May 2009
City of Bellingham Challenges County Decision on Squalicum Ridge Road
by Virginia Watson
Virginia Watson has lived in Whatcom County for 27 years and has been a Squalicum Valley Community Association member since 2006.
Whatcom County Planning and Development Services (PDS) issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) on January 8, 2009, for the construction of a road to serve future residential home construction on up to 28 existing 20-acre properties currently located in the Rural Forestry zone.
The three conditions imposed by the county on this first MDNS had no value in mitigating the environmental impacts of this project. The conditions merely restated legal requirements the developer must meet: (1) obtain a mandated permit from the Department of Ecology, (2) actually construct the erosion controls contained in the developer’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SSP) and (3) meet state requirements for any archaeological discoveries.
The proposed project lies northerly and approximately two miles east of the intersection of Academy Road and Northshore Road on Squalicum Mountain. The proposed private road would require clearing and grading for roughly 10,300 linear feet of roadway. The total project impact area produced by road construction would be approximately 11.05 acres in size.
Following the issuance of the MDNS Whatcom County PDS received comments regarding the project proposal and the mitigating conditions from concerned citizens and the city of Bellingham. The city’s response was a 10-page letter that cited 45 deficiencies in the SSP.
Whatcom County PDS officially withdrew the original MDNS on January 30, 2009. After reassessing the mitigation needs and doing additional investigation into the environmental impacts, Whatcom County acknowledged that the original MDNS did not adequately address the environmental impacts and the full scope of the project.
On March 6, 2009, a re-issued and revised MDNS for Squalicum Ridge Road was issued. This one listed 11 points of mitigation, and omitted the three that appeared on the original MDNS. The city is challenging this second MDNS.
The new MDNS contains discrepancies as to how much of each 20-acre parcel would remain forested. Whatcom County Code 20.80.735.2(d)(ii) states that no more than 35 percent (seven acres) of the existing canopy can be removed. Page four of the MDNS contains a sentence stating 95 percent (19 acres) will remain in forestry use and tax base. And elsewhere it states no more than 20 percent (four acres) of the lot area shall be permanently altered or removed from production of forest products
Just how much of each individual parcel will remain forested is not clear. Historically, on Squalicum Mountain along Vineyard Drive, for example, developers removed more than 35 percent of the existing canopy, and they did so in such a manner as to ensure the prevailing winds would remove the remaining trees.
Maybe the cost of rehabilitating Lake Whatcom should be factored into the construction, purchase price and taxation of these houses. These funds could then be used to purchase land or development rights in the watershed, and to pay for reservoir cleanup and protection measures.
Annual Tax on Forestland
A review of some of the parcel numbers listed for this proposal show the property is designated as forestland. One 20-acre parcel is taxed $48.42 annually and another at $39.01. Once development occurs, one acre and the buildings increase the property’s assessed value. The remaining acreage continues to be assessed its tax at the lower valuation for forestland. In most cases, the buildings are hardly little cabins in the woods.
In the watershed, on Stewart Mountain, a house with an assessed value of $533,900 is built on a 15.28 acre parcel. The assessed value of the 14.28 acres held as Timberland Open Space is $2,455. The annual property tax on the timberland is $236.96 or $16.59 per acre. Nearby, is another house on a 5-acre parcel with an assessed value of $476,000. According to a multiple listing ad, this house is on the market for $875,000 and its taxes are $1,810. It is clear that new development in the watershed is not assessed a tax burden that is equal to its impacts.
The following two paragraphs are direct quotes from the MDNS:
“Agencies shall carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects. Impacts shall include those that are likely to arise or exist over the lifetime of a proposal or, depending on the particular proposal, longer.”
“A proposal’s effects include direct and indirect impacts caused by a proposal. Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as a precedent for future actions.”
Wells for Future Residences?
The future residences will require wells for water. Currently, Lake Whatcom and Whatcom Creek and the aquifers that recharge them are closed to new withdrawals. Any wells that are planned for the development that follows this proposal rely upon these closed bodies.
In addition, wells on Squalicum Mountain have a history of failure. Building a road that will be followed by the construction of houses where wells are likely to fail is unconscionable. The MDNS also states purveyors of public water systems and private water system applicants must comply with Washington State Department of Ecology water right requirements. Currently, there is only a waiting list for water right certificates.
It’s clear that this proposal will have a significant environmental impact. Existing land uses are contributing to a violation of the water quality standards in at least two basins of Lake Whatcom. Development increases phosphorus entering the lake, and without mitigating conditions this proposal would have a significant environmental impact. Since there are no plans for reductions in existing sources, it follows that there is no sufficient mitigation when no allocation for future growth is provided.
While an environmental impact study is not required, wouldn’t it be prudent? Does new construction that will negatively impact the Lake Whatcom watershed, its aquifer, and existing residents have priority over the public interest? Why does it appear that the county is not working with the city to protect the drinking water reservoir for 96,000 county residents?
At least the mayor and the City Council are up to challenging the county where it fails to enforce and uphold existing regulations with regard to development in the watershed.
The challenges of watershed protection and rehabilitation require cooperation between the county and the city. County Executive Kremen and his administration ought to support and not thwart the city’s efforts to protect its reservoir. §
More Quotes From County Decision
• “Although phosphorus occurs naturally, development increases phosphorus entering the lake in stormwater. Roofs, driveways, loss of tree canopy, expressed soil, and lawns interrupt the absorption and filtration provided by forest and soils, instead sending phosphorus-laden stormwater into the lake.
This phosphorus transferred from runoff and other means feeds algae growth, which depletes dissolved oxygen that fish and other beneficial aquatic life need to survive. When dissolved oxygen levels are low, phosphorus is released from lake sediment and re-enters the water, continuing the cycle. The dissolved oxygen levels is a main contributing factor in Lake Whatcom being listed on Ecology’s 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies.’’
• “The conclusions above and the TMDL provide relevant scientific studies and evidence that existing land uses are contributing to a violation of the water quality standards in the Agate Bay and Academy basin of the Lake Whatcom watershed and that there are at-risk systems that will be very sensitive to more impact, no matter how small. According the TMDL, since all tributaries fail to meet standards, no allocation for future growth is provided. Therefore, additional sources would only be accommodated through additional reductions in existing sources. Because there is no allocation for additional growth, Whatcom County has determined that without adequate mitigating conditions that the proposal would have a significant environmental impact.”
