Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 1 of 14 1 10/25/12 Carole Morris I would like to support the view restoration project, if done sustainably, as email sent to presented in the Western Today email to WWU employees today. I miss [email protected] the view and love the hill! I am unable to attend the meeting so would like to give my input now. Thank you! Carole Morris Woodring College of Education [email protected]

2 10/25/12 Pat MacDonald I think it's a good idea to preserve the view. The maples and alders won't be email sent to missed. [email protected] Pat MacDonald [email protected]

3 10/26/12 Andrew Reding I am writing in unequivocal support of the Sehome Hill Tower View email sent to Restoration. [email protected] I am a huge fan of Bellingham Parks, using Whatcom Falls Park and Lake Padden Park and the Whatcom Creek Greenway with great frequency. Sadly, I do not use Sehome Hill Arboretum. But I would like to. What has held me back? I explored Sehome Hill Arboretum a year ago. I was disappointed to find it overgrown and in deep gloom even on a sunny day.

The observation tower is a case in point. One goes up there to observe — that is, after all, the WHOLE POINT of the tower. Yet one only sees more forest with only scant hints of the fabulous view that is hidden. One realizes it must have been very different when the tower was built, and the 1980s photos confirm that. The proposed trim will go a long way toward restoring the view from the tower, but in my opinion, not far enough. The aim should be to restore the view as in the 1980s. To give a specific example, please consider removing the Douglas fir between view windows 7 and 8. It blocks a considerable chunk of the view.

That in turn raises another question. Why pick on the deciduous red alders and big leaf maples, while sparing the evergreen Douglas firs that set the Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 2 of 14 whole park in year‐round gloom? Douglas firs are not actually the climax species in this part of the Pacific Northwest. That role is performed primarily by western hemlock. Yet once the climax forest is cut, as it was here, it takes centuries for the forest to return to climax. In the meantime, there is an unfortunate tendency for a near monoculture of Douglas fir. I say unfortunate for two reasons:

1) There is nothing gloomier than a monoculture, or even near‐ monoculture Douglas fir forest. It is dark even in daylight. It is monotonous, the opposite of what an arboretum is supposed to be. An arboretum is for people to enjoy a great variety of trees, with at least reasonable amounts of sunlight. By definition, it is a managed forest.

2) I am a wildlife expert and photographer. Although there is some wildlife skulking in the deep shadows at Sehome, it is as nothing compared to what one sees at Whatcom Falls Park, Lake Padden Park, or other parks in the Bellingham City system. The single overriding reason for this is the near monoculture of Douglas fir in the park.

In conclusion, this is a very welcome project, but I believe it does not go far enough. The park itself needs selective culling to open up glades of sunlight to boost light levels and biological diversity, and to make it actually seem like what it is advertised to be: an arboretum!

Otherwise, perhaps the park should be renamed. Sehome Hill Douglas Fir Reserve, anyone?

Andrew Reding York Neighborhood [email protected]

4 10/26/12 Sandy Dentinger To Whom It May Concern: email sent to [email protected] I am unable to attend next Thursday’s meeting regarding the tree removal and trimming in the Sehome Arboretum but I wanted to express my support for restoring the view from the observation tower. The Arboretum Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 3 of 14 is a wonderful green oasis inside the city and the tower provides an awesome panoramic view of the area. The fact that you can see Mt Baker, the San Juan Islands, the Canadian Cascades all from one vantage point is great. Let’s not let that go!

Sandy Dentinger [email protected]

5 10/26/12 Judge & Gaye As frequent users of the Sehome Arboretum we fully support tree Godfrey trimming, removal and pruning to enhance the superb views of Bellingham email sent to Bay, the San Juans, the City, and Mount Baker. When we are introducing [email protected] out of town visitors to Bellingham, the Tower is always high on our list, and we have been disappointed by the encroachment of maples and alders over the last few years. It is definitely time to reinstate one of the best views in Bellingham. Thank you,

Judge & Gaye Godfrey Samish Hill Neighborhood [email protected]

6 10/30/12 Damian Vines I vote for tree removal and pruning. Not that this is a vote, but the tower is email sent to useless and pointless without a view. The few trees that would have to be [email protected] removed and the little pruning that would be necessary would have no long lasting environmental or wildlife impacts. Please restore the view! Thank you! Damian Vines [email protected]

7 11/01/12 Rosalie Nast I am in full support for the restoration of Sehome Hill views of the city and email sent to surrounding territory. The deciduous trees are obstructing the view and [email protected] many are probably trash trees. The arboretum is a city/university treasure and should be maintained for hiking enjoyment. Rosalie Nast [email protected]

Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 4 of 14 8 11/07/12 Geoff Middaugh Dear Sehome Hill Arboretum Advisory Committee and James King, Director Emailed letter to of Parks and Recreation Department, City of Bellingham (COB): [email protected] I would like to emphasize my unequivocal support to the City of Bellingham in its efforts to restore the views for the visitor experience at the top of Sehome Hill. The proposed innovative and careful approach to this restoration is appreciated and I fully support it. Let me make it clear that I am not in support of wholesale cutting of trees just for the sake of removing vegetation. I am in support of careful management of the vegetation so that it enhances the visitor experience, improves the ecological status of the entire arboretum, and favors return of natural‐like conditions, within the limits of current conditions. This proposal meets and addresses my concerns.

The revised Sehome Arboretum Master Plan (2002 ?) provides direction to give views consideration and restoration by taking maintenance action on certain vegetation. While I support strongly the inclusion of views as a contribution to the visitor experience in the Arboretum, I believe the characterization in the master plan of the “mature” vegetation is a simplification and a misstatement of actual ecological conditions. While I leave the Master Plan for another day to be updated, I would like to add to the background of landscape dynamics for the overlook restoration effort, and I am proposing a Garry oak restoration pilot project as way to help “maintain” the views, while maintaining the “naturalness” of the overlook area.

I offer the following comments in regards to the view restoration and future work that could be accomplished:

1. Prehistory of Sehome Hill: Sehome Hill, before European settlement was part of the highly diverse temperate rain forest of the Pacific Northwest. It was composed of predominantly large, multi‐canopied Douglas‐fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, grand fir and Sitka spruce. This was the dominant vegetation on the landscape; however, it is my opinion that the ridge tops and escarpments included more xeric (dry) species as glades or meadows. Included in dry ecological sites are Garry oaks, arbutus Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 5 of 14 (madronne) and other understory species. Probably, the ridge tops were maintained by fire, as a disturbance element. Fire was not a frequent change agent, probably occurring 1 in 300‐600 years intervals (as compared to landscape change from fire occurring from 600‐1000 year time periods). The picture below (sketched by a young artist on George Vancouver’s crew in 1792), gives an indication that the hillsides and sometimes the ridge tops in the Puget Sound and Vancouver Island areas were sometimes “open” and maintained as open by native people, probably for security reasons, as compared to view reasons.

2. Historical vegetative regimes: European settlement of Bellingham changed everything, as we all know. The harvest of all the large trees, the constant fires that burnt in the residual logging debris left after harvest, and other human uses makes it hard to return to a “native” condition because many ecological conditions have changed. We have plenty of historical photos of Sehome Hill, but one of my favorites I have included. This photo shows the increased growth of deciduous trees, and a “new forest” grows back after the heavy logging of the hill. The historical vegetative landscape of Sehome Hill has been greatly modified. Due to the post‐European settlement changes in land use, such as removing fire as a change agent, the introduction of invasive and uncharacteristic species and growth patterns, has left the vegetative and landscape growth patterns altered from historical patterns. To this end, it isn’t really possible to return to the pre‐European growth patterns in any reasonable time frame. Consequently, a restoration approach should take into account the historic pattern, but Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 6 of 14 modify it to be supportive of human use and conditions that we have today (including changes in climate and moisture patterns). The restoration effort to add views to this park area is important.

3. Native versus non‐Native: There is always a public concern about the planting of native versus non‐native species. Some proclaim that the maples and alder are native, and therefore they belong and should be left alone. I would argue that they are most certainly native species but their environmental conditions have changed significantly (disturbance patterns, soil conditions, invasive neighbors, introduced diseases and others) and therefore their growth patterns are uncharacteristic compared to native landscape patterns.

4. Uncharacteristic growth patterns: The degraded vegetation growth pattern that resulted after the cutting of timber is being maintained on Sehome Hill by both positive public action, and inaction. The abundance of fast growing deciduous trees (red alder, big leaf maple and black cottonwood) is indicative of this uncharacteristic growth. When the invasive Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 7 of 14 vegetation (like blackberry and hawthorn) is included, the ecological status of the top of Sehome Hill, I consider to be a degraded, early seral vegetative type that will stay in this low status condition unless restored or changed to something else.

5. Garry Oak “meadow” Restoration proposal: One of the scarcest historic vegetative types within the City of Bellingham is the Garry oak meadow, or glade. Throughout the entire Pacific Northwest, the Garry oak vegetative regime is considered to be rare and threatened. Massive efforts have been undertaken in many areas to restore the Garry oak system (See the Garry Oak Ecosystem Restoration Team, or GOERT, and research at Fort Lewis in Washington in the attached bibliography). The top of Sehome Hill would be a good site to try an experiment at Garry oak restoration within the City of Bellingham.

6. Garry oak restoration. Restoring Garry oak (and its associated species such as Pacific madrone) is not easy, and requires detailed planning and intensive implementation. The north slope of Sehome Hill is not the optimum site, but could be a “good enough” site to start such a program. Combined with an effort to reintroduce the views to the top of the Hill, restoration of Garry oak could be an opportunity with multiple benefits. Additional analysis is needed to determine soil conditions, moisture, spacing, and other factors. The view site would be an outstanding “living laboratory” for classes at WWU to focus on the concepts of ecological restoration, and understanding of landscape ecological dynamics.

7. Vision of a Restored Garry Oak System: A detailed restoration plan for this site would have to be developed, that would take into account the area cleared for views, the soils underlying this newly disturbed site, the type of vegetation nearby that may create microsite issues for restored Garry oak, potential disease issues, moisture conditions, aspects on the north slope, and human use and trail issues. I have been told that there are presently some sites on the Hill that have Pacific madrone, but existing Garry oak is uncertain. All of this should be investigated. But the overall vision of a restored Garry oak/madrone system would provide for a more open site, free of invasive species (blackberry) and carefully managed to prevent Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 8 of 14 topping by the adjacent Douglas‐fir/western red cedar vegetation. The lower profile, slower growing Garry oak could be more in harmony with viewshed management also.

In summary, reintroducing views to the Sehome Hill is an excellent opportunity to investigate restoring a Garry oak ecosystem also to Sehome Hill. A restored Garry oak vegetation complex could be more compatible with views at this location. How this could be accomplished as a collaborative effort of WWU, the COB and other partners is not the emphasis of this letter of support to the ongoing restoration effort. But it is an opportunity that should be investigated.

I would personally be interested in pursuing this effort, and generating support through WWU, and the Treekeepers. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Geoff Middaugh Forester Chair, City of Bellingham Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 9 11/08/12 Dick Stark As a lifelong resident of Bellingham, is very disappointing to find the Email sent to incredible views from Sehome Hill blocked by trees. [email protected] Bellingham is blessed with one of the most outstanding panoramic views on the West Coast, but it is now completely hidden from view.

Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 9 of 14 In the past, whenever visitors came to town, we would drive them to Sehome Hill to see spectacular views of Mt. Baker and the San Juan Islands, the cities of Ferndale, Lynden, and landmarks all over the Bellingham Area. You could see all the way to Vancouver, and it was an unforgettable experience.

It is a shame to lose this wonderful asset to our community. What a wonderful place it could be again. What a place it would be to show school children an overview of our Whatcom County.

The Arboretum is a wonderful thing for our area. Trimming trees will not have a negative impact, and will restore what has historically been a special place for local residents.

Dick Stark 3007 Alpine Dr. Bellingham, WA 98226 734‐5478 10 11/08/12 Anastasia Tschida Now a junior at Western Washington University. As a freshman, lived in Dave Engebretson response: As a Public Comment Fairhaven dorm and visited the Arboretum daily. Is in favor of the view Geology professor at WWU, has restoration proposal because bringing back the view will encourage more studied the history of the hill and people to visit the Arboretum. Asked if there's a history of landslides on landslides. There is not much Sehome Hill and if the view restoration work might lead to erosion and evidence of landslides on the east landslides. side of the Hill where this proposed work would take place. There is a lot of evidence of landslides on the west side of the Hill due to glaciers and logging, but they were all lower than the proposed work area for this project. This work will be done on foot and by hand to eliminate soil disturbance. 11 11/08/12 Jon Shaughnessy Lives in the Sehome Neighborhood. A neighbor who wasn't able to attend James King response: The trees and Public Comment the meeting wanted him to ask why the trees that will be taken down won't limbs that are going to come down be sold for lumber as a way to offset the cost of the work. are small in diameter and don't have much value for lumber. Lynn Loveland response: The work Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 10 of 14 will be done by people on foot with chainsaws. Taking trees down to produce sellable lumber would require machinery, which would have more environmental disturbance. 12 11/08/12 Jon Shaughnessy Another neighbor who couldn't attend expressed her support for cutting Public Comment trees to clear the view. Also, Jon's wife, Jane, would like to save the evergreen trees, but is supportive of cutting the deciduous trees to improve the view, and he agrees. 13 11/08/12 Dick Stark Was born and raised in Bellingham. As a kid, there was an unobstructed Public Comment view of Whatcom County from the top of Sehome Hill. They used to always take out of town guests there, and they never imaged that view would disappear. Sehome Hill has an interesting history in our community. In the 1930's the Ku Klux Klan used to meet up there. In the 1950's or 60's, there was a full page spread in Life magazine about a wealthy man who died and had his ashes put into a balloon that was shot out of the sky with a shotgun. Fully supports cutting some trees to restore the view. 14 11/08/12 Byron Elmendorf Served on the Arboretum Board from 1978‐2002. Shared a letter from Public Comment Geoff Middaugh [posted above] who could not make it to the meeting. Reported that the observation tower was built in 1982 to rise above the trees as they existed at that time, because back then no one wanted to cut the trees to get the view. Over the years, some trees have been pruned and cut to maintain the view, but in recent years they've overgrown. The view is an asset to the community. The trees, including evergreens when necessary, should be cut to restore the view and ongoing maintenance should take place to prevent major cutting in the future. 15 11/08/12 Alex McLean Serves on the Greenway Advisory Committee and lives on 32nd Street. Public Comment Supports the view restoration project, but feels that some consideration ought to be given to the observation tower itself. It is 30 years old, and a nice post and beam structure, but Bellingham should consider investing in a better tower. Perhaps the observation tower and the communications tower could be combined into one new structure as a public‐private partnership. Suggested that the cell phone communications companies could fund an aesthetically pleasing observation tower and the communications equipment could be mounted on top. Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 11 of 14 16 11/08/12 Jean Hamilton Served on the first Arboretum Board. Visited Tateyama, Bellingham's sister city in Japan, and they named a hill in their city after Sehome Hill and built a $2 million observation tower. Is in favor of the project and agrees with all of the public comments, except perhaps the replacement of the observation tower. The existing tower was designed by Jim Zervas. Feels that maintenance needs to be done once trees are removed to ensure that invasives don't take over. 17 11/09/12 Alex McLean As my public comments were not recorded completely – or at least did not email sent to reflect the complexity of my thoughts – I wish to submit these written ones: [email protected] The view “corridors” and the envisioned trimming ought to go forward, as planned, for this new 2012/2013 round of efforts. Fire up the chainsaws and hack away; the biological impact and, hopefully, the cosmetic carnage, will not be substantial or lasting or significant.

This cutting, however, will mark the third time that the City of Bellingham and WWU have invested public money in this problem – these pesky trees growing ‐‐ in a park whose stated mission is that it be “preserved in a natural state.” If the Board of Governors cannot find issue with this cognitive dissonance between their actions and their goals, then I will happily point it out for them.

The tower itself, despite the obvious zeal and passion its supporters heap upon it, is not an architectural marvel. Built in 1982, it is not a historical icon, either. What it is is a post‐and‐beam tower, 30 years old, 42’ tall. It is located on the downward slope of the Sehome Hill Arboretum – not even at the top – which virtually guarantees it cannot provide southward views of, for example, the Chuckanut range massif or the Sisters or islands and shorelines stretching into Samish Bay. The tower itself is inadequate, too stubby and short, located in a bad spot. Relentless programs of “view restoration,” costing increasingly more over the years, begins to make our implied fealty to this mundane asset look fairly short‐sighted.

Put another way, please consider that this is the third time that this “trimming” for views has occurred for this tower and its cumbersome design and location. This round will cost, as estimated by Parks Operations Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 12 of 14 Manager Marvin Harris, somewhere between $16,000 ‐ $20,000 and will require crews on‐site for up to two weeks of inherently dangerous work. The net benefit, by any measure, is that a 42’ tall tower, placed amidst a forest where trees hope to naturally grow 150’ or more, will be preserved in perpetuity. Our allegiance to this particular tower and this default location ensures that 42’ scalping and regular maintenance costs will be mandated for as long as the tower remains in its current location and stunted condition.

Put in this context, I’m hoping that proponents can see that the view is important – a huge asset to tourism and the community – but the tower itself is not. We can do better, and we should.

The communications tower, as described by Parks Director James King, will be taken down and moved in coming years. It is tall and located at the top of the hill.

This will present an opportunity for the community to really consider options for a new and proper tower – one tall enough and located intelligently enough to provide a resounding asset and tourism icon for Bellingham, Washington. Spending $10‐20,000 for view maintenance every decade will, automatically, go into the ledger as a cost savings for this line of action. I don’t know if a communications tower can be used simultaneously as a public viewing tower in this particular case, but I do know that similar things have been done in other communities. There are, therefore, private/public partnership options here that could be explored. Design and engineering students, downslope at Western Washington University, might be solicited for a competition of potential submittals and thus add both aesthetic and civic character to a new tower design. For the millions of passenger trips skirting up and down I‐5, this improved tower could advertise a city and a university that values tourism enough to not want to hide its viewing tower in obscurity and thickets as an afterthought. A communications tower will always be atop this hill, anyway, so I am not inclined to believe that a slightly larger one – with a viewing platform of some sort and the same FAA‐mandated light beacon – will be a massive intrusion upon overall cosmetics. If anything, as evidenced by the current Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 13 of 14 trimming regime, the “human footprint” on this arboretum will be reduced by following this long‐term design strategy.

It would take a long time to get a project of this sort “moving” or planned, but it is my opinion – flying wildly in the face of all others – that this current tower will need to be improved upon at some point and that relentlessly trimming trees is not, ultimately, the most daring or bold answer this community can provide to solve this problem. The trees want to grow, however irritating that might be to us, so it seems like we might try to follow their example. Rather than fight them, my suggestion is simply that we grow our tower alongside them and, thus, meet the needs of the new century rather than remain stuck in 1982 forever. 18 11/14/12 Anastasia Tschida Dear Liz Haveman, email sent to [email protected] My name is Anastasia Tschida and I am the student representative on the Board of Directors for the Sehome Neighborhood Association. I would like to take this time to formally acknowledge that the Sehome Neighborhood Association is in full support of the Sehome Hill Arboretum restoration proposal regarding maintaining the views at the watchtower.

We believe that is crucial to bring back those wonderful views stretching from Mount Baker to the Bellingham Bay. As we represent the Sehome neighborhood, we have also heard others opinions on this matter and the majority, if not all, were in full support. Thank you so much for taking the time to invite the public to voice their opinion. This project will reap the benefits for our community!

Sincerely Anastasia Tschida [email protected] (206) 683‐9211 19 11/15/12 Jon Shaughnessy James & Liz ‐ Email sent to [email protected] and 1. As per the memo from Anastasia, Sehome Neighborhood Association [email protected] BOD voted unanimously Tuesday night to support the proposed project to improve the view from the tower. Citizen Comments on: Date Sehome Hill Arboretum View Restoration Proposal # Received Citizen/ Group Updated November 16, 2012 Notes/Status Page 14 of 14

2. I wanted to add my personal comments:

A. I also support the project.

B. But I also wanted to "second the motion" made at the meeting last Thursday regarding a taller tower in the future. I agree that there should be years of public discussion and consideration of alternatives before anything would be financed, which makes starting the discussion now a necessary step toward making it possible before the existing tower needs another "clearing project" decades from now. A tower that provides 360° views and clearer reception for emergency services [and whatever cell phones need in the future] could be a financially sound investment for the City. I could also see WWU students working up alternative designs for consideration.

3. Tuesday night the BOD also:

A. Endorsed my mural project for the old reservoir, so I will bring that "news" to the meeting on 1/17/13.

B. Designated me to act as liaison with the Arboretum BOG when I attend the 1/17/13 meeting. We will be seeking input from Sehome residents regarding what folks would like the relationship to look like and accomplish and I will bring this to the meeting. I know your agendas have been crowded, so we can limit or postpone that discussion in January until a more convenient time opens up.

4. I talked with Anastasia this afternoon about the BOG and she expressed interest in attending the 1/17/13 meeting as well [depending on her class schedule that quarter]. Please let us know if that would be OK.

Thanks again both for doing a great job in our "back yard", Jon Shaughnessy 671‐0248