a substantial network of togging roads offers additional trail miles for all users. Motorized use is frequent and should be discouraged or prohibited from areas designated for nonmotorized use. The southwest portion of Stewart Mountain offers the best opportunity on Lake Whatcom for an urban wilderness recreational experience. Natural amenities make this area highly desirable for open space preservation, day use facilities and trail development. VII -45 Site 38 Nooksack -South Fork RRMA Dye's marsh and the surrounding lands is considered to contain some of the richest wildlife habitat and diversity of vegetation along the entire Nooksack River system. The entire flatland is prime habitat for elk and deer and the marshes offer a home to waterfowl, raccoons and other wildlife. It is an extremely valuable asset to Whatcom County as long as its extreme fragility is respected and wildlife habitats not violated by insensitive human activity. Trails through this area should be carefully located to avoid crossing the wetlands. Site 40 Van Zandt Dike RRMA Mosquito and Jorgenson Lakes provide opportunities to enjoy interpretative trails while the ridge itself contains many old and new logging roads that offer multi -use routes. Substantial DNR forest lands and exceptional views make this area attractive for open space and trail improvements. Site 43 North Sumas Mountain RRMA See Major Trail Planning Areas Sites 45, 46 Vedder Mountain, Red Mountain, Black Mountain RRMA These three areas provide an extensive network of trails and logging roads especially attractive to horseback riders. Equestrian facilities at Silver Lake Park provide a jumping off point. On Black Mountain, routes are contemplated eastward to connect with trails in the Canyon Ridge area of the National Forest. Further planning is recommended to establish a complete network of loop trails and backcountry campsites. VII - 46 ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT As the park system expands and more services are offered, the Department will need to grow to accommodate the changes required of them. Some specific recommendations are discussed below. 1. Creation of a Foundation: A mechanism should be made available so that donations can be easily accommodated. The most common method is to create a foundation. This then removes donations of money from the County operating budget where it can be managed easier. Often a separate board will manage the foundation. 2. Department Offices: The present department offices are centrally located for most of its operations and also serves as an information center, rest area and picnic site. If possible, the site should be purchased from DNR. There has been some discussion of moving the department to the old County Home (Norbel Nursing Home). While this is a suitable location, we find the building to be inappropriate for office space. In addition, the cost of upgrading and maintaining this building will be quite high. 3. Fees and Charges Policy: For the. most part, no problems exist with the current charges for recreation services. The County needs to explore ways to reduce the operating costs of the recreation program (primarily cultural arts and the outdoor program). Part.of the problem is in the budgeting process. Currently, all of the cost associated with'maintaining the Roeder Home is applied to the recreation budget. This cost should be transferred to the parks budget. As a goal, the County should not subsidize the recreation budget more than. 25 %. Over the next 3 -5 years, fees for recreation programs should be increased 10% per year to a maximum of 30 %. If enrollment drops more than 25% from the previous year than the fee increase should be discontinued. 4. Public Image: It is important that all employees within the Department be courteous to the public and project an image of professionalism. This applies to all employees from the maintenance workers to the Parks Director. To this end, discussions should be held with all employees on the value of proper dress, direct public contact, techniques and other public relations approaches. 5. Trails Committee: Implementing the trails element of the plan will be a continuin& effort by both the staff and the Parks Board. To &ive trail issues the attention that will be required, we recommend that a trails committee be formed to help with the development of the program. A full time trails planner will also be needed. VII - 47 6. Park Impact Fees: The rapid rate of population growth in Whatcom County will place a heavy burden on the existing park system. To help pay for the needed improvements, it is recommended that the County develop a mechanism to require reasonable contributions from new development. One method would be to require impact mitigation as is being done in a number of communities in Washington. This approach requires park land or park development fees based on identified park needs in specific geographic areas. However, park impact fees must be collected in strict conformance with state law (see R.C.W. 82.02). 7. Public Involvement: It is recommended that the Parks Department continue to encourage public participation in the planning and operation of leisure services. An active public involvement program helps to build public support as well as provide information on community needs and values. 8. Public Relations: The County has done well in producing information on its park and recreation operations, such as novelty items, press releases, sponsored public events, brochures, etc. are all ways to keep the department in the public's eye. 9. Capital Repair and Maintenance Fund: The County should provide money each year for the repair and maintenance of existing facilities. A rule of thumb is that about 3% of the annual budget should go for this purpose. One suggested method for Whatcom County to maintain a repair and maintenance fund is to reserve the money left in the budget at the end of the year for this purpose. Currently any money left over at the end of the year goes back to the County General Fund. ae VII - 48 APPENDIX A -1 BIBLIOGRAPHY An Open Space Network for Bicycling and Foot Travel Facilities; Bellingham, Washington; City of Bellingham, 1988. The Bellingham Plan, Open Space, Parks and Recreation - Technical Appendix 5, City of Bellingham, 1988. Bellingham Trail Survey, Western Washington University; Parks and Recreation Division, November 1983. Guide to the Mt. Baker District, Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest, Scott Paul, Pacific Northwest National Parks and Forest Association. Hiking Whatcom County, Ken Wilcox, Northwest Wilderness Guides, 1986. Local Opportunities for Americans, Final Report of the Municipal and County Park and Recreation Study, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group, University of Georgia Institute for Community and Area Development and the National � of and Park Association, September 1988. Manual of Policies and Procedures, Whatcom County Park and Recreation Board. Nooksack River Plan Jones & Jones Consultants, 1973 North Cascades National Park General Management Plan, U.S. Iepartment of the Interior - National Park Service, June 28, 1988. Public Shore, Information Relating to the Preservation and Acquisition of Public Access to and Use of Shorelines, Whatcom County Park and Recreation Board, November 15, 1987. Recreation Opportunities of the Greater Bellingham Area, Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department, October 1987. Skookum Recreation Complex - South Fork Nooksack River, Jones & Jones. Statement of Assessed Valuations, Tax Rates and Taxes Levied Within Various Taxing Districts in Whatcom County, Victor A. Battson, County Assessor. Sumas Mountain Off -Road Vehicle Trail Facility; Draft Environmental Impact Analysis, R.W. Thorpe & Associates Inc., Volumes I, II. Sumas Mountain Off -Road Vehicle Trail Facility; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Whatcom County Department of Public Works, October 1987. Sumas Mountain Off -Road Vehicle Trail Facility; Master Plan Report, Landplan P.S., July 1985. Trail Guide, City of Bellingham Department of Parks and Recreation Washington Travel Facts, Washington State Department of Trade and Economic Development, March 1988. Whatcom County, A Source Guide for Demographic Information, Dept. of Sociology, Western Washington University. Whatcom County Budgets: 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, Whatcom County Finance Department. Whatcom County Interagency Park, Recreation and Open Space Study - Technical Appendix, Jones & Jones, July 1977. Whatcom County Proposed Off -Road Vehicle Park Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Van Zandt Dike, Wilsey and Ham, October 1978. Whatcom County Recreation Survey, JC Draggoo & Associates, March 1989. Whatcom County Trail Plan, Whatcom County Park Board, January 1975. Whatcom County Trails Plan, Whatcom County Planning Department, 1975. MISCELLANEOUS BROCHURES Bellingham Parks and Recreation Facilities Guide, Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department. Birch Bay State Park, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Camping in Washington State Parks, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Camp Horizon, Lynden Lions Club Hovander Homestead, Whatcom County Park and Recreation Board Larrabee State Park, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Outdoor Recreation Program, Whatcom County Park and Recreation Board Roeder Home, Winter Program, Whatcom County Park and Recreation Board Miscellaneous Park Brochures by Bellingham Park and Recreation Department o Arroyo Park Canyon Walk o Fairhaven Park o Boulevard Park o Bloedel Donovan Park o Cornwall Park o Whatcom Falls Park o Lake Padden Park 0 Civic Field Complex APPENDIX A -2 WHATCOM COUNTY TRAILS SUMMARY Inv.# Trail Name T -001 Boundary Bluff Trail T -002 W. Pt. Roberts T -003 Pt. Roberts Fail., Paths T -004 Pt. Roberts Marina Path T -005 E. Pt. Roberts T -006 Lily Pt. Bluft & Beach T -007 Lighthouse Park T -1001 Bellingham City Traits T -101 Peace Arch Park Paths T -102 Lincoln Park Paths T -103 Semiahmoo Perk Paths T -104 Semiahmoo-B.Bay Loop T -105 Blaine -Birch Bay T -106 Blaine - Ferndale Commuter T -107 Birch Paint T -109 Birch Bay "Boulevard" T -110 Bay Horizon Park Paths T -111 Terrell Creek T -112 Birch Bay State Park T -201 Birch Bay-Wham Coastal T -202 Lake Terrell Loop T -206 Nooksack Trail (Fer -Lyn) T -207 Pioneer Park Paths T -208 Ferndal,>-B'ham Commuter T -209 Hovander Homestead Park T -210 Tennant Lake Trails T -211 Nielsen Rd. T -301 Lummi Mt. T -302 Lummi Island T -303 Gooseberry Pt. T -304 Inati Bay - Carter Pt. T -:305 Portage Island Loop T -401 Lrutuni River Dike T -102 Nooksack Trail, Bay -Fern T -903 Nooksack Estuary T -40.1 Litt le Squal icttm Beach "r -,10 5 Ii i n;4 Mt. T -406 Dewey Valley T -501 Pine & Cedar Lakes T -502 Lookout ML. (Galbraith) T -50:3 Lookout Mt. T -504 Chu( k..rnut Ridg(, T -505 Pine & Cedar- Avroyo Park T -500 Lk. Sami -,h -I' i rw & Cc!d<cr T -507 Pine & Cedar -Lost Lk. T -508 Los t l.k . -Ca l i f. S t. T -509 Lost Lk.-- Chuchanut Ridg «; T -.")1 O Lake! S: im i sh Loop T -511 Gates Uver'lc�uk T-512 Lost Lake Type Location Ex .Mi le.s Pr . h11 le.S FT BH FT FT BR FT FT FT FT FT FT BR BR BR FT BR, F "I' FT, 5T FT BR -BR FT FT, HT FT BR FT FT BR FT BR BR FT FT FT FT, IIT FT FT FT BT FT FT FT FT FT FT FT F'r FT BR FT FT wi ,BT ,NT,BT , li'r , DT ,HT ,HT ,IIT,BT 415333SU 405309SI: 405302NE 40531ONE 405302NE 405312NW 405309SE 3803xx 415136NE 410131SE 405111NUI 405111NW 415136NE 400107NE 405121SE 40012,1,(;W 400131NE 395102SW 395101NW 395102SE 390121NE 390229NW 390229NW 390229NW 390232NU1 390232NF. 390229NW 370114SW 370104SE 380207SW 370224SW 370211SE; 3891IONW 390232NE: 380216310 380223SE? 380308NUI 380318SW 370317SW 370310SI: 37032 5N'a; 3 1033'2NW 370318NU 3 70327;VU 370320SE 370313Nt: 3703 303E ;370;3�;35U 'i7U:i ;' 1 N ,IIT,B'I' 370331NU: 0.100 0.100 1.900 1.700 1 . OO() 1.000 0.000 5 . 50() G. (.)00 1.000 0.500 0.400 () . 00O 28.700 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.1.00 0.100 0.200 0.200 1.000 2.500 0.500 0.500 3.000 0.000 0.600 1.200 3.000 1.500 2.000) 0-100 -100 0 . (.)0(.) U.300 1.000 3.000 5.000 10.000 9.5o(, 1 . (.)c)c) 1.500 O. 000 f.. ODU o. 800 2. `, ( w 0.500 1.000 0.000 2.000 0.000; 2.00(_) 3.000 2. OOc) 0.500 () . 500 7.000 0. 50O 1.000 0.200 . 500 (.►.1(A) 0.000 Inv.! Trail Name Type Location Ex.Miles Pr.Miles T -513 Fragrance Lake FT 370236NE 2.300 0.000 T -514 Clayton Beach FT 370236SE 0.500 0.000 T -515 Lost Lake Loop FT,HT,BT 370332SW 2.000 0.500 T -516 Lk. Samish - Blanchard Mt. FT,HT 370333NE 0.700 0.000 T -517 Lk. Samish- Lk. What com BR 370336SW 5.500 0.000 T -518 Samish RidLje- Chuck. Cr. IIT 370315SE 1.500 0.000 T -519 Lake Samish -Lost Lake HT , BT 370333NE 2.000 O . (_)0O T -b01 Anderson Cr,�ok Area FT, HT, BT 380408NUI 10.000 0.000 T -603 Squalicum Alt . -Agate Bay FT,HT,BT 380325NE 5.000 T -604 Lake What corn -North BR 380327NW 1.000 7 . 000 T -605 Olsen Creek FT,HT 380419SW 2.001) 6.0ou T -606 Lake Whatcorrr -South BR 380327NUI 4.000 8.000 T -607 Olsen Cr. -Smith Cr. FT,HT,BT 380419SE 3.500 0.000 T -608 Smith Creek Loop FT 370433SU' 0.000 4.000 T -609 Smith Creek Ridge FT 3804:33SE 0.0()0 2.000 T -610 Lk. Whatcom -East Shore FT, HT, 13T 370433SU) 2.500 2.000 T -611 Beaver Creek Ponds FT 380336SU' 1.000 1.000 T -612 Lookout Mt. -East FT,Hl',B'r 370406SW 3.000 0.500 T -614 Mirror- Lake FT,HT,BT 370423SW 0.000 3.000 T -6-15 Lake Whatcom (South Bay) FT.,1 IT, BT 370427NE 3.000 0.000 T -618 Stewart Mt. -South FT,HT. -. 370416NW 0.000 3.000 T -6119 Lake Cliffs FT 370416NE 0.000 3.000 T -701 Berthusen Park Paths FT 400214NE 0.500 0.500 T -702 Lynden City Park Paths FT 40032ONE 0.500 0.500 T -704 Riverside Park (Everson) FT 400430SW 1.500 0.500 T -705 Nooksack City Park Paths FT 400429SE 0.000 0.500 T -706 Sumas City Park Paths FT 410435SW 0.000 0.5()0 T -707 Saar Creek FT,HT,BT 410435SW 2.000 9.000 T -708 Sumas River FT 410435SE 0.000 1.000 T -710 Friendly Cabin(Sumas Mt) FT,HT 40042bSW 2.500 1.000 T -711 Sumas Mt.. -West FT,HT,BT 390403SE 10.000 0.000 T -713 Sumas Mt. -South FT,H'I',BT 390407SW 10.000 0.000 T -714 Nooksack Trail, Lyn -Eve FT,HT,BT 390419SE 0.000 2.500 T -717 Deming Hill FT,HT,I3T 390531NE 2.000 0.500 T -718 Stewart Mt. -North FT,HT,BT 390436SW 5.0(_)0 0.00(.) T-711) Nooksack Mi nc: FT 400435NE 1 . 0oO 0.000 T -803 VE!ddt�r Mt. FT, I-IT , BT 400507SW 7. 00u T -804 RtA Mt. HT 400606SW 10.000 1 . 000 T -806 Silver Lake Park Pat1r� FT 400607SE 1.000 0.50() T -807 Black Mt. Trails FT, FIT, BT 400607511 10.000 1.000 T -809 Last Lake (Sumac Mt.) FT, FIT 4004245E 3.000 ().000 T -810 N. Surrras Mt. FT,[-IT 400526NF 0.000 2.500 T -81 3 l'aradi - c Valley-Lust. U. FT,HT 400532NU' 1 . 000 0. ( - )00 T -815, Nt:xoksaC1% T. - MapI( -r F. _,11� I-T,1 IT, BIT 400630SE t .000 1.000 T -816 Nook.sa,_+-1 Trail -N. Folk FT,HT,BT 390527SU. 0.000 6.000 T-817 Rack., Falls FT 39051 1SW 0.500 1,000 T -821 Middle Fork FT,HT 380513NU' 0.000 7.000 T -822 S1 idc! Mt . Trai l s FT, HT, bT 380618SU 1 10.000 2.000 T -823 Clearwatt'r Creel: FT,HT,BT 380616NE 10.000 0.000 T- 324 Twin S i s t t- r -, Basin FT 38061 ONW 2 . 000 0.()()0 T- '.1(:)1 Van ".andt Dike - North FT, FIT, BT 380504NE 10.000 1.(.)( - (.) T -902 South hurl: N00 5114:1•. i SR`)) 13R 38051 17SW 12.000 O . 500 T -903 Falls Tr ai 1 (fill1srde Rd) FT 380,125NE 0.500 `loo T -904 Van Landl Dike-South FT,HT,BT 380503NW 10.000 1.000 Inv.# Trail Name Tyne Location Ex.Milcs Pr.Mileq T -906 Saxon Rd. BR 370420NT 2.500 0.000 T -907 Skookum Creek FT,HT,BT 370527NE 10.000 0.000 T -909 South Fork Trail FT 370527NE .J.O(}i) 1.000 KEY TO TABLE HEADING Trail Type FT = Foot Trail HT = Horse Trail BT = Mountain Bike Trail BR = Bicycle Route (Paved) Ex. Miles = Existing Miles Pr. Miles = Proposed Miles .;